Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air.
And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.
Anyone willing to start a fight over a tacky WiFi name should be committed. Seriously, what an insane thing to do. It's such an easy thing to not be bothered by. It sits in the background, invisible, and you're... just letting it live rent free in your head? There's so many more annoying things to flying than someone's dumb personal hotspot name.
Can we just recognize how crazy of a scenario this is?
The argument is that if I'm responsible for the safety of a very heterogenous group of people in the cabin of my airplane, I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would. And that's all that matters in that moment.
> If they're that crazy you put them in a hospital because clearly they need help
I think the point here is the captain is responsible for an isolated pocket of humanity in a cabin. That captain is to take that cabin way up in the air, move it a lot, and get it back down safely.
And not all of the risks are about moving the cabin. Many of the risks are within the cabin and while some dickhead getting uppity at the pub will get collared by the police, it is a totally different problem while in the air.
So, while in the cabin, don't try to fuck around and find out. No one wants to find out anything. They just want to get to the other end of the trip.
We fundamentally agree about who is in the right and the wrong.
The issue is timing and consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Consider:
Person makes loud free speech statement - which though perfectly legal - is contentious. Person B gets upset and uses their freedom of speech to shout back.
At the pub:
Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day.
But they can leave. Usually they at least make space.
The pub can ask the talkers to leave - either one or both, as it is their private property. And if violence occurs Bouncer/Police drag away the violent person without much likelihood of harm to others.
On the plane:
Everyone else is uncomfortable and just want to get on with their day. But they cannot leave! They cannot make space! There may be elderly next to kids of varying ages. There is no bouncer, police is even worse for business and affects everyone on the plane just wanting to get to their destination. Tight constraints mean physical violence is likely to hurt someone unrelated to the conflict.
And so Captains clamp down on contentious statements ASAP to make sure it doesn't escalate that far. You are allowed to make contentious statements, and they are allowed to ask you to leave, because the plane is not public property.
Nobody wants to fly next to the loud nervous talker. Or the crying baby. But people understand these actions are not by choice and so there is tolerance.
Contentious/provocative statements though? That's a choice. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
It is better for everyone involved if the desire to spout views is simply delayed until the flight is over.
I honestly wish you perfect freedom to do whatever, whenever, wherever along with perfect lack of consequences of your actions for the rest of the universe....
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Sure, but if you punch someone in the face for a political statement then you go to jail for assault. Full stop.
Your scenarios are nowhere near the one we're talking about. It's a WiFi device name. Do you know the SSIDs of your neighbors? When's the last time you checked?
It's not the equivalent of someone shouting or even talking loudly. You have to actively do things to see that device name. It is, without action on your part, invisible.
The scenario is closer to walking up to someone, asking what their shirt says, and then getting mad. This isn't someone getting in your face. You won't even know who owns the device!
You can simply connect to the plane's WiFi and then continue ignoring the names of all the other devices on the plane. You don't even have to connect to the plane's WiFi!
You're being absurd. Come on. It is so fucking easy to go about your life without ever knowing the device name of any person sitting on your plane. It's also incredibly easy to just let it go and move on with your life. Why are you letting such a dumb thing consume your mind and make you so angry? Why are you trying so hard to defend people who are actively looking to fight?
Define crazy. Because you sound crazy to me. The point of view depends on where you sit. Some other people maybe want to put you in prison, for your „craziness“. Care for what you wish.
> I will assume that those people are already stressed and will probably act even less rational than they normally would
They turned what most passengers considered at most tasteless into a real threat worthy of returning to base. How can this possibly help with the stress? If this was to reduce stress, it was disproportionate and backfired in a major way.
Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name?
Everything about flying is getting worse. The process of buying the tickets full of shady practices and dark patters, the check-in, the boarding process, the cabin luggage getting smaller for the same type of ticket, the ever more cramped seats, the removal of the old amenities like free food or snacks. They are all getting more terrible and adding stress. From what I can tell from my own ticket purchases with the same airlines in the past, the prices kept up with inflation over the past decades but the services have fallen far behind.
> Why are airlines adding to every part of that stress but drawing the line at a device's BT name?
Serving alcohol: no problem!
Tacky device name: oh no! Someone might be offended and start a fight! We can't let that happen!!!!
This is so many levels of absurd and it's incredible how many people are defending crazy people. I never thought it would be contentious to claim that we should punish people for being tacky just because they might trigger people that are institutional amounts of crazy.
I mean if the real concern is that a fight might break out, well I sure know a bigger "social lubricant" than a tiny protest that most people are never ever going to see.
It really seems like people in the threads are doing the exact same thing.
The only argument they are making is that you shouldn't be allowed to make you're device's name <Something Politically Tacky> because... it might make unstable and irrational people upset.
Why the fuck are we protecting unstable and irrational people? Punish them? What is so difficult about this? Seriously
It certainly does. My original comment was a suggestion that you don't lean on your rights when boarding a plane and wanting to broadcast your personality (not your politics specifically), because it's not your space and treating others as your captive audience is inconsiderate.
You've posted 16 times in this subthread and seem unable to accept any other point of view than complete agreement.
Do people get kicked out for offensive t-shirts and tattoos? How about bad cologne, good cologne, bad BO, or just for being so ugly that it's offensive?
Actually this did happen recently. And it didn't go over so well either... for the airlines.
It's something that never should have happened in the first place. (I'm agreeing with you, but stupid shit does happen and we should stop enabling people to act so dumb)
Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'?
That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.
1. Does the pilot need anything but his personal biases to claim that poses a risk to the plane?
2. Because any rational person understands that we need to coexist in a society with a spectrum of political opinion, and that a fucking access point name doesn't cross the boundary between safe and dangerous to society.
3. Because doing it for one and not the other is obviously biased and arbitrary and demonstrates that it's not an actual danger to the plane, it's just some asshole with a bad day choosing to exercise his authority over someone whose politics he dislikes. To severe consequences to both that person and everyone else on board the plane. That's not a society you want to strive for.
I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the better solution for airlines be to ban clothing, stickers, military uniforms, etc., that have countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. on them? As if someone believes that turning around planes over it is reasonable, better to address that 'problem' even before taking off and costing large amounts of money and time for hundreds of others, instead of based on the whim(?) of a pilot hours into a flight.
1. In what way is it a risk to the plane? Or is the idea that we should not attempt to evaluate whether pilot's decisions are objective and reasonable? Is there some objective rule being used? (Or if an objective rule can't be stated, is it more like the pilot's feelings or mood about the passenger(s) at any particular moment?)
2. But if someone believes it's reasonable for pilots to turn planes around based on whether someone is wearing a pro or anti Biden/Trump shirt, etc. wouldn't the better solution for airlines to just proactively ban clothing, stickers, etc. with countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. rather than having pilots turn around planes midflight based on a whim(?), costing hundreds of people large amounts of time and money?
Part H:
Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:
5. Passengers who are barefoot, not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive;
Is the point here that clothing containing a pro or anti Biden or Trump, or have a countries' flag, or be a US military uniform, should "pose a risk to his plane", and so airlines should be proactively banning such things from being allowed onboard? Or how does it answer the grandparent and great-grandparent's comments questions about why such thing should "pose a risk to his plane"?
> If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane
Exactly
> as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction?
But it is absolutely batshit insane that we would punish the person with a tacky device name. You are punishing the wrong people. Punish the people who think it is okay to start a fight over something that is so easy to ignore.
This is such an insane thing we're doing. We're policing the behavior of functioning adults because it might upset dysfunctional adults? Why the hell are we creating a society that protects crazy people? It's absolutely insane
> One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans
No it isn't. You can read that implication into it, but it's not "actively hostile" in the way that an "F... X" statement is, for any X, and it's a sign of how slanted the discourse is that you would consider them equivalent.
Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air.
And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.