CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
The Unfriendly Skies: JetBlue/TSA Officials Pay $240,000 for Grounding Arabic T-ShirtWhen it rains, it pours… stories about discrimination at the airport. As AirTran Airways scrambled to make good after excluding a Muslim family from one of their flights last week, a discrimination case from 2006 was settled when two Transportation Security Authority officials and JetBlue Airways paid Raed Jarrar $240,000 to settle charges that they illegally discriminated against the U.S. resident based on his ethnicity and the Arabic writing on his T-shirt. On August 12, 2006, Jarrar was at New York's JFK Airport waiting to board a flight from New York to his home in Oakland, California. He was wearing a T-shirt that read "We Will Not Be Silent" in English and Arabic. While waiting in the gate area, Jarrar was approached by two TSA officials. One of them told Jarrar that he needed to remove his shirt because other passengers were not comfortable with the Arabic script. One of the officials told Jarrar that wearing a shirt with Arabic writing on it to an airport was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, 'I am a robber.'" Jarrar tried to assert his First Amendment right to wear the shirt, but TSA and JetBlue officials surrounded him and made it clear that he would not be allowed to board the plane unless he covered it up. Terrified of what they would do to him, Jarrar reluctantly covered up his shirt with a new T-shirt purchased for him by JetBlue. But the story doesn't end there — even after Jarrar covered his shirt, he was not allowed to board until JetBlue changed his seat and made him ride in the back of the plane. The outcome of this case should send a clear message to all TSA officials and airlines that what happened to Jarrar was not okay. Perhaps the $240,000 settlement, which was paid out on Friday, January 2, can serve as a symbol of what the new year could bring — an end to racial profiling and speech discrimination, just maybe? A video of Jarrar talking about the case is here.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 30 Responses to "The Unfriendly Skies: JetBlue/TSA Officials Pay $240,000 for Grounding Arabic T-Shirt" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jan 6th, 2009 at 5:04am
And maybe if Aden Fine had his way, we will also have another 9-11. The statement, "We will not be silent", could be interpreted by a reasonable person as a threat in the context of an airport. The ACLU is absolutely ruining this country. And by the way, Aden Fine is a raging faggot child-molester.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 9:59am
Profiling is a very valuable law enforcement tool and you liberal jerks at the aclu are hurting America.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 10:08am
What about the rights of the other individuals on that plane to feel safe and secure. I don't want to sit on an airplane, next to a person of arab heritage wearing a shirt that says "we will not be silent".
So you folks believe his right to wear a t-shirt is more important than the rights of the other 100 or so people who are also paying to ride on this plane?
You people are lunatics, he is a lunatic for wearing the shirt, and the judge is a lunatic for giving him money because he got his feelings hurt.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 10:21am
the aclu should be put on the terrorist list.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 10:50am
Nice great job ALCU for getting someone $240,000 dollars for something that SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. You people are idiots and so are your supporters. He should have been forced to remove his shirt and I feel possibly held until further investigation. You people are weaking America period. And just so you know, your bullcrap about Bush needs to stop he didnt do anything that wasnt voted on and you supported Obama Bin Ladin when he has ties to terrorist and is a racist. I dont see you fighting for rights and stating that Obama wasnt even born here and had no right to run for office. Congrats you just helped ruin the presidency and made a regime. You just promoted what you supposedly fight against. You people are cowards, bigots and sorry excuses for human beings. I wonder will you fight for our right to bear arms when your racist, terrorist regime leader Obama Bin Ladin starts trying to take our guns, No I bet you wont lift a finger. AS long as you exist the terrorist and the racist get stronger morons.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 10:55am
Its time to start hanging terrorists and these ACLU lawyers. The ACLU is so blantantly anti-American that it is no suprise that they stand up for Muslim terrorists. The ACLU is a treasonous group and must be treated like one. Any American lawyer that would sink to the depths of standing up for child molesters and terrorists must be stopped at all costs!
Jan 6th, 2009 at 11:30am
This is a truly despicable award. YOU ARE RUINING AMERICA!! Why are you not defending my civil liberties!! As a result of the terrorists and their idiot ACLU lawyers we Americans are being stripped of our security!! This is not a victory but rather a defeat for all sensible Americans!!
Jan 6th, 2009 at 11:45am
It's a shame that Mr. Jarrar was profiled, but it's even worse that he would sue and the ACLU would take up his case. From the news articles the problem was solved at the airport when it happened. Personally, I think Mr. Jarrar was looking for a fight and the ACLU has become overloaded with lawyers instead of activists. Who goes to an airport with a shirt like he wore, I don't even wear shoes with laces anymore to get through security faster. This might have been a knee jerk settlement over the recent occurences with the Arabic family, but there has to some point where things do get investigated to quell the unrest of the public. The current administration has made us paranoid so that they can proceed undaunted, is there a solution? It's time the ACLU re-evaluate itself, instead of evaluating what sorts of settlements they can obtain, they should be evaluating what rights of ours they can protect.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 11:51am
I really think the ACLU is a joke, and bunch of legal CROOKS. I think Jet Blue was wrong for what they did, but taking this guys case for $240,000. You guys are a joke and a blemish to our country. I will not support the ACLU any more for these dumb actions, and hopefully now people see how much of a JOKE you people really are. You really did your self un justice and Aden Fine, your a bigger idot. I hope every thing back fires on your crooked ring of people. Fight for people that really need it, and not to line your pockets.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 12:04pm
How do we know what that T-shirt said? It could have been a "Call to Arms" for airplane terrorists. This is America, where English is the 'unofficial' language. Until such time as every American must be conversant in ten trillion languages, English still prevails. Had the T-shirt depicted hard-core sex with four-letter phrases, I would expect the shirt to be covered, even though I, myself, might find it amusing. Just because American's enjoy the right to free speech, it doesn't mean we can say anything we want to at any time we choose. Prudence is fundamental. So is courtesy. I demand half of the $240,000 because I'm offended that he was discourteous to America.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 12:16pm
I posted something on this blog earlier and they took it off. Were is the freedom of speech on this one. The ACLU is a bunch of hypocrites. You people really are a Joke and a blemish to our country. I sould sue you for 240,000 for not giving me the right to speek my mind.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 12:18pm
The ACLU needs to be silenced. They are ruining America. $240,000 is ridiculous! Jet Blue isn't paying that .. the American people are. Shame, shame shame on you, Aden Fine!
Jan 6th, 2009 at 1:44pm
Wonder what would happen if I told the TSA guys that white middle-aged men in business suits make me "uncomfortable." (You never know -- one of them could be a Wall Street banker plotting to destroy the world's economy -- again.) Think they'd boot the whole first class off the plane?
Jan 6th, 2009 at 2:15pm
This is a real victory for free speach you say, well it amazes me that people got introuble for speaking the words change your shirt, that doesnt sound like freedom of speech to me. I wish somebody would have used there freedom to wip his ass
Jan 6th, 2009 at 2:40pm
Great message to the TSA. Don't do your job because we might get into a lawsuit for offending someone. American people are losing their homes right now and this "resident" was awarded $240k. How does that make any sense. Poor thing was "terrified of what they would do to him". What is this country coming to.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 2:44pm
The direct statement that he was terrified by what the airline might do is pitiful. He went there looking for a fight and should be thankful that the airline protected him from all the other passengers that would have truly been justifyably terrified while wondering what he was going to do on a plane with this type of message on his shirt.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:02pm
The Bill Of Rights is NOT multiple choice!!!
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:09pm
Wow, I would say by the looks of the comments on here, you guys really screwed this one. I would have to say I agree and would like ADEN FINE and his family to fly everyday with these people. And when the plane blows up, maybe he will get it.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:17pm
aclu is joke. i wear shirts that describe exactly how i feel. this man did the same..thanks aclu for giving another idiot money to perhaps send home to his terrorist friends. by the way when was the last time you represented anything that our founding fathers stood for?
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:20pm
this is stupid! the ACLU & these habibi are losers,discrimination,,1st of all your in America, USA,LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!so if you want to support your religion or country,,then go back to it, dont do it here in USA,,its that simple, go back to a country that you & your family left because it was so bad there that you had to leave,, ya that makes sense,,ill wear my country i left,,LMFAO,, losers, Jet Blue should of paid $1,, for this ridiculous lawsuit & whoever agreed shoud be shot!
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:21pm
Bumper stickers for sale,, "F@CK ACLU" & its supporters!!
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:24pm
this has nothing to do with terrorsit acts or racial profiling,, its simple, its like wearing w "WHITE POWER" or BLACK PRIDE, or BROWN PRIDE, or heck,a sexual shirt at that,, any of these logos would offend most people,, but those who wear & support it are the real terrorists of this world, the true racists, like Rev.Jessie Jackson & Al Sharpton fakes asses, there bigots just like the ACLU
Jan 6th, 2009 at 4:52pm
I posted something to this blog that wasn't bad, and they didn't post it. Were is the free speech there. What Hypocrite's.
Jan 6th, 2009 at 5:45pm
Profiling is a very valuable law enforcement tool that will get us all killed.
What happens if there is a terrorist who is not Arab or has brown skin?
Jan 7th, 2009 at 12:45pm
Wow I can't believe all the morons that post in here. The ACLU is doing a fine job helping Americans beat a out of control US government. Some day some of you asshats will be calling the ACLU for help when you break one of the WAR ON Terror laws.
My only grip with the ACLU is they don't support the right to bear arms as a individual.
Jan 7th, 2009 at 6:13pm
I really think the ACLU is a joke, and bunch of legal CROOKS. I think Jet Blue was wrong for what they did, but taking this guys case for $240,000. You guys are a joke and a blemish to our country. I will not support the ACLU any more for these dumb actions, and hopefully now people see how much of a JOKE you people really are. You really did your self un justice and Aden Fine, your a bigger idot. I hope every thing back fires on your crooked ring of people. Fight for people that really need it, and not to line your pockets.
GOOD POINT,,,,,,I have supported the aclu in the past but no more ACLU SUCKS NOW....
Jan 14th, 2009 at 6:15pm
DOES POLITICO.COM CENSOR COMMENTS FROM 'TARGETS' OF GOV'T SPYING?
• Read this account and judge for yourself whether "prior restraint" and censorship by proxy are authoritarian realities of the U.S. "Security State"
GET POLITICAL w/ VIC LIVINGSTON, NowPublic.com/scrivener
Former business reporter, Fox TV Phila., NY Daily News, Phila. Bulletin, St. Petersburg Times
For your consideration, as Rod Serling used to say on TV, we take you into the Twilight Zone that is my life as a communicator being unjustly prevented from freely communicating...
... a journalist trying to persevere in his field while being mistreated as a "target" of an unremitting campaign of cruel, unjust, undeserved government-inspired 24/7 surveillance, harassment, and injurious physical torture attacks via radiation weaponry.
As regular readers of this column are aware, I am about to enter my sixth year as a victim of so-called "extrajudicial punishment." That's the euphemism for a blatantly unconstitutional and abusive bypass of the judicial system, using as its "tools" of rogue justice a variety of covert methods and tactics:
Financial sabotage; stealth radiation assault, pervasive invasion of privacy, vandalism of personal property, adulteration of food and water; medical mistreatment at the hands of infiltrator "technicians"; character assassination; and malicious interference with all forms of personal and electronic communications.
The ugly truth makes the term "warrantless wiretapping" sound deceptively benign.
Much of the extrajudicial punishment is meted out by one's "neighbors" -- so-called vigilante "gang stalkers," many of them members of government-sponsored community policing, public safety, or "town watch"-type units. Their mission is to torment, neutralize and eventually eliminate those deemed by their handlers to be "dissidents," "radicals," "agitators," "troublemakers," "social deviates" -- or anything else they can come up with to "take down" someone they don't want around.
But the suspicion is that the electronic harassment, surveillance, and assault by electromagnetic devices such as silent beam laser/microwave "directed energy weapons" is overseen by trained professional operatives -- some of the same people charged with "keeping America safe" from terrorists, drug traffickers and street gangs (excluding, of course, the gang stalkers engaged by the architects of the covert programs of extrajudicial punishment).
Which brings me to the dilemma at hand. To report and write on politics, human rights, or any issue of significance, a journalist must have free and unfettered access to information from any available source -- free of censorship, selective filtering, malicious tampering, or so-called "prior restraint," the interception and holding for "official approval" the journalist's work product or communications.
One of my primary sources of political information has been the web site Politico.com, founded in 2007 by two Washington Post reporters, John Harris and Jim Vandehei. The site, establishmentarian and conventional in its reporting style and point of view, nonetheless provides a reliable accounting of the day's political news, with a heavy inside-the-Beltway perspective. It's become a must-read for political operatives, journalists, and the so-called "paid disinformation agents" who can be found posting their thinly-veiled propaganda to the site each and every day. The most dedicated among these "disinfo trolls" are the first to comment on Politico stories as the are released, many in the very early morning hours. Who else but a paid troll would show up so regularly to issue wingnut rants at the 5 a.m. hour?
Aside from the spewings of the trolls, the "comments" section of Politico.com also has become a repository for thoughtful instant analysis by readers, many of whom rank as members of the power elite, bureaucrats, politicians and political thinkers (and of course, the scriveners who chronicle their deeds). Many interesting articles from obscure sources also get posted to the comments section; some of the articles show up in multiple "threads" and stay posted there, to be archived electronically by search engines such as Google and Yahoo!
Thus, the Politico.com comments section has become an electronic version of the Gates of Wittenberg, a bastion of "free speech" on an increasingly corporatized, monetized worldwide web.
That explains why, when I was still able to do so, I posted to Politico.com many of my NowPublic.com articles, about topics ranging from government-supported extrajudicial targeting, punishment, and community "gang stalking," to the transition to digital television. For example, an article about community gang stalking was posted to a Politico story about Eric Holder, President-elect Obama's choice for attorney general. My post had a headline deck which read, "MR. HOLDER: Please stop these abuses of power." Many of these posts had remained on the site for several months.
But it was a recent story provocatively headlined, "DOMESTIC TORTURE VIA RADIATION WEAPONRY: AMERICA'S HORRIFIC SHAME," that triggered an in-your-face "cyber-takedown" -- leaving me unable to post to the comments section of Politico (as I write this, it is Day Seven of my apparent banishment).
The story exposed what's been described as a modern-day slow genocide taking place in cities and towns across America -- the covert use of weaponry that emits silent, potentially lethal forms of radiation to harass, torture and sicken so-called "targets" of so-called "extrajudicial targeting" at the hands of a nationwide network of vigilante groups hiding behind government-funded citizen community policing, town watch, and business-related anti-terrorism programs.
On the morning of Friday, Jan. 2, my apparent censors opted for a show of brute force. When I checked my email, I found dozens upon dozens of messages purportedly from Politico.com, each informing me that a post was deleted from the site due to "inappropriate content." None contained anything "inappropriate." While some posts were made to multiple threads (something that's commonplace and widely tolerated on Politico), each was related in some way to the original Politico story.
I checked links to various articles I had recently posted, and found that virtually all of them were gone from the site -- along with the related Google links that had been posted to the net. Some links remained; but moments after I checked a cached copy of one of the articles, that item suddenly vanished, too -- a sign, I believe, that my internet connection is being "mirrored" in real time and subject to "remote computing" control (and content tampering) by a sophisticated third party surveillance operation.
Then I tried to use my password to log onto the Politico site. Anyone should be able to get onto the site, but logging in is required to post comments. I received a message that my account had been "deactivated" and to contact the site administrator.
I called the main number listed on the web site. I spoke to a woman who identified herself as an office manager. She said the take-down of my posts may have been a technical glitch, and she promised to get back to me.
I was somewhat incredulous that the take-down of dozens of posts and links could possibly be a "glitch." I still hadn't heard from her by the following week, so I called again. I was told to talk to Danielle Jones, a web manager. The person who said she was Ms. Jones informed me that my account was deactivated because I made multiple posts of the same articles to various threads. She called it "spamming." I disagree, but I did not debate her.
I offered to avoid doing that in the future, and asked that my account be reactivated. She said she was sorry, but she could not do that.
"Why?" I asked.
I got no answer. The voice on the other end was somewhat rude and abrupt.
So I called John Harris, Politico editor. I explained the situation to a person on the other end of the line who identified himself as John Harris. He promised to look into the situation.
I still hadn't heard back from Politico by Friday, a week after my posts came down along with my log in account, so I called and asked to speak to the office manager I had talked to originally. A voice on the other end repeated the line I got from "Ms. Jones" -- that I had posted the same item to multiple threads.
I repeated my pledge not to do that again, and once again asked that my account be reactivated.
"Why is there what seems to be a permanent ban on my posting to Politico?" I asked.
The woman on the other end said she had to grab another line.
A while later, she came back onto the line, and repeated the story about multiple posts, saying: "If anything changes, we will let you know."
I started to ask once again, "So you're saying I'm banned from posting to Politico?" But she hung up before I could finish the sentence.
I left another long message for John Harris. The call was not immediately returned. A week banned from posting to Politico, and still counting.
Notice I was careful to state that these people identified themselves as being from Politico. They sure did not sound like they were trying to keep the customer satisfied.
I openly wonder whether this whole episode wasn't some sort of concocted "Kabuki theater." Was I really talking to Politico staffers? Or was I conversing with impostors, operatives who are the ones truly responsible for my banishment from the ranks of Politico posters?
I would like to talk to John Harris to get to the truth of the matter. Perhaps he will read this, or someone else will call this column to his attention.
Or perhaps an over-reaching "National Security Letter" prevents him from speaking up?
Something very wrong is happening here. Why would Politico unilaterally move against this particular poster, one of many thousands who regularly post to the site? If I did violate rules against "spam," why wasn't I given a second chance after my offer to avoid making multiple posts of the same item to different threads?
Politico certainly has the legal right to edit and censor its web site. The First Amendment protects the site owner's free speech rights, not the rights of its readers, according to a recent Supreme Court decision (a decision that would seem to violate the spirit of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment; but that's an argument for another forum).
But if Politico is denying me posting privileges to its site at the order or suggestion of an agent of government, that is another matter entirely. That, in my opinion, is CENSORSHIP BY PROXY -- and I welcome the day the Supreme Court rules on that set of facts.
Perhaps what happened to me could be that test case.
ACLU, are you listening? I will make sure you get this column.
Better yet, readers: Will you please send it to them? My email is buggy (or "bugged"). Their link is www.aclu.org.
And Politico: Will you please give me the courtesy of answering this question: If you think I broke your rules, why would that warrant a permanent ban from posting to your site -- especially since your site is replete with multiple posts?
Or is Politico.com a willing, or perhaps unwitting, enforcement mechanism of government censorship by proxy?
John Harris, it's your move. I believe you owe me an answer -- along with all of your readers who would like to believe that you run an independent media outlet, one that values the First Amendment rights of site owners and readers alike.
FOR THE SHOCKING STORY ABOUT DOMESTIC TORTURE VIA RADIATION WEAPONRY:
http://my.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiation-weaponry-amer icas-horrific-shame
OR My.NowPublic.com/scrivener
Jan 18th, 2009 at 8:47pm
What more thankless task can there be than defending the First Amendment as the ACLU does, just so knuckle-dragging neanderthals can display their stupidity and ignorance about constitutional rights? They may not have a clue, but the day that cops come to their door for something they posted online, they'll sure wish they had ACLU.
Jan 22nd, 2009 at 12:14am
Hey a real patriot, hate to break it to you pal but the aforementioned role of the ACLU is not really in their mission statement. In fact, nowhere does it say that the organization would protect any individual who suspected of committing a crime on the internet. I’m pretty sure the ACLU does not defend those who solicit sex online. By the way, a more thankless task than defending the First Amendment, being a mother. P.S. The ACLU gets more than enough praise.
Jan 22nd, 2009 at 12:19am
If Raed Jarrar started acting up on my plane, I would stand him up and sit him down. You don’t play around on planes. If your on my plane and looking for a fight, your going to get one.