[inoffensivename]

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech

The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did.

The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat. Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".

Whether you or somebody else who is clearly not an airline captain feel the original actions constituted a threat is pretty much irrelevant.

Signed, airline captain.

[godelski]

  >  It doesn't stop a private company

Read the story a bit more. There's the FBI and TSA being involved *which are government agencies*. There is a big difference between "getting kicked off the plane" and "getting kicked off the plane and getting arrested".

  > they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat

Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop.

I don't care what your politics are, that is not a reasonable nor credible threat. If there was a credible threat the conversation would be different, but it is a tacky political statement.

[inoffensivename]

> Someone naming their phone "Free Palestine, F Israel" is not a threat. Full stop.

The bluetooth device's name was BOMB. We're trained to treat even vague threats seriously.

The captain in this case is in a terrible situation. Do nothing, get pilloried for not taking action. Turn around, get pilloried for that.

I hope I'm never in this position because there are really no good options. All of you making comments have not been in this position, and were not there at the time with the information the captain had access to, and so are not in a position to judge the decision.

[tga_d]

These are two separate incidents, please read the article. While the latest one is certainly arguable and I suspect most people would understand why someone would want to take it seriously (even if they themself would not), the earlier "Free Palestine" one seems absurd to label a threat, and I would be very curious how someone would justify it as such.

[godelski]

  > The bluetooth device's name was BOMB.

I repeat

  >> Read the story a bit more.

The bare minimum of participating in the comments is RTFA. We are not talking about the bomb example and it's been stated several times that we aren't. You need to rest before accusing others of not reading, least you want people to believe you're illiterate

[tardedmeme]

"Free Palestine, F Israel" being treated as a threat is consistent with how all other Palestine/Israel speech is treated. E.g. in the UK if you said that in public you'd be considered a terrorist sympathiser (which is criminal). If you said it in Germany you'd be considered a Nazi (which is criminal). If you said it in the USA, they couldn't directly criminalise you based on speech but they'd find something else, like public nuisance or being a terrorist. So I'm not really surprised by this at all.

[godelski]

  > If you said it in Germany you'd be considered a Nazi

Damn. If that's true then we're really labeling the wrong group of people as "Nazis". (I don't believe it's actually true though)

I mean we do understand that "Israel", "Jews", and "Zionists" are 3 different things, right?

[throw297536]

Antisemites use the terms “Zionists” as a dog whistle for Jews. I can show you threads on HN where it’s obvious from the context or where they’re used interchangeably.

This isn’t a new idea either. The Polish ethnically cleansed much of their last remaining Jews in 1968 with a campaign against “Zionism”.

https://www.polin.pl/en/march-68

[tardedmeme]

The German government either does not understand that, or pretends not to understand that. Saying "F Israel" would be treated as a hate crime against Jews, which is treated even stronger than a regular hate crime due to history.

[sowbug]

Doesn't 91.3(a) already give the PIC absolute authority to act regardless of whether there's a threat? Why invoke the FBI?

> Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".

Agreed. But doing it without the FBI threat would also be in the realm of reasonable. Which, it could be argued, means that making the FBI threat was unreasonable, or at least very close to it.

Beyond a certain point, even a PIC can cry wolf.

[CWuestefeld]

I acknowledge that the airline captain has some responsibility for our security. But part of this responsibility is being a steward for our overall well-being. And in this case, the "security" aspect is so vastly overwhelmed by the damage it did to passengers in other ways, that it was obviously a bad call on the captain's part.

It really does break both ways. Over-reacting to perceived threats has a cost too.

Warning - semi-political (but hopefully non-partisan) political content ahead: This is the same thing the FDA does with drug approvals. They are overwhelmingly biased toward preventing bad drugs that they prevent access to a lot of things that could help. Studies show that the FDA's difference between up-side and down-side risk costs a lot of lives on net. For example, the FDA delayed the approval of beta-blockers (used to prevent second heart attacks) for several years after they were widely available and saving lives in Europe. Analysts estimate that this delay alone cost tens of thousands of American lives.

Sometimes, accepting a risk provides the greatest net benefit.

[emidln]

If an airline pilot is so bereft of fortitude that they perceive a political wifi network name as a threat, they should be disallowed command of the aircraft. They need therapy. Mental weakness like this should not be tolerated in those responsible for the safe operation of human lives.

[inoffensivename]

I dunno which article you were reading, but the linked article says it was a bluetooth device named BOMB.

Our training is to treat even vague threats seriously.

[godelski]

The same one you didn't read.

But thanks for telling everyone you didn't read the entire article. I do appreciate when people tell on themselves

[incognos]

It is also their right to sue you for abuse of authority if it is proven that said captain abused their authority. Say if said captain was a zionist and decided to take it out on that person by abusing their authority. Having authority does notmake you blameless, there is still a responsibility attached to that authority.