How frightening.
A brown-skinned blogger named Anjiit recounts a recent outrageous incident in which he and his wife were kicked off a flight and subjected to extra-screening by the TSA because he was wearing a satirical T-shirt mocking airport security. The episode occurred at the Buffalo-Niagara airport, and the airline involved was Delta.
We had cleared the security checkpoint without incident, but while waiting at the gate, a Delta supervisor informed me my shirt had made numerous passengers and employees “very uncomfortable.” I was then questioned by TSA about the significance and meaning of the shirt. I politely explained that it was “mocking the security theater charade and over-reactions to terrorism by the general public — both of which we’re seeing right now, ironically.” The agents inquired as to the meaning of the term “ZOMG” and who it was that I thought was “gonna kill us all.” As best I could tell, they seemed to find my explanation that I didn’t think anyone would be killing us all and that I was poking fun at overwrought, irrational fears exhibited by certain members of the flying public to be satisfactory. And moreover, they clearly deemed my shirt to be no legitimate threat. The Delta supervisor then told me I would be able to board the plane, but only after acquiescing to an additional security check of my and my wife’s belongings and changing my shirt. He went to lengths to explain that my choice of attire was inappropriate and had caused serious consternation amongst multiple individuals, and that ultimately “It’s not you, it’s the shirt.”
I understand, barely, the rationale of making everyone remove their shoes because one inept terrrorist tried to blow up a plane with a shoe-bomb a decade ago. I find having to removing my obviously non-threatening belt because some larger “smuggler’s belts” could contain knives idiotic, and that being prevented from carrying a half-used tube of toothpaste or bottled water through airport check points is so ridiculous that it defies belief. I definitely object to being sexually molested when I fly because Janet Napolitano’s minions incompetently allowed someone with potentially exploding underwear to board a plane, even though he was on a terror watch list. But never mind all that, and never mind too the fact that our airport security system periodically abuses the handicapped, mentally challenged, young, sexy and elderly, because there is a significant minority of agents who lack the judgment God allotted to sea sponges. No plane has ever or will ever be endangered by a T-shirt, and what happened to this satire-minded flyer and his wife because of the timidity of Americans, the miserable judgment of Delta Airlines and the abuse of power by the TSA is a clarion call to civil libertarians that we have permitted too much intrusion into our basic rights in pursuit of an elusive level of safety. The villains in this scenario are, in order of appearance, the passengers on the blogger’s flight, who don’t realize that by infringing on his rights, they are crippling their own; Delta, which, true to its industry’s warped ethics, took the side of many unethical customers against one innocent one; and the Transportation Security Administration, which allowed itself to be an accessory to unconscionable abuse.
Anjiit writes:
“If racist dingdongs are made uncomfortable by my presence on flight, shouldn’t Delta ask them to change flights rather than kick me off? If any passengers were still afraid of me sans my “upsetting t-shirt,” Delta should see no reason to accommodate them. These are not voices that warrant being appeased. If my presence makes them uncomfortable, they can choose to be on a different flight. But instead Delta explicitly accepted the argument based in pure irrationality, and then went one step further by justifying their own actions by appealing to the powers of the imagination. Absolutely disgusting, appalling behavior….Not offending the sensibilities of racist passengers who get offended by being forced to travel alongside people of color shouldn’t be Delta’s goal. No one wins when we tolerate and accommodate such odious behavior. Delta should be willing to recognize the civil rights of all their paying passengers over certain passengers’ “right” to be fearful of Scary Brown Men. Or rather, those who want to be afraid of me and what they fear I may do can go ahead and live and fly in fear, but the last thing Delta or any other airline should do is validate these noxious beliefs.”
Would a white man in the same T-shirt be subjected to this treatment? Anjiit thinks not; I’m not so sure. But whether it was skin color, T-shirt satire, or skin color plus T-shirt satire, American society and culture needs to line up on the right side of this issue, which is about the Golden Rule, fairness, courage and free speech.
You can, and should, read Anjiit’s complete account here.
_____________________________________________
Pointer: Info Wars
Facts: Anjiit v Delta
Graphic: Woot
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Dead on Jack. These types of stories drive me crazy because it is always unreasonable / irrational people ultimately forcing the well-adjusted to submit to their rules.
Jack,
I think you got this one wrong.
“The villains in this scenario are, in order of appearance, the passengers on the blogger’s flight, who don’t realize that by infringing on his rights, they are crippling their own”
What “rights” of Anjiit did they infringe on? His right to be an a-hole and not be called out on it? Do you really think this guy wore this t-shirt and didn’t otherwise draw attention to himself? He is just some innocent victim?
I will go further, the passengers had an ethical duty to point this suspicious individual out.
“Delta, which, true to its industry’s warped ethics, took the side of many unethical customers against one innocent”
Although I despise most airlines they reacted correctly to passenger concerns over safety and their initial reaction is appropriate.
“and the Transportation Security Administration, which allowed itself to be an accessory to unconscionable abuse.”
The TSA did exactly what they were supposed to do and is by far the most ethical entity in this incident. The TSA is required to respond to any report of suspicious activity.
From Anjiit post “Soon afterwards, once the boarding process had commenced, the Delta supervisor pulled me aside again — this time accompanied by not only three TSA agents, but also multiple Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority transit police. I was questioned some more and my wife was also pulled out of line for additional questioning and screening. Our bags were searched, my shirt was photographed, we were asked multiple questions about the cause of our visit, how often we make it to western NY, and our drivers’ license numbers were taken and radioed in for what seemed to be a quick background check.
At this point, the TSA agents appeared satisfied we had nothing suspicious in our luggage and that we posed no threat. However, the Delta supervisor informed us the pilot had decided, regardless of the outcome of the multiple TSA screenings and my willingness to change shirts, that due to the discomfort my shirt has caused, my wife and I would not be allowed to board the aircraft. Passengers on the plane supposedly felt uncomfortable with my very presence on the flight. And the Delta manager went out of his way to point out that he wholeheartedly agreed with the pilot’s decision”
And nothing transpired to prompt this? Anjiit was not making a scene or otherwise being an a-hole? This change just came out of the blue? I highly doubt it; if it did then I can see some ethical breaches by Delta and transportation authority, I still don’t see any for the TSA. But like I said, I doubt it based on the fact that there are indications that Anjiit wanted to provoke a response. If I am correct, and I am fairly sure I am, the only unethical conduct was on the part of Anjiit. The pilot does not have a duty to allow disruptive behavior on his flight, he made the correct call.
As for the implication that race had anything to do with it I am doubtful for the same reasons I have already stated.
What suspicious activity? Exercising his freedom of speech?
Yes, that appears to be it.
“What suspicious activity? Exercising his freedom of speech?”
The activity that drew attention to him, he choose to wear the shirt, an obviously anti authority statement. Which it really is not much a leap to suggest that he would thus likely be of an anti authoritarian mindset. If he was willing to go out and make his statement in a high security area it is not unlikely he was also doing other things that would draw attention to him. A person bringing him to the attention of officials is completely reasonable and ethical. TSA has a duty to follow up and did so reasonably, even as this guy’s one sided account acknowledges.
Sure he was exercising his freedom of speech which he has a constitutional right to, which may have ultimately lead to, I am sure there is more that the bloggers one sided account leaves out, him not flying that day. That can be the consequence when one chooses to disrupt mass transit services that other people utilize.
“The activity that drew attention to him, he choose to wear the shirt, an obviously anti authority statement. Which it really is not much a leap to suggest that he would thus likely be of an anti authoritarian mindset.”
You mean like Tom Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry? Americans are supposed to be of an anti authoritarian mindset! Should a T-shirt reading “Give me liberty of give me death!” prompt extra screening? “I regret that I have but one life to give for mu country”? “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”? And those are SERIOUS quotes, not obvious satire.
Good Lord.
Yes that is the answer; he must be the next Thomas Paine! Looking to back his provocative shirt with actions to win our freedom from the tyrannical government!
Look, I am no fan of the TSA or a lot of these program that are in place but the point is that he demonstrated that he was willing bring attention to his opinion and it is more than likely, based on the response he received, that it was not limited only to his attire. The fact that you can’t find a single news source or statement by any involved furthers my belief that he is simply not telling the whole truth of the matter.
The fact that no news account contradicts his account proves that he’s lying? I find his account measured and fair. As a blogger, materially misrepresenting that incident would be suicidal. And regarding “calling attention to his opinion” as inherently sinister is mind-boggling. I don’t understand your response to this issue at all. Your mother must have been attacked by a T-shirt while you were gestating.
“The fact that no news account contradicts his account proves that he’s lying?
I was going to say “He claims are racism, harassment and violations of his rights by multiple organizations, how is there not by now?” but I was looking at the July date on his blog not the August 18 date on this, so I will withdraw that point.
“As a blogger, materially misrepresenting that incident would be suicidal.”
After reviewing his blog I am not sure he is really worried about that.
And regarding “calling attention to his opinion” as inherently sinister is mind-boggling. I don’t understand your response to this issue at all. Your mother must have been attacked by a T-shirt while you were gestating.”
I have not represented his t-shirt was sinister, only that this guy was out to make a statement, and I believe he intended to make an issue before he even got to the airport.
Notoriety would also be good for blogger
Jack,
My apologies if I have been overly critical, I still have my strong doubts but will hold off until I see more on this case as I believe we may. He has proven adept at utilizing social media against his insurer to get them to cover over his lifetime limit for his treatment and started a charity.
He wore a shirt. Thats it. Everything else you attribute to him is speculation on your part.
All good Americans are anti authority and dont want to be told what to do. Here is Virginia we have a name for people who want to do everything the goverment tells them. we call them Yankees, or some cases Canadians.
What? A satirical T-shirt is not suspicious in any way, shape or form. Nor is calling attention to oneself, or Lady Gaga could never fly. The blogger did nothing disruptive at all. Terrorists don’t wear “I’m a terrorist” shirts, and he wasn’t doing that anyway. He was wearing a “this is stupid” shirt, and then they proved he was right. The man had gone through screening. There was no rational reason to complain.
If the pilot was worried about disruptive passengers, he should have thrown off the ones who complained.
“What? A satirical T-shirt is not suspicious in any way, shape or form. Nor is calling attention to oneself, or Lady Gaga could never fly. The blogger did nothing disruptive at all. Terrorists don’t wear “I’m a terrorist” shirts, and he wasn’t doing that anyway. He was wearing a “this is stupid” shirt, and then they proved he was right. The man had gone through screening. There was no rational reason to complain.”
Unless he did more than just wear the t-shirt, which I am assuming he did due to the response, or should I say repeated responses as well as his clear intent to provoke attention.
“If the pilot was worried about disruptive passengers, he should have thrown off the ones who complained.”
Why? They were not the disruptive ones? They did nothing unethical or illegal.
You find the response aggressive and not rational; I find it telling that the blogger is not being wholly truthful because of the multi agency, delta manager and the pilot’s responses. I am very doubtful it was only the shirt. I will say it is possible it started that way but that does not change that TSA has to respond to ALL reported suspicious activity, if a fellow passenger said they were worried about another passenger they have to check it out.
Even if I accept the bloggers story on its face, which I do not, I still cannot find the TSA response as unethical. I could with delta and the transportation authority.
Oh, I forgot to mention that he also was breathing fire, screaming the Viking Death Chant at the top of his lungs, and kicking every man he encountered in the groins while humming, “Ding-dong the Witch is Dead.”
You’re not allowed to assume menacing behavior. Obviously, menacing behavior by the passenger makes the T-shirt superfluous. The post assumes that the account does not leave out key information, and there’s nothing about the conduct of the passengers, Delta or the TSA that prompts any suspicion on my part that material information is being omitted. The question is: does a T-shirt, absent any other factors, raise legitimate security issues that would justify this treatment, and the answer is NO.
“If the pilot was worried about disruptive passengers, he should have thrown off the ones who complained.”
Why? They were not the disruptive ones? They did nothing unethical or illegal.
You find the response aggressive and not rational—
You betcha. The blogger was also doing nothing aggressive or illegal—wearing a T-shirt, no matter what it says, can be neither. You are just dea wrong that the responses of the passengers, Delta and the TSA indicate that there was more involved. Passengers are frightened sheep; airlines are risk-averse fools, and the TSA is incapable of dealing with anything not covered in the manual, so they cover their asses instead.
A passenger who says he is worried because of a T-shirt should be IGNORED. Period. That is the only rational response by anyone.
“If the pilot was worried about disruptive passengers, he should have thrown off the ones who complained.”
Why? They were not the disruptive ones? They did nothing unethical or illegal.”
You find the response aggressive and not rational—
You betcha. The blogger was also doing nothing aggressive or illegal—wearing a T-shirt, no matter what it says, can be neither. You are just dea wrong that the responses of the passengers, Delta and the TSA indicate that there was more involved. Passengers are frightened sheep; airlines are risk-averse fools, and the TSA is incapable of dealing with anything not covered in the manual, so they cover their asses instead.”
Unfortunately I vehemently disagree, even from his own account you can connect the dots. If the t-shirt by itself caused a fellow passenger to report I will go along with you as far as that passenger is concerned. I would still not find any issue with TSA actions, especially if the airline called in a suspicious person. That’s what they are supposed to be doing, were they supposed to ignore a report because without checking into it they deemed it unimportant? That makes no sense. I am all for bashing the TSA but I just can’t see any basis on this one.
As for the subsequent responses it indicates there is more to the story then the T-shirt and likely nothing to do with a terrorist concern as the TSA was not involved after that first encounter beyond monitoring the second encounter he had with the transportation authority. On the second, third and fourth encounters he was not dealing with TSA but the transportation authority and Delta. So despite all these people involved and encounters you think the issue was only the T shirt? Come on man, that makes no sense, there is more liability involved in harassment at that level than any of them would risk for a t-shirt.
A passenger who says he is worried because of a T-shirt should be IGNORED. Period. That is the only rational response by anyone.
If that is the only thing that triggered this mess then I could agree.
And that’s the account, and nobody has disputed it so far. It is completely plausible, under the current system. Meanwhile, I give the account, correctly assess that the passenger was mistreated by all concern, you say you disagree, and base it on the assumption that something else happened. If the response was based on something we don’t know that made it reasonable, then it wasn’t unethical, but my post was about only the information we have, and based on that information, it was 1) wrong for the passengers to harass the T-shirt wearer 2) unethical for Delta to take the harassers side absent more provocation than “discomfort” based on a T-shirt,3) wrong for Delta to report him as “suspicious” to the TSA, and 4) outrageous for the TSA not to inquire of Delta what made him “suspicious,” and hearing “his T-shirt,” not to say, “Don’t waste our time, you morons. There are no regulations linking dress to suspicion of terrorism.” And there aren’t.
And that’s the account, and nobody has disputed it so far. It is completely plausible, under the current system. Meanwhile, I give the account, correctly assess that the passenger was mistreated by all concern, you say you disagree, and base it on the assumption that something else happened. If the response was based on something we don’t know that made it reasonable, then it wasn’t unethical, but my post was about only the information we have, and based on that information, it was 1) wrong for the passengers to harass the T-shirt wearer 2) unethical for Delta to take the harassers side absent more provocation than “discomfort” based on a T-shirt,3) wrong for Delta to report him as “suspicious” to the TSA, and 4) outrageous for the TSA not to inquire of Delta what made him “suspicious,” and hearing “his T-shirt,” not to say, “Don’t waste our time, you morons. There are no regulations linking dress to suspicion of terrorism.” And there aren’t.
Jack,
If I take all your points on their face I will agree. It just doesn’t make sense and is not consistent when multi organizations are involved.
.
Steven,
It doesn’t make sense, but it is consistent with what occurs:
http://theedgeofmadness.com/index.php?p=246&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://consumerist.com/2008/09/doctor-flying-southwest-tries-to-go-to-bathroom-ends-up-in-jail.html
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/12/purse-gun-tsa-incident-norfolk/578354/1
tgt, I will check your links out later, I have been busy but I will tell you if it sways me.
tgt
I checked them out, I know of several more that are much worse than these but represent single organization abuse of authority. I don’t find the purse or shirt accounts very persuasive as it pertains to this account, yes they are ridiculous and egregious but they don’t rise to this level and are single organization abuses of authority. I am dubious of the doctor’s account as I am with this account, I looked at a couple of more articles on it and it appears that other passengers commended the flight crew on how they handled it, what he was doing was against regulations, two separate flight attendants tried to explain to him, he stated something to the effect of I am not going to listen to you. As with the account that Jack posted there are multiple organizations involved including southwest airlines, FBI and the prosecutor’s office. Yes miscarriages of justice happen often but not as often with the FBI. As this was doctor and arguably well educated if he truly was being accused of things he did not commit I find it hard to believe that he would just choose to plead guilty. Why no major media outlet coverage?
I realize I’m rather late to the game, but I’m calling foul, Jack. Or, perhaps “incomplete” is more appropriate.
I agree that the level of fear and suspicion exhibited by the American populace, in general, is ridiculous and should not be encouraged. But we don’t need to throw all these folks to the lions either. Indeed, ethics requires us to pity the ignorant, the mistaken, the highly emotional air traveler and the people who take on the responsibility for their safety.
We are willing to acknowledge that a particular community may find the word “hell” offensive (see The Case of the Mildly Profane Valedictorian), even though that word is not offensive to a large portion (perhaps a majority) of the population and, indeed, that the non-offended population may consider those who are offended old-fashioned, petty, silly, etc. Notwithstanding the opinion of the larger population, we conclude that prohibitions against the word “hell” may be appropriate in an offended or mixed offended/non-offended community under certain circumstances (e.g., a formal occasion with a captive audience). Why? Because civility is important, and what is or is not civil (and thus what is or is not ethical) may be dependent on context. Are we on the same page so far? Good.
I think we can all acknowledge that past events justify some level of fear, or at least caution, in the airline industry and the traveling public. I think we can also acknowledge that the government (though its overly burdensome and (arguably) minimally effective security regulations) and the popular media (which survives solely through its ability to turn molehills into mountains) have done more than their fair share in raising what might have been reasonable caution into utter panic, fright, (dare I say) terror in many members of the community. For those who have fallen into the evil trap of the fear mongers, a trip through airport security only heightens their fears/caution. Sad, maybe even silly, but absolutely true. Also true: folks waiting for (or on) a flight are no less a captive audience then those attending a graduation ceremony; no law requires their attendance, but they all have a pretty good reason to be there. Finally, the airlines are responsible for the safety of their passengers and part of their job is to make sure passengers feel safe. Frightened people often do stupid things, and that, more than anything, is why the drunk, belligerent, and threatening may be ejected from a flight: not merely because they might pose a risk of physical harm to others but because they frighten others, and every frightened person is one more person that poses a risk of harm to others. [Full Disclosure: There was a time, years ago, when I regularly represented airlines. To my recollection I never represented the airline at issue, nor did I ever have a case involving an ejected passenger. My statement are based solely on the common sense observations of one who has been on her fair share of commercial flights.]
Under those circumstances, is it civil/ethical for an airline passenger to use “speech” that may be reasonably expected provoke fear in other members of the traveling community?
Before you go nuts about free speech and satire, let me remind you of your “Second Niggardly Principle”:
When an individual or group can accomplish its legitimate objectives without engaging in speech or conduct that will offend individuals whose basis for the supposed offense is emotional, mistaken or ignorant, but is not malicious and is based on well-established impulses of human nature, it is unethical to engage in such speech or conduct.
Now, take a look at that shirt: (1) colors of the Nazi flag, (2) a logo that has a Nazi/Aryan Nation feel (though it is, I admit, closer to the presidential seal, in design if not color), and (3) text that contains the words kill, bomb, bloodred, as well as several misspellings and nonsense words that (a) suggest you may need to know a language other than English to fully understand what is being said and/or, in any event, (b) makes the actual meaning of the shirt impossible to discern on first (or even second) glance (e.g., is that “killusall” or “killusa!!”?).
I will accept the premise that Anjitt’s legitimate objective was to say “this is stupid.” I agree with him. But that legitimate objective could have been accomplished via a T-shirt that said so clearly or more clearly than the one he chose. The T-shirt Anjitt chose, however, suggests (at first or second glance) that he is associated with dangerous hate-mongers whose primary purpose is to provoke fear in others. Moreover, he wore it to a place where fear is already a problem. Is the fear completely out of proportion to the risk? Yes. But the frightened people are not malicious (at least most of them are not), they are mistaken, ignorant, and/or emotional and their fears are all tied up with the greatest of human impulses: self-preservation. Moreover, their irrational fears are regularly encouraged by the government and the media (until, of course, some crazy white guy kills someone not-so-white and the media screams WHY?????). Should a Nazi/Aryan Nation-ish shirt on a brown-skinned man be a clue that humor may be involved? Of course. But let’s not expect the general public to understand the complexities of satire (most think “a black fly in your chardonnay” constitutes irony), especially when they are in a quasi-captive situation and cannot reasonably be expected to ask a stranger what his indecipherable T-shirt really means.
As I read the Second Niggardly Principle, its spirit is this: while we don’t want the world to be controlled by the ignorant, we are all better off if we do all we can to educate them with kindness and understanding rather than hit them over the head with the hammer of knowledge because ethical conduct is a lesson best learned by example. Applying that principle here, Mr. Anjiit’s choice of fashion, both failed to accomplish his legitimate objective and did so in a manner in which those most in need of his intended message were, reasonably, left more confused and frightened (i.e., more ignorant/more offended) than before. Why? Because his intended message was indecipherable and the bit that was decipherable was offensive/frightening. As such, his actions were, at least arguably, unethical.
You bypass that point entirely, Jack. Is it because Mr. Anjiit’s skin color and a potential racial bias by some of the people involved overwhelm the other ethical issues? Is it because he gets smarty-pants points for actually understanding satire and irony? Does he get ethics points for being willing to change his shirt once he knew there was a problem and otherwise appears to have been extremely cooperative? I do not know. But I think one could reasonably argue that Mr. Anjiit started this ethics train wreck, in which case, the complete pass you gave him needs review.
These are what Mark Twain called “insect auithorities”. And the one thng such insects cannot BEAR is to be laughed at.
At the risk of bringing Godwin’s Law into play, these little bullies should be called out for what they are.
Stalinists? 😛
In modern times, even though it’s legal to carry a gun in plain view (in Open Carry states) – since a large majority don’t, when you are seen by public, they call the police, and the police come and try to correct your legal behavior to be in line with public norms.
I see many parallels to this article in that regard.
So, now I’ve got an interest in reading some historical anecdotes on the subject of the majority of people imposing their sensibilities on authorities to control the standouts….putting authority in charge of making them feel “safe” by enforcing “norms” and “sensibilities” above and beyond codified “laws”. Any good suggestions – either books or wikipedia?
The TSA is populated by self-important, ill-informed, minimum-wage workers, whose only sense of power and self-worth is harassing people. So what if ten years ago ONE TSA employee found the shoe-bomber? If I were to wear a Mossad (Israel’s CIA, for the morons) or “Go Syria” T-shirt would I be forced to change my attire? Would that instill fear in the rest of the plane’s passengers? What if I wore some of the T-shirts my 17-year old son wears, which are clearly ironic and worn only by people who understand the meaning of irony? Could he not fly? He’d probably punt the trip, on general principles.
Aside: a friend of mine (female) is beautifully well-endowed, and is constantly felt up by TSA employees at airports. This 40+ mother of three is a threat because she may be hiding a bomb in big boobs?
And let’s not get into Homeland Security, its leadership, its prejudices, and its lack of judgment. I know, I know. They say we’ll “never know” the lives that have been saved by their strategies and tactics — strategies and tactics that of course cannot be divulged because it would give terrorists an edge… That’s the “value’ of non-transparent systems. Have to believe them, or you’ll probably die, right?.
Next time I fly I’m going to wear a T-shirt with the old Soviet emblem on it. In Russian, USSR reads as “CCCP’ to an English-speaker, when it fact it is the Cyrillian alphabet. Who will pick this up? TSA? Well informed passengers? Hah.
I stated my case why I think this whole thing is bunk and maybe time will prove me wrong but I will reiterate one more thing for those who have seemed to have missed it, the TSA did not do anything but follow up on a complaint, they cleared him, they did not require him to change his shirt and was in no way involved with him not being allowed on the flight. I love to bash the TSA as much as the next guy but their involvement in this whole thing was minimal and I would say completely ethical.