6 ms·

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithsta

by _moof 4mo ago

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are empowered to take away your physical liberty, and worse.

steve1977 4mo ago
You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.
- close04 4mo ago
  No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. Either the law says "except on a plane/ship/etc." (which is plausible) or the contract is invalid. Can you imagine how it would be if every contract you sign had a "I own you now, no backsies"?
  - steve1977 4mo ago
    That's not what I said though. I just said you're giving away liberties. For example, at home, I'm free to walk around nude and scream. On a plane, I'm not.
    - defrost 4mo ago
      On a commercial passenger plane it's frowned upon. On planes in general, many people jump nude for their 100th skydive - the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube, but a quick search shows others. Often screaming is included.
      - steve1977 4mo ago
        On most commercial flights, it's not only frowned upon. But if you want to f$ck around and find out, I'm sure it will make for a fun "How I Ended Up On the No Fly List" story.
        defrost 4mo ago
        Been there, done that, still allowed to fly. Go figure.
        iso1631 4mo ago
        > But if you want to f$ck around and find out It's a tale as old as the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_high_club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_high_club
        sersi 4mo ago
        Usually the mile high club doesn't involve walking around in the nude though?
        defrost 4mo ago
        The last time I walked about nude in the main body of a commercial passenger aircraft (nominally a 30-40 seater) it was returning to Singapore from Vũng Tàu with only four people aboard, pilot and co pilot, myself and another surveyor. Long story, short version - it doesn't always involve sex and isn't always restricted to toilets.
      - iso1631 4mo ago
        > the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube More US censorship. Nude skydiving, terrible. Indepth reviews of how to kill things with insane levels of weaponry? Featured video time.
        lazide 4mo ago
        To be fair, the weaponry is far less floppy.
    - close04 4mo ago
      > I just said you're giving away liberties. >>this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on What I wanted to say is that you'll never give up any civil liberties because of a contract alone. If the contract can take those away it's because a law never gave them to you in those circumstances in the first place, so you never had them to begin with. I just wanted to make it clear that you cannot agree to give up something that the law gives you. If the law doesn't give you something, you have nothing to give up.
      - cogman10 4mo ago
        The law gives very few liberties. And the places where people think it give liberties, it is actually just banning laws from being made around liberties. Freedom of speech is the peak of this. People think it means "I can say whatever I like wherever I like". But that's not what it is. The government cannot make laws curtailing speech (though, it does... enforcement and interpretation don't line up with the original intent). You can, however, sign an NDA which curtails your speech. A business can kick you out for saying something they don't like. An employer can fire you for saying "poodle" one too many times. And that's what we are dealing with around airlines. They absolutely can kick you off the plane and ban you for almost any reason. For what you say, wear, or because they don't like how tall or short you are. The law really only protects a few things. Your race, your gender, your religion. Everything else is fair game for a private institution to discriminate against. They can kick you off a plane because you are a journalist. They can kick you off because you won't quarter soldiers. They can kick you off because you don't submit to a search of all your property.
        godelski 4mo ago
        > The law gives very few liberties. > Freedom of speech is the peak of this. Freedom of speech isn't something the law gives you. It is something you innately have. Don't confuse positive and negative rights[0]. Freedom of speech is something that can only be taken away. It is never something that can be given to you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - 7952 4mo ago
    That sounds like a technicality. You can absolute agree to not do something that would otherwise be lawful. You still have the same rights, but you have other restrictions on you. The two can exist concurrently.
    - close04 4mo ago
      Everything is a technicality if you squint hard enough. I see you’re confused about the concepts. You’re mixing “things that are legal (sometimes)” (smoking, but not on the plane) and “rights that you have all the time” (freedom of speech, even on a plane). Your employer can’t take your kidney because your contract says you must give one if you’re late to work even if giving away a kidney is legal. But you can still agree to give it if you want to. If you have the same rights given by law then you can’t have any restrictions on those rights that aren’t in the law. Your rights have the same restrictions they always had and a contract can’t add a couple more. So you have your freedom of speech that a contract can’t take away, the law already defines the restrictions. But a restriction to smoke in the bathroom, which was never your right to begin with, is fine because the law never gave you the right to smoke in a plane bathroom. You have your rights or you don’t. Calling this a technicality is a lame cop out. Now you could argue (but you didn’t) that “broadcasting” the word “bomb” on a plane doesn’t constitute free speech. You’re not allowed to yell this at a concert either, it depends if broadcasting (not reading the BT spec to see who initiates the communication) a BT name and shouting are equivalent. But I can’t imagine saying “free X, screw Y” is anything but free speech for anyone not on Y’s payroll. A contract can’t put a restrictions on expressing opinions without them already existing in the law. Do you think there’s a law that says “free to state your opinion except on planes”?
      - School-Cotton 4mo ago
        You are absolutely 100% wrong about this. It is entirely possible in the US to enter into contracts that limit your rights, including freedom of speech. People do this routinely, and it is enforceable. The reason you can't give away your kidney in an employment contract is because there is a specific law banning that: the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which bans transferring a human organ in exchange for valuable consideration.
  - School-Cotton 4mo ago
    > No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. That's incorrect. In fact this is exactly what all contracts do.
    - zdp7 4mo ago
      Pretty sure you are mistaken. Look up public policy violations. Typically you can't negotiate away rights
    - close04 4mo ago
      All contracts take away rights that the law explicitly guarantees you? Such confidence. Sometimes talking to an LLM is an improvement...
      - School-Cotton 4mo ago
        Of course. For example, the law guarantees that I don't have to perform labor for someone else if I don't want to. An employment contract obligates me to. Similarly, it's entirely possible to enter into a contract limiting your freedom of speech. The entire point of a contract is to promise to do, or not to do, something that you could have freely chosen to do or not to do under the law without any contract.
  - tekknik 4mo ago
    What about the contract you sign when joining say the military? You certainly don’t have right to freedom of speech anymore.
Barbing 4mo ago
I think if the captain doesn’t like you, what they say goes & it’s a federal matter. I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think). Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accomplished).
- atoav 4mo ago
  So what you're saying is if the captain doesn't like you because you're Zionist they can remove you?
  - goodcanadian 4mo ago
    That is exactly correct; it's his plane. I think he would face discipline from his airline after the fact, but in the moment, he is in charge.
    - UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - goodcanadian 4mo ago
        What an odd thing to fixate on . . . swap the pronouns around any way you prefer, and my statement remains correct. The captain is in charge of the aircraft and she is to be obeyed if you want to fly on her aircraft. She can refuse to accept any passenger for any reason. If it is a stupid reason, she may have a problem with her employer later, but nobody can overrule her in the moment.
      - kode-targz 4mo ago
        Friendly reminder that not everyone's first language is English, and for a lot of people for whom it isn't, gender-neutral pronouns can be a pretty foreign concept and it's easy to forget about it. We just apply the natural gender that the word has in our language (such as a chair being feminine in both Portugese and French, so a lot of natives of those languages may mistakenly refer to a chair as "her" in English). I wouldn't go so far as assume the person you're replying to is sexist or whatever it is you're thinking just from the fact they referred to an imaginary captain as "he".
mlyle 4mo ago
I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is. The wifi name probably should have been ignored. But the incidents of people airdropping profane pictures to randos on planes...
- mx7zysuj4xew 4mo ago
  That's a design flaw in AirDrop, not an "incident"
  - 47282847 4mo ago
    A design flaw it only becomes due to people’s violent acts. If the goal is safety, we should spend more time helping people process their shit and less on raising shields. They only make people more angry. Everybody draws the line differently, but pushing your data on somebody else’s device without their consent is an intrusion, and as such I consider it to be an act of violence. We need to grow up and understand how to break cycles of violence, not push it further towards mutual destruction.
    - lazide 4mo ago
      Unsolicited Dirty pictures via a protocol which is easy to disable (and rarely used anyway) vs getting punched in the face or shanked? Really?
      - limagnolia 4mo ago
        I don't think it was presented as an "vs". Both can be a form of violence, even if one is much worse than the other.
        lazide 4mo ago
        Grouping them together is the absurd part. The unsolicited dick pic is gross, but not even in the same category as the other stuff.
pc86 4mo ago
> That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job. As far as I'm aware there is no law preventing the captain from deciding to go back because they don't like one of the passengers blasting their opinions to the entire aircraft. What the opinion is, its levels of subjectivity or objectivity, and whether or not it's popular is completely irrelevant.
- godelski 4mo ago
  > blasting their opinions It is a fucking device name. That is so easy to ignore and not be affected by. Anyone being pissed off and willing to start a fight over a device name should be committed. Put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name. Otherwise you are just creating a world where you police the behavior of reasonable people because they might upset unreasonable people. Police the behavior of the unreasonable people.
  - pc86 4mo ago
    Do you see how what you said is irrelevant whether it's the right way to think about it or not? The captain saw it, or had it brought to his attention, and decided to get rid of it. End of story. It doesn't matter whether or not it's easy to ignore, or whether anyone was truly affected by it, or anything else.
    - godelski 4mo ago
      No, I do not see that. The captain is not a dictator on the plane. They can act according to reasonable and credible threats but their power is not infinite. They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt. If a fight breaks out then arrest the person that started a fight. But if your argument is "we can't let X happen because it might start a fight" then maybe consider stop serving alcohol before you get all uppity on some tacky device name

by _moof 4mo ago

steve1977 4mo ago

You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.

close04 4mo ago
No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. Either the law says "except on a plane/ship/etc." (which is plausible) or the contract is invalid. Can you imagine how it would be if every contract you sign had a "I own you now, no backsies"?
- steve1977 4mo ago
  That's not what I said though. I just said you're giving away liberties. For example, at home, I'm free to walk around nude and scream. On a plane, I'm not.
  - defrost 4mo ago
    On a commercial passenger plane it's frowned upon. On planes in general, many people jump nude for their 100th skydive - the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube, but a quick search shows others. Often screaming is included.
    - steve1977 4mo ago
      On most commercial flights, it's not only frowned upon. But if you want to f$ck around and find out, I'm sure it will make for a fun "How I Ended Up On the No Fly List" story.
      - defrost 4mo ago
        Been there, done that, still allowed to fly. Go figure.
      - iso1631 4mo ago
        > But if you want to f$ck around and find out It's a tale as old as the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_high_club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_high_club
        sersi 4mo ago
        Usually the mile high club doesn't involve walking around in the nude though?
        defrost 4mo ago
        The last time I walked about nude in the main body of a commercial passenger aircraft (nominally a 30-40 seater) it was returning to Singapore from Vũng Tàu with only four people aboard, pilot and co pilot, myself and another surveyor. Long story, short version - it doesn't always involve sex and isn't always restricted to toilets.
    - iso1631 4mo ago
      > the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube More US censorship. Nude skydiving, terrible. Indepth reviews of how to kill things with insane levels of weaponry? Featured video time.
      - lazide 4mo ago
        To be fair, the weaponry is far less floppy.
  - close04 4mo ago
    > I just said you're giving away liberties. >>this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on What I wanted to say is that you'll never give up any civil liberties because of a contract alone. If the contract can take those away it's because a law never gave them to you in those circumstances in the first place, so you never had them to begin with. I just wanted to make it clear that you cannot agree to give up something that the law gives you. If the law doesn't give you something, you have nothing to give up.
    - cogman10 4mo ago
      The law gives very few liberties. And the places where people think it give liberties, it is actually just banning laws from being made around liberties. Freedom of speech is the peak of this. People think it means "I can say whatever I like wherever I like". But that's not what it is. The government cannot make laws curtailing speech (though, it does... enforcement and interpretation don't line up with the original intent). You can, however, sign an NDA which curtails your speech. A business can kick you out for saying something they don't like. An employer can fire you for saying "poodle" one too many times. And that's what we are dealing with around airlines. They absolutely can kick you off the plane and ban you for almost any reason. For what you say, wear, or because they don't like how tall or short you are. The law really only protects a few things. Your race, your gender, your religion. Everything else is fair game for a private institution to discriminate against. They can kick you off a plane because you are a journalist. They can kick you off because you won't quarter soldiers. They can kick you off because you don't submit to a search of all your property.
      - godelski 4mo ago
        > The law gives very few liberties. > Freedom of speech is the peak of this. Freedom of speech isn't something the law gives you. It is something you innately have. Don't confuse positive and negative rights[0]. Freedom of speech is something that can only be taken away. It is never something that can be given to you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- 7952 4mo ago
  That sounds like a technicality. You can absolute agree to not do something that would otherwise be lawful. You still have the same rights, but you have other restrictions on you. The two can exist concurrently.
  - close04 4mo ago
    Everything is a technicality if you squint hard enough. I see you’re confused about the concepts. You’re mixing “things that are legal (sometimes)” (smoking, but not on the plane) and “rights that you have all the time” (freedom of speech, even on a plane). Your employer can’t take your kidney because your contract says you must give one if you’re late to work even if giving away a kidney is legal. But you can still agree to give it if you want to. If you have the same rights given by law then you can’t have any restrictions on those rights that aren’t in the law. Your rights have the same restrictions they always had and a contract can’t add a couple more. So you have your freedom of speech that a contract can’t take away, the law already defines the restrictions. But a restriction to smoke in the bathroom, which was never your right to begin with, is fine because the law never gave you the right to smoke in a plane bathroom. You have your rights or you don’t. Calling this a technicality is a lame cop out. Now you could argue (but you didn’t) that “broadcasting” the word “bomb” on a plane doesn’t constitute free speech. You’re not allowed to yell this at a concert either, it depends if broadcasting (not reading the BT spec to see who initiates the communication) a BT name and shouting are equivalent. But I can’t imagine saying “free X, screw Y” is anything but free speech for anyone not on Y’s payroll. A contract can’t put a restrictions on expressing opinions without them already existing in the law. Do you think there’s a law that says “free to state your opinion except on planes”?
    - School-Cotton 4mo ago
      You are absolutely 100% wrong about this. It is entirely possible in the US to enter into contracts that limit your rights, including freedom of speech. People do this routinely, and it is enforceable. The reason you can't give away your kidney in an employment contract is because there is a specific law banning that: the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which bans transferring a human organ in exchange for valuable consideration.
- School-Cotton 4mo ago
  > No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. That's incorrect. In fact this is exactly what all contracts do.
  - zdp7 4mo ago
    Pretty sure you are mistaken. Look up public policy violations. Typically you can't negotiate away rights
  - close04 4mo ago
    All contracts take away rights that the law explicitly guarantees you? Such confidence. Sometimes talking to an LLM is an improvement...
    - School-Cotton 4mo ago
      Of course. For example, the law guarantees that I don't have to perform labor for someone else if I don't want to. An employment contract obligates me to. Similarly, it's entirely possible to enter into a contract limiting your freedom of speech. The entire point of a contract is to promise to do, or not to do, something that you could have freely chosen to do or not to do under the law without any contract.
- tekknik 4mo ago
  What about the contract you sign when joining say the military? You certainly don’t have right to freedom of speech anymore.

Barbing 4mo ago

I think if the captain doesn’t like you, what they say goes & it’s a federal matter. I think the reason for the captain not liking you is secondary and could get him fired but it’s still: mess around in federal airspace, deal with the feds. Follow all instructions of all flight crew or you’re a criminal, regardless (I think). Not actually the FBI though is it? Captain probably wanted to sound serious (mission accomplished).

atoav 4mo ago
So what you're saying is if the captain doesn't like you because you're Zionist they can remove you?
- goodcanadian 4mo ago
  That is exactly correct; it's his plane. I think he would face discipline from his airline after the fact, but in the moment, he is in charge.
  - UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - goodcanadian 4mo ago
      What an odd thing to fixate on . . . swap the pronouns around any way you prefer, and my statement remains correct. The captain is in charge of the aircraft and she is to be obeyed if you want to fly on her aircraft. She can refuse to accept any passenger for any reason. If it is a stupid reason, she may have a problem with her employer later, but nobody can overrule her in the moment.
    - kode-targz 4mo ago
      Friendly reminder that not everyone's first language is English, and for a lot of people for whom it isn't, gender-neutral pronouns can be a pretty foreign concept and it's easy to forget about it. We just apply the natural gender that the word has in our language (such as a chair being feminine in both Portugese and French, so a lot of natives of those languages may mistakenly refer to a chair as "her" in English). I wouldn't go so far as assume the person you're replying to is sexist or whatever it is you're thinking just from the fact they referred to an imaginary captain as "he".

mlyle 4mo ago

I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is. The wifi name probably should have been ignored. But the incidents of people airdropping profane pictures to randos on planes...

mx7zysuj4xew 4mo ago
That's a design flaw in AirDrop, not an "incident"
- 47282847 4mo ago
  A design flaw it only becomes due to people’s violent acts. If the goal is safety, we should spend more time helping people process their shit and less on raising shields. They only make people more angry. Everybody draws the line differently, but pushing your data on somebody else’s device without their consent is an intrusion, and as such I consider it to be an act of violence. We need to grow up and understand how to break cycles of violence, not push it further towards mutual destruction.
  - lazide 4mo ago
    Unsolicited Dirty pictures via a protocol which is easy to disable (and rarely used anyway) vs getting punched in the face or shanked? Really?
    - limagnolia 4mo ago
      I don't think it was presented as an "vs". Both can be a form of violence, even if one is much worse than the other.
      - lazide 4mo ago
        Grouping them together is the absurd part. The unsolicited dick pic is gross, but not even in the same category as the other stuff.

pc86 4mo ago

> That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." Yes, but on an aircraft the captain is the dictator. They can do basically whatever they want within the confines of law and company policy - and honestly with enough seniority, which the captain on a transatlantic flight has a lot of - they can probably ignore company policy once or twice and get away with it and keep their job. As far as I'm aware there is no law preventing the captain from deciding to go back because they don't like one of the passengers blasting their opinions to the entire aircraft. What the opinion is, its levels of subjectivity or objectivity, and whether or not it's popular is completely irrelevant.

godelski 4mo ago
> blasting their opinions It is a fucking device name. That is so easy to ignore and not be affected by. Anyone being pissed off and willing to start a fight over a device name should be committed. Put that person in jail, not the person with the tacky device name. Otherwise you are just creating a world where you police the behavior of reasonable people because they might upset unreasonable people. Police the behavior of the unreasonable people.
- pc86 4mo ago
  Do you see how what you said is irrelevant whether it's the right way to think about it or not? The captain saw it, or had it brought to his attention, and decided to get rid of it. End of story. It doesn't matter whether or not it's easy to ignore, or whether anyone was truly affected by it, or anything else.
  - godelski 4mo ago
    No, I do not see that. The captain is not a dictator on the plane. They can act according to reasonable and credible threats but their power is not infinite. They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt. If a fight breaks out then arrest the person that started a fight. But if your argument is "we can't let X happen because it might start a fight" then maybe consider stop serving alcohol before you get all uppity on some tacky device name