American Airlines' Preaching Pilot

In article ,
"Mike Painter" wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Painter" wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"Mike Painter" wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...

Same as there are anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal
offense. The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable
topics of discussion.

????
"Say that again and I'm going to slap you." is clearly a threat,

Not necessarily. If it's said between friends in a joking manner,
it's not a threat at all.

Nor is it if I said it to you in this email or on the phone and
absolutely intended on doing it.
The California penal code makes the ability to act part of the crime.
If I can't slap you when I say it it is not a criminal offense.
Next you'll be telling me I have to be inside to commit a burglary.

Why would I be telling you that?

Maybe it is a trick question.

Well, it's something because I have no intention of even bringing up the
subject.

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

[snip]

And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane
or not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say
the word "bomb" either, for instance.

Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew
on airlines myself.

You are lucky. Others have been arrested.

It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for
discussing security precautions.

I did not know that you were a security person involved in the
airlines.

I'm not.

Ok, so why was it acceptable for you to discuss bombs with the
flight crew? Non-flight related security people don't have
special rights on airplanes.

I'm not involved in flight security. Doesn't mean I'm not a cop. A whole
host of federal and state police agents and officers fly armed every day
wihtout being directly involved with airline security.

In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws
and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights
under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of
this than the rest of us.

Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense.
The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable
topics of discussion.

For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional.

Nonsense. Laws can and do restrict speech. The government needs
an overriding interest,

Actually, they need a "compelling state interest". However, prior
restraint is almost never upheld as constitutional and a laundry list of
acceptable topics, with "religion" being among them, would never past
muster.

The Court wouldn't even allow the government to use prior restraint then
the NY Times was going to publish sensitive Pentagon documents detailing
troop strength and movements in Vietnam. If that wasn't a compelling state
interest, banning religious discussion on planes sure isn't.

You know, someone might think that I had said something about
prior restraint

They would be right in thinking that, too, since that's exactly what
you've done, albeit unwittingly (apparently).

We both know that is not so.

A more accurate statement would be that one us *thinks* that is not so.

A list of forbidden topics would not be prior
restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is
prior restraint.

Huh? First, there is no legal doctrine in 1st Amendment jurisprudence
called "prior notification".

Second, the Court has never limited prior restraint analysis to just the
press. Any governmental action prohibiting speech ahead of time (as
opposed to punishing it after it happens) is prior restraint.

A government prohibition on airline passengers discussing religion would
fit any definition of prior restraint promulgated by the Court.

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ...

This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the
contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having your
reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a
lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to have
been codified in your contract.


I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives
him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I
hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters. If I buy an
airline ticket, I'm legally entering into a contract when I provide
consideration in exchange for the agreement to transport me. I might
be furnished with airline tickets or a piece of paper saying I have a
"ticketless" reservation, but it would be rare that I would be given a
copy of the conditions at the time of the contract. I don't find the
argument that their employees don't have to adhere to established
policies to be a compelling one just because I wasn't handed a copy of
them when I paid my money.

The rest would be pretty much moot anyway since there are very
specific circumstances here. It would also not make much difference
even if it is specified in the contract with the passenger if there is
no harm done since, even if it's considered actionable, there's no
damage. So having it in the contract itself would not be relevant for
something intangible -- if they did promise me red carpeting and I got
green but could not show why it made a difference, the fact that it's
in the contract would not allow me to win a judgement. Likewise, if I
have a reasonable expectation and there's no specific rule either in
the employee handbook or in my contract, I'd have a valid claim it it
were harmful. If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be
responsible regardless of contracts, and the fact that they don't
explcitly tell pilots not to molest children would be irrelevant. So
I don't think there are any real world ramifications to this point.

In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
...

This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the
contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having
your
reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a
lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to
have been codified in your contract.


I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives
him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I
hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters.

Now all you have to do is show that

(1) American Airlines' internal policies prohibit the flight crew from
discussing religion with the passengers, and

(2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about
these internal policies when they bought their tickets.

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from BTR1701
:

[snip]

And the pilots and the other flight personnel. "Their" plane
or not, they are restricted. I don't think any of them can say
the word "bomb" either, for instance.

Sure they can. I've discussed such things with the flight crew
on airlines myself.

You are lucky. Others have been arrested.

It would be rather odd for one cop to be arresting another for
discussing security precautions.

I did not know that you were a security person involved in the
airlines.

I'm not.

Ok, so why was it acceptable for you to discuss bombs with the
flight crew? Non-flight related security people don't have
special rights on airplanes.

I'm not involved in flight security. Doesn't mean I'm not a cop. A whole
host of federal and state police agents and officers fly armed every day
wihtout being directly involved with airline security.

In which case lets cut to the chase: what are the laws
and regulations governing behavior and speech on airline flights
under U.S. jurisdiction? You should have a better knowledge of
this than the rest of us.

Same as there anywhere else. Making threats is a criminal offense.
The laws don't provide a laundry list of acceptable or unacceptable
topics of discussion.

For good reason, since such a law would be unconstitutional.

Nonsense. Laws can and do restrict speech. The government needs
an overriding interest,

Actually, they need a "compelling state interest". However, prior
restraint is almost never upheld as constitutional and a laundry list of
acceptable topics, with "religion" being among them, would never past
muster.

The Court wouldn't even allow the government to use prior restraint then
the NY Times was going to publish sensitive Pentagon documents detailing
troop strength and movements in Vietnam. If that wasn't a compelling state
interest, banning religious discussion on planes sure isn't.

You know, someone might think that I had said something about
prior restraint

They would be right in thinking that, too, since that's exactly what
you've done, albeit unwittingly (apparently).

Not even close.

We both know that is not so.

A more accurate statement would be that one us *thinks* that is not so.

A more accurate is that one of us mistakenly thinks this has
anything to do with prior restraint.

A list of forbidden topics would not be prior
restraint, it would be prior notification. Stopping the press is
prior restraint.

Huh? First, there is no legal doctrine in 1st Amendment jurisprudence
called "prior notification".

If I tell you now that something is against the law, that is not
prior restraint. It would be notification of the law before
(prior) to you committing the act. I am sorry if you thought I
meant the term as a legal term.

Second, the Court has never limited prior restraint analysis to just the
press.

Nor have I suggested otherwise. You keep bring up irrelevant
issues.

Any governmental action prohibiting speech ahead of time (as
opposed to punishing it after it happens) is prior restraint.

Any government action *preventing* speech ahead of time is prior
restraint. Prohibiting is fine. If you punish without prohibition
yo get into the ex post facto clause. It is illegal for the
government to act to prevent unwanted speech, it is ok (given
other constraints are satisfied) to prohibit speech.

A government prohibition on airline passengers discussing religion would
fit any definition of prior restraint promulgated by the Court.

Not at all. It would be wrong for other reasons but not prior
restraint. Sending a government agent to the airplane to prevent
them from talking before they spoke the unlawful speech is prior
restraint. Stopping a speaker because they might say bad things
is prior restraint. Saying it is wrong to do X is not
*restraint*.

Let us take a recent other example. It was illegal in some state
or another to use vulgar language in front of women and children.
That is a prohibition. Someone was actually charged under that
law. That is not *prior* restraint. The court struck down the
case not because of any prior issues, but because it was
allowable free speech.


--
Matt Silberstein

I want to be different, I just don't want to change.

In article ,
BTR1701 wrote:

In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
...

This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the
contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having
your
reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win you a
lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have to
have been codified in your contract.


I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives
him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I
hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters.

Now all you have to do is show that

(1) American Airlines' internal policies prohibit the flight crew from
discussing religion with the passengers, and

(2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about
these internal policies when they bought their tickets.

nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead
remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the
passengers

his explanation that 'god told him to say it' is even more scary than
the original notion that he was just carried away by the enthusiasm of
his mission trip -- after all god has been known to 'tell people' to do
all sort of scary things like 'kill your son' or 'drive that plane into
a building'

Jenn wrote:

nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead
remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the
passengers

his explanation that 'god told him to say it' is even more scary than
the original notion that he was just carried away by the enthusiasm of
his mission trip -- after all god has been known to 'tell people' to do
all sort of scary things like 'kill your son' or 'drive that plane into
a building'

The passengers did not know that God told him to say it. That was
revealed after the flight. Do you think that "tell others about your
faith" is the same as driving a plane into a building?

In article , Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
BTR1701 wrote:

In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
...

This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of
the contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers.
Having your reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win
you a lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have
to have been codified in your contract.


I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives
him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I
hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters.

Now all you have to do is show that

(1) American Airlines' internal policies prohibit the flight crew from
discussing religion with the passengers, and

(2) That all the passengers who threatening to sue actually knew about
these internal policies when they bought their tickets.

nonsense --- the issue isn't the rules -- it is whether a bonehead
remark by a pilot was reasonably interpretted as threatening to the
passengers

That seems to have *become* the issue. The original issue-- before all
the reports of the passengers feeling threatened filtered in-- was that
folks here would have sued just for being proselytized to.

"jwk" wrote in message
om...
"Nik" wrote in message
...
"Mike Painter" wrote in message
...

I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument
that
a
reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement
to a
captive audience during an airplane flight might do irreparable harm
to
them
in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone
"knows"
crazy religious people flew into buildings.

I wouldn't be surprised either. But I am sure that this kind of ruling
would
only be possible in an US court - and perhaps a few of those countries
that
most Americans would not be too happy to be compared to....


Nik.

Really? I would have thought that France would be more likely to come
to mind, considering recent events.

jwk

You could well be right on this one.

Nik

Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
This is not correct. The airline's internal rules are not a part of the
contractual arrangement between the airline and its passengers. Having
your reasonable expectations violated, once again, is not going to win
you a lawsuit. Either you have to show harm, or those expectations have
to have been codified in your contract.

I disagree. If I hire somebody to do something, and his boss gives
him a set of parameters, and I'm aware of those parameters before I
hire him, I expect him to work within those parameters.

How many passengers, do you suppose, would be able to point to a clause in
the pilot's contract that forbade him from talking about God on the P.A.?

If I buy an airline ticket, I'm legally entering into a contract when I
provide consideration in exchange for the agreement to transport me. I
might be furnished with airline tickets or a piece of paper saying I have
a "ticketless" reservation, but it would be rare that I would be given a
copy of the conditions at the time of the contract. I don't find the
argument that their employees don't have to adhere to established policies
to be a compelling one just because I wasn't handed a copy of them when I
paid my money.

You're missing what seems to me to be a very simple point, so I will repeat
it again.

You have a contract with the airline. It says you will give them money and
they will give you transportation.

The pilot has a contract with the airline. It says that he will fly planes
and behave reasonably and they will give him money.

There is no leakage between contracts. If the pilot fails to live up to his
obligations to the airline, that's between him and them.

The only thing that involves you is your arrangement with the airline. The
airline at no point represented that they would provide you a Christ-free
flight experience. And they got you where they promised to. So contracts are
out of the picture. The only thing that's left is the possibility that you
can demonstrate harm, which has nothing to do with any contracts.

Before you come back with "but passengers were scared" and all that,
remember that we are not talking about that. If you have any confusion over
what you have or have not written, I encourage you to go back and re-read
your previous postings before wasting any more bits.

If a pilot molests my child, the airline would be responsible regardless
of contracts, and the fact that they don't explcitly tell pilots not to
molest children would be irrelevant.

I can't believe you had the nerve to pick on my analogy when you trot out
stinking whoppers like that. Shame on you.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/