We Will Not Be Silent

Seriously. Although whatever lists there are, I'm probably on them. Except, that is, for the grotesque S.H.I.T. List, which for some reason has not yet caught whiff of me.

8-31-2006 10:18 PM

My god, did they list every Jew on that thing?

9-1-2006 10:47 AM

pinkieandpie

Aargh! Let's pretend the gentleman WAS wearing the t-shirt to WARN everyone he presented a danger (riiiiiight). The danger will still be present if he removes his shirt. I know this is complicated (sarcasm) but the shirt isn't a danger. The man IN the shirt is a danger. Even if he wears a different shirt. Dear Prez Bush: stuff still exists even if you once saw it but have since erased it.

9-1-2006 3:58 PM

Unless that guy's a total slob and left-winger - there's no reason to wear a shirt with such statements, in today's world, unless you want to provoke what he did... as he did. I think people getting uneasy about the guy is totally understandable, considering the world we live in... but I agree with pinkieandpie, removing the shirt would be totally useless... the guy would need to be removed, if he was actually a threat. Otherwise, his punishment should've been nothing more than to delay him until everything is checked out and have him take whatever later flight would be available. Inconvenient? Certainly. Perhaps next time he'll exercise his freedom of speech in another, more appropriate 'fashion'.

9-1-2006 4:00 PM

@slothraspet - you can easily go to any T-shirt making shop and order one... heck, just buy one of these T-shirt making transfer sets and if you have a decent printer - you could make one yourself. It's very easy...

9-1-2006 11:27 PM

Wow, RecordSage, given your previous comments, I expected you to be a bit more pro-American than that. Dictating what kind of fashion people can or cannot wear flies in the face of the Bill of Rights and everything upon which the U.S. was founded. It is distinctly authoritarian.

I have since found where to order the t-shirts. They are, in fact, printed by an activist group. I have no desire to go into the t-shirt-making business, but thanks for the tip.

9-2-2006 2:44 AM

Bill of Rights doesn't mean you can do anything and everything. For example, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't an option, regardless how much you beat the old chest, attempting to assert your 1st Amendment rights. This guy didn't wear this shirt just because, he was trying to make a political point and considering what just got stopped in England, I don't see how you can fault people on that plane getting jittery. I'm all for freedom of speech etc., but this isn't a smart way to exercise it. Better be safe than sorry! Besides, if this guy has a right not to be silent, so do the rest of the folks on that plane. He felt he was exercising his right - they exercised theirs.

9-2-2006 9:06 AM

That's a very slippery slope you're treading on.

9-2-2006 12:35 PM

So did the people on the plane. If he was not serious - no biggy, but if he was - they'd all be dead, since we know how they exercise their speech in public.

I don't understand your rationale. On one hand you're for people's rights... but not the people on the plane... where's the logic there? It's only the freaks and anti-establishment people that deserve free speech?

9-2-2006 2:20 PM

Then we are mutually confused, because I don't understand what that t-shirt has to do with the rights of the people on the plane. The Bill of Rights includes nothing about the right of people to dictate neither the fashion sense nor the peaceful political statements of others. If people had the right to be comfortable with what everyone else on the street was wearing, let me tell you, New York City would be a very different place.

9-2-2006 2:30 PM

skwirlinator

But Whose
BILL OF RIGHTS
is it?

9-3-2006 2:04 AM

All I was saying slothraspet is that the guy tried to use this shirt to make a political point, it wasn't something he wore just because. If he wore it on the streets of New York - fine. This isn't a difficult thing to understand when you're talking about planes, terrorism on those and what the consequences of such terrorist acts are. It's not a question of someone's inconvenience, it's more than that. All I was saying was that if you're going to say that the guy can wear and say whatever he wants - it's his right, the people on the plane have the same rights. They indicated their concerns to the authorities and the authorities, based on current rules and regulations for airline safety ...

9-3-2006 12:36 PM

Yes, the people on the plane have a right to say how they feel. This does not translate into the airline's right to request that he remove his shirt. I, personally, hate children on the plane. I say that I hate children on the plane. They make me uncomfortable and nervous. But I don't expect my opinion to sway the airline crew into throwing children off the plane. The example is extreme, but it really is the same idea.

If you ask around, you'll be astounded by the number of fashion statements around you that double as political statements. It's fashion. Get over it.

9-3-2006 4:23 PM

I agree with slothraspet. We should have the right to wear political clothing, even on planes, in any language--English, Hebrew, Arabic, whatever. The passengers do not have to agree with it, but their irrational fears should not cause problems with the shirt-wearer.

I say those are irrational fears because obviously a terrorist would not wear clothes to draw attention to him or herself. I would guess that someone wearing such a shirt would be LESS likely to be a terrorist than a person wearing regular, non-political, Western clothes (like the clothes worn by the 9-11 hijackers).

9-4-2006 7:15 AM

You were not there, jklugman, and yet you claim that all those people on the plane are 'irrational', yet you being rational? I highly doubt that would be the case.

Fashion statement or not - I see nothing irrational in people trying to stay safe. I bet if you were on a plane, thinking that this will be your last flight - you'd probably think differently than being an ideolog in your jammies on the ground.

And slorathpet - there's a huge difference between being inconvenienced on an airplane (by children, as an example) and inconvenienced by terrorists. If you don't see the difference between the two - there's nothing to discuss then.

9-4-2006 9:07 AM

Whoa there, no one was inconvenienced by a terrorist. They were inconvenienced by an Arab. There is a difference, you know.

9-4-2006 12:43 PM

I know... now, but they didn't know... THEN. They had an implied threat in their face. What should they have done, wait for the evidence?

9-4-2006 12:51 PM

There was no threat, implied or otherwise. That is why I say the passengers who complained were irrational.

9-4-2006 3:54 PM

I agree with jklugman. There are a lot of potential "threats" on the airplane, or anywhere else for that matter. When I get on an airplane, a bus, a subway, etc, why is it that I can't ask for the removal of the slimy guy who smiles at me creepily and insists on talking to me or sitting or standing too close to me and making me feel very uncomfortable? He is a potential threat, but I can't have him removed. Why? Because he's done nothing wrong. Yet. And more often than not, he won't. This is part of life, part of learning to exist in a world full of others.

Every day I cross the street several times. In fact, I even jaywalk. The chances of me being killed by a car on the street are much la...

9-6-2006 7:14 AM