If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
In article ,
"Mike Painter" wrote: "BTR1701" wrote in message ... In article , "Mike Painter" wrote: "BTR1701" wrote in message ... In article , "Mike Painter" wrote: "BTR1701" wrote in message ... Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics of discussion. ???? "Say that again and I'm going to slap you." is clearly a threat, Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner, it's not a threat at all. Nor is it if I said it to you in this email or on the phone and absolutely intended on doing it. The California penal code makes the ability to act part of the crime. If I can't slap you when I say it it is not a criminal offense. Next you'll be telling me I have to be inside to commit a burglary. Why would I be telling you that? Maybe it is a trick question. Well, it's something because I have no intention of even bringing up the subject. |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : [snip] And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane or not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say the word "bomb" either, for instance. Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew on airlines myself. You are lucky. Others have been arrested. It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for discussing security precautions. I did not know that you were a security person involved in the airlines. I'm not. Ok, so why was it acceptable for you to discuss bombs with the flight crew? Non-flight related security people don't have special rights on airplanes. I'm not involved in flight security. Doesn't mean I'm not a cop. A whole host of federal and state police agents and officers fly armed every day wihtout being directly involved with airline security. In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of this than the rest of us. Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics of discussion. For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional. Nonsense. Laws can and do restrict speech. The government needs an overriding interest, Actually, they need a "compelling state interest". However, prior restraint is almost never upheld as constitutional and a laundry list of acceptable topics, with "religion" being among them, would never past muster. The Court wouldn't even allow the government to use prior restraint then the NY Times was going to publish sensitive Pentagon documents detailing troop strength and movements in Vietnam. If that wasn't a compelling state interest, banning religious discussion on planes sure isn't. You know, someone might think that I had said something about prior restraint They would be right in thinking that, too, since that's exactly what you've done, albeit unwittingly (apparently). We both know that is not so. A more accurate statement would be that one us *thinks* that is not so. A list of forbidden topics would not be prior restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is prior restraint. Huh? First, there is no legal doctrine in 1st Amendment jurisprudence called "prior notification". Second, the Court has never limited prior restraint analysis to just the press. Any governmental action prohibiting speech ahead of time (as opposed to punishing it after it happens) is prior restraint. A government prohibition on airline passengers discussing religion would fit any definition of prior restraint promulgated by the Court. |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
|
#395
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
: In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : In article , Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote: In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701 : [snip] And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane or not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say the word "bomb" either, for instance. Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew on airlines myself. You are lucky. Others have been arrested. It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for discussing security precautions. I did not know that you were a security person involved in the airlines. I'm not. Ok, so why was it acceptable for you to discuss bombs with the flight crew? Non-flight related security people don't have special rights on airplanes. I'm not involved in flight security. Doesn't mean I'm not a cop. A whole host of federal and state police agents and officers fly armed every day wihtout being directly involved with airline security. In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of this than the rest of us. Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense. The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable topics of discussion. For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional. Nonsense. Laws can and do restrict speech. The government needs an overriding interest, Actually, they need a "compelling state interest". However, prior restraint is almost never upheld as constitutional and a laundry list of acceptable topics, with "religion" being among them, would never past muster. The Court wouldn't even allow the government to use prior restraint then the NY Times was going to publish sensitive Pentagon documents detailing troop strength and movements in Vietnam. If that wasn't a compelling state interest, banning religious discussion on planes sure isn't. You know, someone might think that I had said something about prior restraint They would be right in thinking that, too, since that's exactly what you've done, albeit unwittingly (apparently). Not even close. We both know that is not so. A more accurate statement would be that one us *thinks* that is not so. A more accurate is that one of us mistakenly thinks this has anything to do with prior restraint. A list of forbidden topics would not be prior restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is prior restraint. Huh? First, there is no legal doctrine in 1st Amendment jurisprudence called "prior notification". If I tell you now that something is against the law, that is not prior restraint. It would be notification of the law before (prior) to you committing the act. I am sorry if you thought I meant the term as a legal term. Second, the Court has never limited prior restraint analysis to just the press. Nor have I suggested otherwise. You keep bring up irrelevant issues. Any governmental action prohibiting speech ahead of time (as opposed to punishing it after it happens) is prior restraint. Any government action *preventing* speech ahead of time is prior restraint. Prohibiting is fine. If you punish without prohibition yo get into the ex post facto clause. It is illegal for the government to act to prevent unwanted speech, it is ok (given other constraints are satisfied) to prohibit speech. A government prohibition on airline passengers discussing religion would fit any definition of prior restraint promulgated by the Court. Not at all. It would be wrong for other reasons but not prior restraint. Sending a government agent to the airplane to prevent them from talking before they spoke the unlawful speech is prior restraint. Stopping a speaker because they might say bad things is prior restraint. Saying it is wrong to do X is not *restraint*. Let us take a recent other example. It was illegal in some state or another to use vulgar language in front of women and children. That is a prohibition. Someone was actually charged under that law. That is not *prior* restraint. The court struck down the case not because of any prior issues, but because it was allowable free speech. -- Matt Silberstein I want to be different, I just don't want to change. |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
In article ,
BTR1701 wrote: In article , (Wai Doan Hsu) wrote: (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ... This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have been codified in your contract. I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. Now all you have to do is show that (1) American Airlines' internal policies prohibit the flight crew from discussing religion with the passengers, and (2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about these internal policies when they bought their tickets. nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the passengers his explanation that 'god told him to say it' is even more scary than the original notion that he was just carried away by the enthusiasm of his mission trip -- after all god has been known to 'tell people' to do all sort of scary things like 'kill your son' or 'drive that plane into a building' |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
Jenn wrote:
nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the passengers his explanation that 'god told him to say it' is even more scary than the original notion that he was just carried away by the enthusiasm of his mission trip -- after all god has been known to 'tell people' to do all sort of scary things like 'kill your son' or 'drive that plane into a building' The passengers did not know that God told him to say it. That was revealed after the flight. Do you think that "tell others about your faith" is the same as driving a plane into a building? |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
In article , Jenn
wrote: In article , BTR1701 wrote: In article , (Wai Doan Hsu) wrote: (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ... This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have been codified in your contract. I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. Now all you have to do is show that (1) American Airlines' internal policies prohibit the flight crew from discussing religion with the passengers, and (2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about these internal policies when they bought their tickets. nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the passengers That seems to have *become* the issue. The original issue-- before all the reports of the passengers feeling threatened filtered in-- was that folks here would have sued just for being proselytized to. |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
"jwk" wrote in message om... "Nik" wrote in message ... "Mike Painter" wrote in message ... I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument that a reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement to a captive audience during an airplane flight might do irreparable harm to them in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone "knows" crazy religious people flew into buildings. I wouldn't be surprised either. But I am sure that this kind of ruling would only be possible in an US court - and perhaps a few of those countries that most Americans would not be too happy to be compared to.... Nik. Really? I would have thought that France would be more likely to come to mind, considering recent events. jwk You could well be right on this one. Nik |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
American Airlines' Preaching Pilot
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote: This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have been codified in your contract. I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. How many passengers, do you suppose, would be able to point to a clause in the pilot's contract that forbade him from talking about God on the P.A.? If I buy an airline ticket, I'm legally entering into a contract when I provide consideration in exchange for the agreement to transport me. I might be furnished with airline tickets or a piece of paper saying I have a "ticketless" reservation, but it would be rare that I would be given a copy of the conditions at the time of the contract. I don't find the argument that their employees don't have to adhere to established policies to be a compelling one just because I wasn't handed a copy of them when I paid my money. You're missing what seems to me to be a very simple point, so I will repeat it again. You have a contract with the airline. It says you will give them money and they will give you transportation. The pilot has a contract with the airline. It says that he will fly planes and behave reasonably and they will give him money. There is no leakage between contracts. If the pilot fails to live up to his obligations to the airline, that's between him and them. The only thing that involves you is your arrangement with the airline. The airline at no point represented that they would provide you a Christ-free flight experience. And they got you where they promised to. So contracts are out of the picture. The only thing that's left is the possibility that you can demonstrate harm, which has nothing to do with any contracts. Before you come back with "but passengers were scared" and all that, remember that we are not talking about that. If you have any confusion over what you have or have not written, I encourage you to go back and re-read your previous postings before wasting any more bits. If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be responsible regardless of contracts, and the fact that they don't explcitly tell pilots not to molest children would be irrelevant. I can't believe you had the nerve to pick on my analogy when you trot out stinking whoppers like that. Shame on you. miguel -- Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Airlines AADVANTAGE program a SCAM. | Grant | Air travel | 19 | February 2nd, 2004 03:05 PM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | January 16th, 2004 09:20 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | December 15th, 2003 09:48 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | November 9th, 2003 09:09 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM |