Congress Bans Banner Towers

[Timebuilder]

Simmer down, son.

I'm just suggesting a possible reason that the planes won't be towing ANY messages at all: to keep away those messages that might panic some folks who are already wary of attending a large public gathering, causing injury or death by that panic. Ever see panic in a soccer stadium?

Try to be critical within the framework of the post, ok?

 

[Timebuilder]

If you had the civics classes that you are asking about, you would know that there are many instances where speech has not been upheld as protected speech. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is one famous example. Telling an airline ticket agent that you hope there isn't a bomb on board is another. There are literally dozens of examples.

People can solicit business and businesses can refuse the same based on personal politics. I don't know too many towers in this country that would haul that banner. If this is all you have, I'd say this argument kinda sucks.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I prefaced my "theory" by alluding to the ficticious banner operator having lost a court case challenging his right to refuse to carry the banner.


The example I am giving, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the grounding of banner towing aircraft, is just another perspective on the problem of terrorism.

Terrorism, you see, is in the mind of the terrrorized. If enough people are panicked by a message flown over a stadium, perhaps suggesting to them that they are about to be harmed, then you have a situation of true "terrorism".

You have only to look at what happened in a Chcago night club recently. Pepper spray isn't deadly, but if it makes people think that they are under a terror attack using chemical weapons, the result can be deadly.

So you see, a clear danger to public safety and well being is more than enough reason to legally restrict certain types of speech.

Understand?

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Terrorism

I agree Timebuilder; the problem we have now is that we are giving the terrorists exactly what they want. They wanted to destroy our economy. With Tom Ridge and company as well as congress running around telling everyone the sky is falling tomorrow, the economy is in the toilet and will remain there. To be free, we must accept some level of risk. A free people cannot remain free if we are governed so tightly to remove all risk to personal safety.

As Americans, we must accept some level of risk in return for our freedom. I do not know who said it, but it remains that "freedom is not free". That saying does not only go for those who put their necks on the line for us in the military.

 

[Timebuilder]

I agree.

The next time I see Mohammed heading for the cockpit carrying a banned nail clipper, I'll be on him like a cheap suit!

Seriously though, this is untrod territory for our government, and for us as a people. The economy is suffering from several ills that are not related to terrorism, and the total of these various elements has served to impede the recovery. It's coming. No business cycle stays down forever.

Imagine being Tom Ridge. How will history judge you if you do too little, or are afraid to face the realities of this threat in a forthright manner? Remember, he is privy to information that we are not, and there is massive amounts of info that must be sifted through daily. It's a daunting task.

Osama and his friends haven't won. I can chuckle at the duct tape flying off the shelves. So can you.

I just hope we made that duct tape HERE, in the USA.

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Duct tape

I chuckle a bit at that as well; I agree the economy had problems pre 9-11, but the terrorism fears are definitely impeading a recovery I think would have started a year ago...

On the serious side, I learned enough about NBC over 12 years (including ROTC) in the Army to not bother with plastic or duct tape....

I know Ridge has a tough job, but it seems like more then a little CYA goin on here. He doesn't want to be attacked as the CIA and FBI have been in congress since 9-11. Why is it that we seem more worried about blame than fixing problems....? oh well, I know you are right about business cycles; just waiting this one out with everyone else and getting impatient...

 

[Timebuilder]

Why do we worry about blame? That's easy.

If we don't worry about being blamed for not acting quicky enough or most effectively (Mrs. Clinton has already come out against the administration's handling of the terror attacks) then the media and the opposition will have a field day lambasting our efforts. Therefore, we must make every effort possible to inform and prepare the population.

Why is that possibility of being blamed a problem?

Imagine Dashle or Gephart or Madame Clinton as president, attempting to mollify and coddle and placate the evil in the world, in a Carter-esq show of weakness and unwillingness to defend the United States.

How would you feel about Osama making a "state visit" to the White House?

I find the image nauseating.

 

[rightrudder]

I'm not a simmering son, Timebuilder... I won't make any assumptions of who or what you are either.

But back to another example of yours, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. I agree with you there and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits on free speech, the fire example is taken directly from a ruling by the court.

But, the difference here is theater patrons are not gagged prior to entering the theater, just in case one of them might yell out.

They are punished if in fact, their actions or words result in harm.

Restricting speech in a preemptive manner is a serious threat to our civil liberties.

 

[Timebuilder]

You're right.

I'm making an assumption that you are perhaps more than 18 years younger than myself, and could be, by American tradition, addressed as "son". Judging by my own age, I am probably right.

No offense intended.

This is only a guess about the motives for banning the banner tows, and this thread is only a discussion.

Under normal circumstances, you might be right about "preemptive" barring of speech, but these are different times. And indeed, the supporters of our enemies have a very loud voice without our adding to it. Can you hear it? It has a French accent.

 

[rightrudder]

Timebuilder,

You are right unless you are eligible for the AARP...and if i've recently had my gender reclassified

I know we are no longer in "normal" circumstances, but the truth is that this may actually be what normal has become and will remain.

Our country has had a great history of permitting people to disagree, even with their own government. It would be a tragedy if we should lose that opportunity.

I'm afraid that we are headed down a slippery slope when we consider a persons words or thoughts to be dangerous.

 

[Timebuilder]

I DO get those darn AARP mailings. Most folks don't know that we are using our own tax dollars to fund this organization that lobbies congress for the retired! This may not be in YOUR best interest, or mine.

I had a 90% chance on the gender issue. My bad.

Actually, threats have been unprotected speech for a long time. What once was considered mere political rhetoric is now more threatening, becuase it can generate terror.