Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed.

> you have the right to express it

Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Trying to 'own' the space in this context is a dick move. If I'm a traveling passenger I don't want to be subject to your political ideas/religious sentiments/music preferences/sporting affiliation or whatever else. Besides the irritation it may or may not inflict on other passengers, it's an unnecessary burden for the flight crew, who are going to have to field any complaints about it.

In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech

The First Amendment only prevents the government from penalizing your speech. It doesn't stop a private company (airline) kicking you off an airplane for something you said or did.

The PIC (Pilot In Command, aka Captain) is the final authority for the safe operation of the flight (14 CFR Part 91.3). If the Captain determines that a threat exists, they are empowered to do pretty much anything reasonable to deal with the threat. Turning the plane around and landing is certainly in the realm of "reasonable".

Whether you or somebody else who is clearly not an airline captain feel the original actions constituted a threat is pretty much irrelevant.

Signed, airline captain.

> This is clearly not a threat.

To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way.

To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability that it might be a threat has to be paid attention to. In real life you don't get to specify what "clearly" is or is not the case. People have to make judgment calls, and in certain contexts they are going to err very strongly on the side of being safe rather than sorry.

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech

This is not a free speech issue. This is a safety and consideration for others issue. The right to free speech does not mean the right to ignore the predictable effects that saying certain things is going to have in certain contexts. We're all supposed to be responsible adults who understand that we can't push our pet issues everywhere we go.

> We've just grown accustomed to security theater.

Easy for you to say since you're not the one responsible for the safety of a planeload of people. This is not a "security theater" issue either. You don't have the right to trumpet your pet issue everywhere you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Just greping for 'Israel' or 'Palestine' gives 13 incidents, the latest occurring in 2000.

It's a quite large share of the hijackings on the list, much more so that I'd have imagined de novo.

Reading through a few of them, most of the hijackers had a fair bit of mental instability (duh?). So, I could totally see them naming a bluetooth something crazy if they had them those days.

Also, most of the incidents ended up being fairly well handled and there weren't many casualties. But if I were a pilot and I were getting paid regardless of turning the plane around or dealing with a possibly fatal multi-day saga, I'd likely just turn the plane around too.

You definitely don't have the (implied) constitutional right to much on an airplane. Why not wear no shirt, a balaclava and hold up a flag above your head - go ahead and try it. As soon as the plans lands, something terrible will happen to you. In some destinations, even worse things.

Does naming WiFi hotspot to reflect one’s political views achieve anything? I am not against free speech or expression of freedom, just wondering if such “protests” (assuming that is what this is) have any affect at all?

Flying is already a stressful experience - between security checks, waiting for flights, unruly passengers, super cramped seats etc. Why add more stress? Either protest seriously at an appropriate time/place or just use the airport for what it is, to go to your destination. Why get cute with ineffective methods of protest like changing WiFi name? In the end, all it achieved was hours of delay and even more stress to passengers, right?

> Being on the plane doesn't remove your right to free speech

While I agree with you that this was obviously a ridiculous overreaction, an air plane is not a public space. It's more akin to being in someones living room in that the pilot has absolute authority over whom to kick out for whatever reason. If they don't like your hair, they can have you escorted out by police if you don't comply. They won't do it normally because it's bad PR and their employer wouldn't like it, but they could. Not free speech amendment violated.

> This is clearly not a threat. I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it

Fully agree, however consider the hotspot being called "fuck israel" on a plane half full of Hasidic Jews (the ones refusing to board because they're still praying and knocking their head against the wall, and refuse to sit next to women).

Or the hotspot's called something about Allah and porkchops on a flight to S-Arabia.

Or something about "fuck PSG" when there's 20 hooligans on board (these guys destroy their own city even when things go right for them)

Freedom of expression yes but these things are completely misplaced in that context. It's unnecessarily provocative in a tight confined space. It's a recipe for unrest during the flight, something nobody wants and the captain is right to call out.

It's not a direct threat but it is a passive one, it's also swearing and a contentious statement in a confined space where everyone needs to get along for the next N hours. They know damn well what the issue is but they're going to put their hands up and claim they're just expressing an opinion and they're not hurting anyone. It's childish behavior imo.

I don’t disagree with you but it’s worth remembering your rights are very different onboard a crewed commercial vessel. As I understand it if a member of crew tells you to do something and you don’t do it, you’re in trouble.

this is one of those "if you see something, no you didn't" times. It seems to me like the fault lies more with the reporter.

I see what you are saying but then where do you draw the line? What if the wifi name is “fuck all pilots” - “united is doomed” or “we will all die”?

> The friction in air travel leads to more people driving

Y'know, if America didn't treat intercity passenger rail like garbage, we wouldn't be having this problem...

> I'm not trying to make a political statement and not going to say what side of this issue I'm on, but whatever your side is you have the right to express it.

Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that speech is not protected at all times and in all places. There are “time, place, and manner restrictions”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

I have a hard time believing courts wouldn’t side with the captain here. All they have to say is they are in charge, perceived a threat to their crew, provided a chance for resolution, and ultimately played it safe. All of which are true.

Does, or should, free speech apply when you’re literally in someone else’s vehicle?

If you want to spew hateful dumb shit, go do it in the town square or on public property.

Airlines reserve the right to refuse serve to anyone at anytime for any reason and they’re not required to even give you a reason.

You’re literally their guest.

You do know that "zionists" is a code work for jews in general right?

A zionist is someone who thinks Israel has a right to exist.

Then I am a zionist and I am white as snow.

>During this incident

In case you missed it, it was a different incident than the one we're discussing.

>You can, and should be able to, name your WiFi hotspot anything. Even any "Free <X>, Fuck <Y>" forall X,Y

Edgy idea, bro.

Not like a certain terrorist organization[1] with Palestine Liberation in its name[1] literally pioneered armed airplane hijackings for its cause, successfully[2] performing[3] quite[4] a few[5] of[6] them[7] back in the day.

> whatever your side is you have the right to express it.

You seem to have confused an airplane for a public square.

The captain of the plane determines the extent of your rights in-flight, taking many factors into account. Including the comfort of passengers.

You ain't got no "free speech" right to blast music on your Bluetooth speaker, and the same applies to edgy Bluetooth device names which everyone on board can see.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberati...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1969)

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_426

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_Flight_255

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_649