[_moof]

> 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.

[pc86]

> 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.

[_moof]

I'm well aware of the law. I was a full-time flight instructor for years, and the relevant regulation is the first one I taught when introducing students to the regs.

But I'm not talking about whether the captain has final responsibility and authority for the operation of the aircraft.

I'm talking about whether it's sane to escalate directly from something that is very much not an explicit threat of violence, to involving people whose primary tools are suspension of physical liberty and acts of violence.

(Also, please note: that rule says two things. The captain has final authority, yes, but they are also responsible for the choices they make. It's not a free pass to do anything they want for any reason.)

[alterom]

The escalation wasn't for having an edgy Bluetooth name.

It was for ignoring captain's orders.

They were asked politely once to shut off their device, and chose to ignore that order.

This is a bit of a signal.

[godelski]

  > 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]

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]

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

[pc86]

> They do not have the power to kick everyone off of the plane that's, say, wearing a yellow shirt.

They would likely lose their job if they did it depending on if ALPA wanted to fight for them or not, but they absolutely, 100% have the legal authority to do this. Maybe it should change, and I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but that's just objectively how it is.

[daemon325]

I'm always confused as to why there's such a trend on the internet of romanticizing pilot's judgement and whatever they arbitrarily decide to do when flying a plane. Like videos of some pilot refusing to fly the plane because something feels off. And everyone in the comment praises the pilot and says that whatever maintenance said must be wrong and the pilot's instinct is some sort of all-seeing, all-encompassing entity that can see beyond the puny engineers and mechanics tasked with putting a plane in operating condition.

[alterom]

The reason we have rules like this is, in two words, aviation safety.

Think about this whatever you want. This system works, and the rules were written in blood.

Captain having the ultimate authority is the case on the high seas as well. We have centuries of this being in place.

[mlyle]

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]

That's a design flaw in AirDrop, not an "incident"

[Shank]

When China mentioned this to Apple, Apple agreed, and “Everyone” is not the default and also not available for more than 10 minutes now.

[tardedmeme]

To be fair, everyone in China agrees with the government about everything. It's not really optional.

[47282847]

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]

Unsolicited Dirty pictures via a protocol which is easy to disable (and rarely used anyway) vs getting punched in the face or shanked?

Really?

[47282847]

Why the “vs”?! All three acts are acts of violence. We can order them by our own judgment of intensity, but they’re still all violent. And as such also expressions of pain/hurt, which will lead to further expressions until it is finally seen and addressed. We all know this, but still act like we don’t.

[pc86]

No - someone dropping a picture to your phone when you have the ability enabled is not violence by any definition used by people with functioning frontal cortexes. Maybe it's good to remove the "Everybody" option, maybe it's not. Maybe it's good to make it auto-disable after 10 minutes, maybe it's not. Irrelevant.

But absolutely nothing will make a photo popping onto your phone a violent act.

[limagnolia]

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]

Grouping them together is the absurd part.

The unsolicited dick pic is gross, but not even in the same category as the other stuff.

[godelski]

  > I don't know what the right answer is to people doing weird stuff in enclosed places with a captive audience is.

Punish the people who act.

Seriously, think about the fear here. That someone's trivial to ignore tacky political statement causes what problem? That it causes a fight to erupt? Arrest the person who actually starts the fight.

Do not police the actions of reasonable people just because they might upset unreasonable people. This is absolutely insane! You are just creating a world of Karens and crazy people by enabling them. The people that should get in trouble are the ones who start a fight.

FFS we're talking about a device's name. How often do you even see other device's names? Are you just staring at the WiFi and Bluetooth broadcasts all day? That's mental! You only see it when you switch to the plane's WiFi and then it is done. Over. You don't have to see it again. Anyone that is upset enough to start a fight over such a little thing should absolutely be arrested because they are clearly going to start a fight over some other absolutely bullshit and arbitrary thing. That's a person that is looking for a reason to be upset. That is a person looking for a reason to be angry. That is a person looking for a reason to start a fight. That is a person who is mentally insane.

[alterom]

>How often do you even see other device's names?

If it was seen by nobody, it wouldn't be named that way.

And it wouldn't be brought to captain's attention.

Also: there are 300 people on a large flight. A lot of people put their phone in airplane mode, and then have to reconnect their Bluetooth headphones.

>You don't have to see it again.

You don't have to see it once.

The airplane isn't a place for political rallies, and the captain figured that one person seeing this is enough.

>Anyone that is upset enough to start a fight over such a little thing should absolutely be arrested

I agree, and that's what the captain said.

The captain asked for the person to shut that device off.

They didn't. They were willing to start a fight over it.

Whoever reported the stupid Bluetooth name wasn't starting a fight. That was a non-confrontational act.

The captain wasn't starting a fight. He gave an order.

The edgy passenger decided to fight and not comply with the captain's directions.

>That is a person who is mentally insane

Indeed.

[tekknik]

Naming a device like this and bringing it onto a plane is actually what’s mental. People are tired of this reactionary content already and it needs to end. People need to remember what a CIVILIZED society is.

[mlyle]

Big reaction that misses the nuance in what I said. Can you read the sentence after the one you quoted?

[Barbing]

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]

So what you're saying is if the captain doesn't like you because you're Zionist they can remove you?

[goodcanadian]

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.

[pc86]

Yes. The captain has the authority, by law, to remove anyone (or everyone) for any reason. There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.

[alt_422568]

> There is basically nothing the captain is legally barred from doing while the plane is en route.

This is pretty wide of the mark. They have a lot of authority, yes, as it's the flipside of the flight's safety being their responsibility. They still aren't allowed to assault a passenger, say, or commit tax fraud, or needlessly break the air laws.

Also, while the plane is en route? As in, the captain throwing someone out of the plane mid-flight?

[pc86]

Ah yes because I am definitely saying that the captain of an airliner is free to commit tax fraud. That's definitely something someone with a functioning brain could believe I meant, and not a complete straw-man bad faith interpretation.

And yes, the captain's authority is greater while the plane is en route compared to on the ground. En route the captain can divert pretty much anywhere if they think it's the right thing to do. They can dump fuel over the ocean or even over houses if they believe the alternative is worse. When the plane is on the ground realistically all they're going to do for anything is deplane everyone, either at the gate or via an evacuation.

[Andrex]

There was a whole episode of Seinfeld about a pilot forcing Jerry off because he just didn't like him. Seems legit.

[tim-tday]

If you’re broadcasting strong language associated with violence? I’d hope the captain would remove you whatever side of whatever conflict you’re on.

What are some things Israeli settlers shout before they murder Palestinians? Shout a couple of those on a plane and see what happens.

[lazide]

Doesn’t even necessarily have to be the captain - refusing to follow instructions/direction of any member of the flight crew is a serious problem.

And yeah, if it was ridiculous or violated some other law or something they’d eventually have to deal with the consequences of that, but while in the air, what they say goes.

[steve1977]

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]

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"?

[7952]

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]

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”?

[umanwizard]

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.

[tekknik]

What about the contract you sign when joining say the military? You certainly don’t have right to freedom of speech anymore.

[steve1977]

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]

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.

[iso1631]

> 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]

To be fair, the weaponry is far less floppy.

[steve1977]

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.

[iso1631]

> 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

[defrost]

Been there, done that, still allowed to fly. Go figure.

[close04]

> 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]

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]

  > 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

[umanwizard]

> No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you.

That's incorrect. In fact this is exactly what all contracts do.

[close04]

All contracts take away rights that the law explicitly guarantees you? Such confidence. Sometimes talking to an LLM is an improvement...

[umanwizard]

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.

[zdp7]

Pretty sure you are mistaken. Look up public policy violations. Typically you can't negotiate away rights