3 ms·
> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane fu
by pdonis 4mo ago
> This is clearly not a threat.
To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way.
To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry.
> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech
This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go.
> We've just grown accustomed to security theater.
Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 4mo ago>even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much? If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Anything else leads to absurd outcomes that make it harder to protect from real threats. >The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? Please enlighten us, because most of us are apparently unable to predict those ourselves.
- pdonis 4mo ago> What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? I'm unable to find any connection between Teddy Ruxpin and sarin gas online, so I don't see why a pilot would make such a connection. Am I missing something? > If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. Have you ever been in a position where you were responsible for the safety of several hundred people? > What are the predictable effects for the scenario in question? That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight.
- willy_k 4mo ago> That not turning that Bluetooth device off when told to was going to end up delaying the flight. This thread is discussing the “Free Palestine, F Zionists” WiFi hotspot and the threat to turn it off within 30 seconds or face the FBI. Which is explicitly not a threat, whereas “BOMB” in the context of a plane is more obviously a potential threat.
- brigandish 4mo ago> explicitly not a threat I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane, would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?
- willy_k 4mo agoThreatening is not the same as an actual threat. If someone stood up on a plane and yelled “bomb”, the default implication is that there is a bomb present. If someone gets up and yells “F the captain”, it is reasonable to be fearful that they might act on that sentiment, but the statement itself is not a threat; not an expression of intention (or in the former case, presence of an object that is intended) to inflict evil, injury, or damage.
- brigandish 4mo agoCommon law has dealt with this for nigh on a thousand years. If you put a person in reasonable fear that your behaviour may lead to them harming you, then they are threatening you. The captain and established protocol follow what has been found to be useful and reasonable when on an aeroplane, not teenagers, jokers, or l33t haxx0rs, and asking people to turn off their bluetooth is reasonable, as is turning a plane around when they won't.
- willy_k 4mo agoYes, I nor many other people are arguing that “BOMB” couldn’t be interpreted as a threat. “F the captain” does not carry reasonable fear of harm. It carries reasonable suspicion that the individual is erratic, that is all. Unless one is an HR representative, there’s no reasonable implication of harm in the statement “F the captain”. Asking people to turn their Bluetooth off can be reasonable in certain scenarios, like that of the “BOMB” incident. Saying “F <whatever>” is not a threat.
- brigandish 4mo ago> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat. To someone whose primary consideration is safety, like the captain of an aeroplane, your logic is entirely nonsensical.
- lmm 4mo ago> Should he react to all messages as if they are threats, because no matter how small the risk is, more than zero is too much? No. But he should treat messages that are blatantly intended to provoke others as such. If someone on the flight is going out of their way to cause trouble, kicking them off is the smart move.
- godelski 4mo ago> This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. Do you think we're talking about a device named "bomb"? We're talking about a device named "Free Palestine, F Israel". Those are two different situations. How can you even claim the latter is a physical threat? I also don't care if it said "F Palestine". Neither is a credible threat on the plane or the passengers. The only issue I can see that causing is a fight. And anyone that is willing to start a fight because someone has s stupid device name should be committed because they're insane. That's crazy amounts of petty.
- hdgvhicv 4mo agoPeople like the “wash it’s not free speech” are the ones championing fcc blocking licenses and arresting g people for quoting Trump Freedom of speech for me not thee.
- joxdosba 4mo agoThere’s no way a reasonable person would interpret that as a threat, it feels like you’re playing silly games trying to widen the Overton window by sanewashing an obviously unreasonable reaction.
- ChocolateGod 4mo agoA lot of people swap jew for zionist or israel to cover up their antisemitism, so yes "fuck jews" could be interpreted as a threat.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- idle_zealot 4mo agoEh, most Nazis that use the words interchangeably really do use them interchangeably. Like, they'll talk about the Jews controlling everything in one sentence and say it's Zionists pushing cultural Marxism or whatever the next. You realize that calling everyone who criticizes an ongoing genocide an antisemite isn't workable, right?
- ChocolateGod 4mo ago> You realize that calling everyone who criticizes an ongoing genocide an antisemite isn't workable, right? At what point did I ever mention that?
- joxdosba 4mo ago“Fuck Jews” cannot reasonably be interpreted as a threat. It’s a nasty antisemitic thing to say, but that’s all it is.
- raddichio 4mo agoA lot of people shout 'Free Palestine' before doing some vigilante violence (shooting in DC, firebombing I'm Boulder), so wouldn't that make security officials jumpy? The whataboutism of Israel being more 'evil' doesn't mitigate the security threat.
- _3u10 4mo agoIt doesn’t. I get my lighter through in Brazil all the time and a friend of mine got giant scissors through in Buenos Aires. It’s entirely a choice to freak out over nothing. In most of the world you’re allowed to do outlandish things like have a beer at the mall. Or walk outside with one.
- account42 4mo agoSo if the pilot is informed that there is a bearded guy on the plane should he turn around as well? What if its an evil looking moustache?