Anti-war Protester Kicked Out?

[latreal]

From USA Today

Woman displaying anti-war poster says she was taken from airport
DALLAS (AP) — An Albuquerque woman says she was ejected from a Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport terminal after showing military recruits an anti-war campaign poster.
Carole Ward, 57, showed the recruits an 8 1/2- by 11-inch poster of a composite illustration of President Bush made up of the faces of soldiers who have died in Iraq. It bore the title "Faces of Death."

Some people found the poster offensive and the woman became belligerent with an American Airlines gate agent, said Tim Wagner, a spokesman for the airline.

Ward made some passengers feel uncomfortable while waiting to board her airplane during a thunderstorm Tuesday night and presented a security threat, he said.

"She's not only going around talking to these recruits, saying they shouldn't join the Army, they shouldn't fight in the war, she's also forcing the poster on them," Wagner said.

Ward, who was returning home from a Libertarian convention in Atlanta, said she started a conversation with a few of several dozen recruits in the airport.

She passed around the poster that had messages to elect Libertarian Aaron Russo president and to stop a possible military draft.

Wagner said some people thought the poster had pictures of soldiers' bodies. He said the material could be considered offensive.

Although Wagner said the gate agent asked airport police to remove the woman from the secure side of the terminal, airport spokesman Ken Capps said the officers only monitored the situation and Ward left on her own.

She said she was forced to leave the airport without her bag or shoes, which she left on the airplane, and spend the night in a hotel.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

So much for having an opinion in the good old USA anymore. I've seen the poster in question, it's rather ingenious and obviously took a lot of time to create. It does only contain the faces of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing else. I didn't find it offensive in any way. It does convey however, an extremely powerful message, especially with the house senate bills on re-instating the draft looming over our heads (and no one was told about it).

We have to admit, our military is spread entirely too thin, there aren't enough "bodies" to go around. They have been extending hitches for some time now and those who re-up are being told it will be for much longer than usual, but that they'll get military retirement sooner than 20 years.

It is unfortunate that this incident had to have an AA attachment to it, she could have been at any airline, but the AA employee appears to have made a political decision, and one involving a citizens first amendment rights. That isn't going to bode well on the political front.

In the meantime, congress is ready to start talking about re-regulating the industry . . . or some of it at least. That could be interesting

 

[ual06]

There is an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

First amendment rights are identical. All have a right to not be harassed.

 

[jetdryvr]

Wing,

No matter your political ideas, how do you turn this into an AA political statement. An agent determined that the lady was harrassing our customers, probably after several complaints, and made an attempt to resolve the situation. I would expect the same if she was handing out Bush 2004 posters if it was causing a problem.

Jetdryvr

Bush 2004

When we defended the second amendment as much as we defend the first amendment we can stop whining about the first. Selective freedoms are no freedoms at all.

 

[TWAnr]

There is an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

First amendment rights are identical. All have a right to not be harassed.

There is a major difference between distributing or displaying literature, which is a form of constitutionally protected expression, and violent application of physical force.

In the case of International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, involving the The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates the Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark airports, the United States Supreme Court held, in 1992, that a governmental airport authority may not constitutionally prohibit the distribution of literature in airport terminals because such a ban violated the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment is a limitation on government, not a grant of power. Its design is to prevent the government from controlling speech." - Justice Kennedy

Before you accuse the Justices in the majority of being liberal, the lead per curiam opinion was written entirely by Republican (i.e. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush) appointees.

 

[mweiss]

Couple of things to note, however.

1) They prohibited the government from such restrictions, because the 1st Amendment prohibits the US government from such restrictions, and that prohibition was extended to the states through the 14th Amendment.

2) This case is about a private business. The US courts have repeatedly held that private businesses are not subject to the same level of scrutiny when it comes to restricting free speech as are governmental agencies.

What would have to be established in this case is whether the restriction on free speech in this case was within the authority of the private business, or was within the authority of the state. If the latter, then AA would be deemed as acting as an agent of the state, and thus overstepped their bounds. If the former, on the other hand, the arrest would stand.

 

[TWAnr]

This case is about a private business. The US courts have repeatedly held that private businesses are not subject to the same level of scrutiny when it comes to restricting free speech as are governmental agencies.

According to the news item, airport police "monitored" her departure from the secure side of the terminal. She said that she was forced to leave the airport without her bag or shoes and to spend the night in a hotel.

Sounds like governmental action to me, using the color of authority to compel not so voluntary action by her.

 

[mweiss]

However, were they monitoring her to suppress her 1st Amendment rights, or because she was by that time accused of trespassing?

Understand, I'm strictly looking at this from the perspective of the law.

 

[TWAnr]

Understand, I'm strictly looking at this from the perspective of the law.

I don't think that AA, as a private company has the authority to remove anyone from the secure area of an airport. That is within the jurisdiction of the airport authority, the airport police or the TSA. It would appear that AA removed the offender from the secured part of the terminal with the implicit approval of the airport police and probably at their behest. The police spokesperson knew enough concerning the legal limitations on such actions to choose the words about their involvement very carefully. "Monitoring" the removal, in my opinion, elevated it to governmental action. If it is determined that there was not governmental action involved, AA is probably liable for some tortious act for infringing on the lady's free speech rights by removing her from the area without having proper legal right to do so. I suspect that, ultimately, the courts will have the final say on the matter.

 

[mweiss]

I don't think that AA, as a private company has the authority to remove anyone from the secure area of an airport.

That's what I'm unsure of...an airline leases gates, of course. But when one is a leaseholder, one typically is treated as the temporary owner of trespass rights, such that even the deedholder doesn't have the right to trespass. So, when an airline leases a gate, how much of the property are they actually leasing? And what rights do they have as the leaseholder?

 

[TWAnr]

The Supreme Court has held that the right of free speech extends to the secured areas of airports. The opinion made no distinction between gate areas and common areas of terminals.

At every airport that I have been to, airport security was the domain of the police department which had jurisdiction over the airport and of the TSA, not of individual carriers. Police are generally called to handle the situation when problems arise.

Even if AA had the leasehold on the area where the woman was displaying her poster, that area, by the definition of the court, is a public area for free speech purposes. AA did not have the legal right to expel her for merely expressing her point of view. Having removed her from the secured part of the airport against her will may very well be an actionable tort.

 

[mweiss]

...that area, by the definition of the court, is a public area for free speech purposes.

Not that I disbelieve you, but I'm curious if you have any links to decisions that back up that position.

Understand that just because the police have jurisdiction over the area doesn't make it government-controlled. If someone is trespassing on my property, I am not legally authorized to use deadly force to remove the person from the property in most states (Texas is an interesting exception). The police, however, in all states, have the authority to forcibly remove trespassers from my property, even if I am only the leaseholder.

 

[TWAnr]

Not that I disbelieve you, but I'm curious if you have any links to decisions that back up that position.

Do you have access to Lexis or WestLaw?

If you do, I'll be happy to send you some links. You may be able to research the issue on www.findlaw.com, which is a free, albeit, inferior service.

For what it is worth, private venues open to the public, such as shopping centers, must allow political free speech in areas which are accessible to the public. It is different than private property which is not open to public use, such as your back yard or private office. American Airlines had no right to eject her from the secure area of the airport if she presented no physical harm to others. Governmental action by the police or by AA acting on behest of the police, if any, only adds to the number of legal violations.

 

[mweiss]

I have access to Lexis. I agree about private areas generally accessible to the public. I guess since it's government restricting access to airside, any restrictions necessarily become governmental restrictions.

 

[DFWCC]

As much as I served for and love my country, the "1st right" is dead. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, freedom of thought yes but don't tell anyone.
Why can some entertainers use the "N" word on tv and you use the same word at work.... Good Night... Bye Bye... you're out of work.
Take for instance the recent cross on the city of LA logo soon to be gone offended the ACLU. What if the crescent as in moon, "according to FUNK and WAGNALLS a sign of Moslem power," offends me. Are we now not to use the crescent on any icons?


WHEN THE INMATES ARE RELAESED ONLY THE SANE WILL BE INSANE