top 56 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 1 year ago (1 child)

This looks like some particularly ironical art installation that will fly above the head of most viewers..

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    The U.S. Supreme Court determined that airports could not be considered a public forum to practice free speech. According to the ruling, airports exist solely for air travel and not for free expression.

    Prior to the court’s decision, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, a not-for-profit religious corporation, would often practice going into public places to distribute literature and asking for donations to support their religion.

    Since 1992, airports across the country have adopted regulations governing speech, such as Lambert’s “Free Speech” booths.

    https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/why-does-lambert-airport-have-free-speech-booths/#%3A%7E%3Atext=One+booth+sits+directly+inside%2Cliterature%2C+or+petitioning+and+protesting.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To give them a designated spot to stay in so they're not wandering around bothering people waiting to collect their bags from baggage claim. It limits disruptive and frankly antisocial behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But you could just kick them out or refuse them entry to the airport as they aren't required to permit free speech?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I'm not trying to justify or leap to any defense, just trying to understand myself.

    But I'm kind of getting the feeling that they are trying to do a catch-all.

    For all practical purposes, if it was a free-for-all of people treating airports like public forums, it just keeps sliding. The reason the airport is there is to facilitate people's travel, travelers don't want to be annoyed by constant destractions, let's face it, customs and enforcement wants the least amount of chaos. The airport doesn't want to bear the continual cost of extra staff to manage. Police don't want to have a hotspot of constant nuisance calls.

    I think this type of post really inflames people, but in a way it seems to have practical purpose. I'm not even sure that it implies that free speech is not allowed in the airport. Just like tacitly... Dear annoying assholes that hide behind Free Speech, go stand here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 109 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    "OK, have fun. Enjoy your right to free speech. The armed forces welcomes your dissent."

    Screen grab of the "Free Speech Zone" from Arrested Development season 1, episode 20: "Whistler's Mother". It is a fenced in cage in the middle of nowhere where protests are allowed to occur. A protester inside holds a placard: "LARGER FREE SPEECH ZONE".

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    There's someone who could have used a mother.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    WHORE!

    Edit: downvoters don't know arrested development. And it shows.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    *Downvoter. You have exactly one downvote like half of all lemmy comments ever and felt the need to edit your comment just to talk down to an imaginary strawman over a meme. Ill never understand you or anyone like you who does this. Here, enjoy your second downvote so your semantic mistake can be retroactively fixed atleast.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Lol

    I'll never understand people like you that barge into a comedic thread and make Lemmy super serious while being so drastically wrong.

    Please reevaluate your priorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think your comment currently has so many downvotes because people dislike seeing people whine about downvotes. As the commenter above mentioned, at the time of your edit, your comment only had one downvote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But that's not true. When I made my edit I already had several down votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago
    [–] 25 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    What do you think would happen if someone went in there an yelled bomb?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    No, it wouldn’t.

    Jesus Christ has no one taken a civics class or studied how your government works?

    Free speech limitations are clearly set with multiple case precedent. You would be arrested, convicted, and banned from ever flying. Full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Well then that's not free speech. If there are any limitations, even sensible ones, it needs a different name. Like, limited speech for example

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Free speech is rooted in the founding idea that you can speak or print your opinion about a government without a government’s reprisal.

    Like most rights, these are codified and then matured or refined over time in the form of amendments.

    I would very much like to change the name of the 14th amendment for all that it matters, since it now protects corporate personhood over individuals, but I digress.

    Free speech is, again like other rights, not to be enshrined where it would allow you to do harm to others. You have the right to preach in an airport or say the government is hiding aliens or that the president is a shit bird. You do not have the right to cause a panic by screaming fire or bomb, as this had the very real harm to other’s safety in crowded public places. You can’t scream fire in a theater, for the same reason.

    The most simple way to put this is that your rights end at your nose, not other people’s noses.

    You can’t harm other’s freedom to operate unmolested, and where we draw that line is the foundation of English law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're an idiot. You have the freedom to speak in whatever way you want. You do not have the freedom from the consequences of misusing that very same speech.

    In exactly the same way you have the right to bear arms but do not have the right to use those arms to attack your fellow citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Free speech means freedom from legal consequences. If it's a crime to say a thing, and there is a penalty for saying them, then it's a misnomer to call it free speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    That's where you've got this whole concept fucked up. You can say whatever you want. You cannot say whatever you want in any manner that you want. It's ALL about time, place, and manner. Time, place, and manner restrictions have always and will always be a part of the freedom of speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I think Milwaukee has similar

  • source
  • Bring your own helmets

  • source
  • Relevant bit from Airplane!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Is this the Terminal 1 baggage claim area?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Are you allowed to say, "bomb" when you stand behind the counter?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Wait, how? Not like in general, obviously it sucks here, but how is this particularly egregious....?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Because no where else in the world with free speech is this considered at all, let alone considered a good idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ...no where else in the world with free speech...

    Now, think about what you had to qualify there, and try to recognize what it means. Of all the places where free speech is tolerated, this is unacceptable -to the silent, powerless masses. 😶🤌🏼

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    You think ya'll don't have community spaces? I have 100% seen things like this flying into numerous European countries and in the larger train stations, they just didn't have the obnoxiously ostentatious signs (which I sorta appreciate having, though it's form is laughable it's a decent warning about what's going on there so you can avoid it like the plague). It's pretty common to have some sort of designated managed space within public spaces, with an admitted abstraction it's not all that different from getting parade permits or reserving space in a park.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You think this is a community space?

    What a shithole country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    I think that's commonly what things like this are called, do you have a better name? Regardless of that though, that doesn't really address that this is a very common concept across a great many cultures, most likely including your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    This kind of shit makes me want to stand somewhere deliberately away from it and protest free speech being restricted to "zones."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    The qyestion is is that nooth in the secure part of terminal? And if it is, can it really be considered "free speech" if you need to purchase a ticket to get in that part of airport to use it?

  • source