February 20th, 2013

United Airlines Kicks Man off Flight for Photographing Video Monitor in Front of Him 94

By Carlos Miller

The picture that got a travel writer thrown off a United Airlines flight.

 

A travel writer was kicked off a United Airlines flight last week for taking a picture of the video monitor in front of him, forcing him to dish out an additional $225 to find another cross Atlantic flight from Newark to Istanbul.

The flight attendant who had him removed told him he had violated the plane’s policy, which is outlined in their in-flight magazine.

The policy appears to be rather new. At least it didn’t appear to be in place in 2011 when they escorted a woman off a plane after she had photographed the name tag of a woman who had been rude to her with the intent of filing a complaint.

It was likely put into place after that incident, which resulted in widespread negative publicity for the airline, not to mention other incidents on other airlines where flight attendants treated passengers like shoe-bombing terrorists because they tried to take photos or shoot video on the plane.

The writer, who only goes by his first name, Matthew, is one of several bloggers who write for the site, UPGRD.

This was not an issue of privacy—the real impetus behind United’s onboard photography guidelines above. You can see that the picture of my seat did not compromise anyone’s privacy. Instead, I believe the FA simply could not fathom why I would want to take pictures of my seat and therefore deemed me a security threat and lied in order to get me off the airplane.

Not only did this episode publicly defame me, it made me question my loyalty to United. I’m not some kettle traveler making a baseless loyalty claim. Regular readers know that I am extremely loyal to Untied Airlines, fly them often and almost exclusively, write about them even more often, and have accrued nearly 950,000 lifetime flight miles with United—I’ll be a 26 year old million miler flyer later in the year.

I have no regrets about this incident (other than not being able to take the flight). I did nothing wrong and the FA who lied about me should be held to account by United. Surely, a liar is more of a security threat than a passenger who wants to take a picture of his seat.

United has not been contacted yet, but I will send them a copy of this story. I welcome an investigation into this incident and encourage my seatmate or any of those seated around me on the flight to chime in should you come across this story. I have nothing to hide other than my humiliation for being thrown off a flight on the pretense of a mistruth.

In 2008, a music band named Sons of Maxwell created a public relations nightmare for United Airlines with the following video after baggage handlers destroyed one of their guitars.

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Gordon Freeman

    The ongoing stupidity of Police, and other organizations, toward photography is becoming unreal. What happens, in the next 10 years or so, when you can capture cellphone quality video with a device that barring a inch by inch inspection is undetectable?

    Does United, and the FA in question, actually think their interiors are a security risk? More likely that picture would be taken by a ‘fan-boy’, for lack of a better term, showing off United’s new color scheme or something.

    • Difdi

      Such a device is almost here now. Google Glass is a good example of what’s coming, Glass is just the first product to market.

      Just imagine, everybody wearing their PDA/Phone/Camera/Computer on their faces, able to record everything they see, in an enhanced reality environment. You literally won’t be able to ban people from using cameras without banning them from using their phones, computers, e-book readers, etc. There would be no outward visual difference between someone reading email, using a relaxation image to meditate to, shooting video or browsing the web.

      • TheJeebus

        Which only illustrates the stupidity of such rules in the first place.

        • Difdi

          Exactly.

      • hazy

        Watch the UK sci-fi series “Black Mirror” S1E3. The episode revolves around a device that is implanted in the brain and records what the person sees with their own eyes 24/7.

        • Difdi

          Some applications of the technology Google is working on are even corrective eyeglasses. Either for people so severely affected by eye problems that conventional eyeglasses won’t work for them, or simply to make a pair of eyeglasses that can have their prescription updated without having to replace the lenses.
          I could see an airline prohibiting people from using a computer on board, but prohibiting eyeglasses would not go over well with the feds…

    • Skyy

      @freeman; actually I am thinking about the ongoing stupidty of folks like this guy that think that they can do anything without regard to anyone as though they are the center of the world. This guy got what he deserved but I bet you don’t see it that way either.

      • wilder125

        In regards to that. (not freeman, as you can tell) How many people read the rules and regulations before they get on the plane. I know I never thought about it on the random occasions I did.

      • Matt Purvis

        What do you think he did without regard to anyone? Unless I completely misunderstand your comment, you are slightly confused about the incident. He took a picture of the back of a seat(which does fit into the aircraft equipment category, but still a stretch to fit into the policy.) How does that violate the written policy of which he was obviously unaware? What happened to a friendly warning and pointing out the policy?

  • Tom Jankowski

    First United breaks guitars, now this!

    • byoung328

      That’s the first thing I thought when I read this. I would hate to work in their PR department. That has to be the worst job ever.

  • Rusty Gunn

    Hey, it’s their airplane so I guess they can put all the nonsense they want into their inflight regulations but United is such a turd of airline anyway! I’d never use them unless their was just no other airline flying to the destination I’d chosen.

    • http://twitter.com/BlognDog Gregory Smith

      OK, a lot of views being expressed here, some of it informed and well-reasoned, but no one has answered the question about whether or not the airlines’ attempt to limit or prohibit photography is legal. I don’t accept the “it’s their airplane” argument — that would certainly allow them to prevent you from using images of the plane **commercially**, but not give them the right to hinder 1st Amendment activities, any more than they could, for example, prohibit you from expressing pro-trade union or anti-abortion views whilst in the plane. I do understand that there can be legitimate “time, place and manner restrictions,” but United’s policy asserts the right to go far beyond that. It’s pretty clear that the Hurley ruling supports, not undermines, the view that what Matthew did was legal. I understand that there are still some gray areas, but surely there must be clear case law and precedent that would make clear what limitations a private company can place on people photographing in public space? I recall, for example, that a shopping mall lost a legally-significant case about a decade ago in which they attempted to bar a member of the public because they did not like his T-shirt, arguing that the mall was private property and that the 1st Amendment did not apply. Hasn’t there been anything specific with respect to photography?

  • OhioMoose

    American Airlines has the same policy, also published in their in-flight magazine.

  • http://twitter.com/BlognDog Gregory Smith

    Carlos, can you or one of your lawyers provide a view on the legality of the United photography “policy”? I am no legal expert, but as you are aware the general rule of thumb is that you can photograph where there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is why, for example, when Britteny Spears gets photographed doing something stupid on the street in Los Angeles, she cannot sue to prevent publication. I don’t see how the interior of an airplane cabin would be any different. I could perhaps see certain scenarios where that might be the case — if Pope Benedict is sitting quietly in his seat reading Playboy magazine and you point a camera over his shoulder from the row behind him, I think that might be over the line. But even that might be found legal, based on what I know of the law. Do you have any more informed view of the legality of the airline’s policy statement?

    • Saul B

      The interior of a plane is not a public space, so the airline can impose whatever restrictions it likes.

      The question should be, “Is a passenger obligated to follow any ‘rule’ published in an in-flight magazine but not spelled out in the contract of carriage accessible to the passenger at the time of ticket purchase?”

      • TheJeebus

        Exactly. It’s a non-agreed amendment to the contract.

        • Saul B

          This was United’s response to my question on its Facebook page –

          «We implemented a photography policy several years ago and it published in our inflight magazine. We do allow photography but for reasons of service and security, our crew may need to restrict photography onboard and this policy supports their ability to do so.

          Also, we have read the blog post and reached out to the customer to fully understand his perspective of what happened onboard.»

          In other words, “We permit photography unless we prohibit it.” Complete BS legalese non-answer.

          And it’s worse than a flat-out prohibition, because a passenger never knows whether he’ll encounter a pissed-off crew who will then boot him from the plane.

        • hazy

          The answer is when the passenger is informed that they should not photograph inside the plane and they agree not to continue that should be a resolution to the matter not to escalate it further and kick him off the plane. At that point, they have broken their contract with the customer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      As far as I know, a private company has the right to ban photography but they have no right to take your camera or force you to delete your photos. They can only ask you to leave and if you don’t, then have you arrested for trespassing.

      This being a plane complicates the matter more because of federal regulations and terrorism paranoia, but I’m not sure what the legal implications would be.

      • Skyy

        They can do anything that they think is necessary.

        • Matt Purvis

          Anything???

          • Lefim

            I would rule out kicking you off the plane at thirty thousand feet.

    • Won Word

      ~ the general rule of thumb is that you can photograph where there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” ~.

      Nope. In order to photograph anyone under the guise of First Amendment freedom of expression, there are two tests that the activity must pass: a) there is a message one wishes to convey (regardless of medium) and b) there is an audience for that message. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (94-749), 515 U.S. 557 (1995).

      Unless the photo Mr. Miller took has a message he is trying to convey, he has no 1st Amendment protection. Now if he were photographing unsafe conditions and wanted to convey that to others, there’s little the airline could do to stop him.

      Of course YMMV, consult a lawyer before making any legal decisions and always remember that RPI (Random People on the Internet) don’t know jack.

      • Matt Purvis

        What do you think (you are a RPI, by the way) is the bar for audience? Would a single person qualify as an audience? Could I, as the photog, be the audience as well?

        • phred

          Yes, you can be your own audience. And your message is whatever you say it is.

      • phred

        The court case you cite is about the right to hold a parade. It has nothing to do with photography. The idea that a photographer must have a specific message and audience in mind when he presses the shutter button in public is laughable.

        • Lefim

          What Won is looking for is that: “Supreme Court reiterated, “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.”” (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)). and that “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” (First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978)). So it matters not whether it’s a parade or on YouTube, but whether it’s a matter to disseminate to the public versus private recreational photography for one’s own personal use and which doesn’t have the same degree of 1st Amendment protection (Porat v. Lincoln Towers Community Association. (2005), Larsen v. Fort Wayne Police Dept. (2010)). And, of course, any expressive activity is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions.

          So a smart cop would first ask you if you’re filming a documentary with your camera, so be ready to come back with “was domumenting police interaction with the public, now it’s about become a first-hand account of police abuse and prior restrant issues.”

  • nrgins

    He says the flight attendant lied about him. But what, specifically, he’s referring to is not clear, based on the except from his article that was posted. Could you fill in the blanks and let us know what he’s talking about? In what way did the flight attendant lie about him?

    • http://twitter.com/Stoutlagger Rob

      The Captain came out and told him the flight attendant told him to stop taking pictures, but he continued taking pictures anyway. Check Matthew’s blog post.

      “Captain: Sir, you are not flying on this flight.

      Me: Can you tell me why?

      Captain: My FA tells me she told you to stop taking pictures and you continued to take pictures.

      Me: That’s a lie, captain. She told me stop taking pictures and I stopped. I did try to explain to her why I was taking pictures—I am a travel writer [I offered him one of my business cards and he too refused to accept it].

      Captain: Look, I don’t care. You are not flying on this flight. You can make this easy or make this difficult. We’ll call the police if we have to.”

      • nrgins

        What an ass that captain is. Thanks for the info.

        • http://twitter.com/Stoutlagger Rob

          You betcha

  • Phred

    I spent a lot of time shooting photos out the window on a recent SWA flight, using a Canon DSLR. It never occurred to me that it might be against airline policy (I have no idea if SWA has such a policy or not), but no one said a thing to me. I’ve also shot photos from inside terminals of planes landing and departing, on the tarmac, service personnel, their equipment, etc. Never had anyone say a thing about it.

    • nevilleross

      Myself, I only shoot planes taking off and landing from the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport-I do this by standing on a pier at Harbourfront, and just take pictures of the Dash 8′s taking off and landing; I’d never bother with going to Pearson Airport to do this. You are brave.

  • LREENE

    The video “United Breaks Guitars” is excellent. Although I too have been loyal to United for many years (until I quit flying completely because of TSA), I have spread this video far and wide. Since it’s inception, I have said my goal in life was to sneak a copy into the United entertainment system on a loaded plane, and make sure that everyone on board saw it. :-)

    • Nite_Owl

      Did you hear that hackers? Get to work.

    • nevilleross

      How do you intend to get about without flying? And what if you have to travel to a foreign country? For my part, I refuse to travel to the United States because of the way TSA treats people, but how do you, an American, plan to travel anywhere when you don’t have an efficient rail system that’s fast enough to get you anywhere in the same time that a jet airliner can?

      • Lefim

        Oh we just use canastota wagons around here. You really enjoy the view, but it’s a bit hard on the bottom.

  • heinrich6666

    The lesson here is that in modern America doing the slightest thing will get you an authoritarian response.

    • exboyracer

      Authoritarianism — when republicans get to make rules.

      • http://twitter.com/underfourths John Doe Number One

        Republicans? Do you think Republicans aren’t pissed off about it as well? Just because that Nazi Bush flew in as a Republicans doesn’t mean he spoke for all of them. Just like Obama doesn’t speak for all Democrats — because he certainly is NOT one. It’s time for us to unite and stop this division. It’s not a partisan problem, it’s a corrupt administration problem. This type of thing should not be allowed, especially from a company needing government money to stay afloat.

        • Matty

          Holy cow, I agree with you!

        • the_annoying_thing

          Thank you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Long/1424041054 Ken Long

        your village is calling, you pointy headed morin

        • wilder125

          Please. My aunt’s maiden name is Morin. Don’t lump him with her family tree.

      • americanexile

        United is based in Chicago, home of Mr. Obama.

        It’s only Rand Paul, a republican, that’s actually doing anything to get rid of the TSA and crap like this. Save your partisan bs for something else.

      • http://twitter.com/athynz1 Pete Athens

        And yet it is Obama and his administration who are crafting executive orders that bypass the built-in checks and balance system.

        • exboyracer

          Name one

          • Nite_Owl

            The extrajudicial murder of American citizens.

          • http://twitter.com/athynz1 Pete Athens

            How about the one where he can have an American citizen detained indefinitely without any sort of warrant? That one bypasses the entire judicial system.

          • exboyracer

            You mean the one that he signed with reservations. He needed the funding for troops and anti terrorist activities. The part you object to was added by republicans. Not the happiest moment but with the right obstructing everything by adding their ideological crap to everything

          • exboyracer

            Right the al-Qaeda guy who was committing treason – doesn’t the constitution say that is a killing. What happened to the “war on terrorism” so valiantly fought though the 1st decade of this century?

          • Difdi

            How do you know he was committing treason? You’re not allowed to see the evidence against him, and he wasn’t allowed to defend himself against the accusation. That’s what a trial is for, after all.

            If accusation equals guilt, then there’s no need for anyone to have a trial. Should I accuse you of treason? Would you want a trial before your firing squad or after?

            Obama’s assassination of American citizens is illegal under 18 USC 241 and 242. By denying them due process in the courts and executing them without trial, he has caused deaths through the violation of constitutional rights. He and everyone who carried out the illegal order are conspirators against rights.

            The penalty for violating those laws as Obama has is life without parole or execution.

          • exboyracer

            There was plenty of evidence against him he was a regional commander for AL-Qeada the Yemani govenment had a dead or alive warrant out for him. Asymmetrical warfare sucks — this is asymmetrical warfare. You can’t not do these things then piss and moan about being soft on terrorism.

          • Difdi

            And yet, in the absence of a trial, he was innocent of the charges. That’s how our legal system works. He could well have been guilty as sin, but until he’s convicted by a court, he’s legally innocent. Killing innocent people is murder. Killing everybody nearby him in the process of murdering him is mass murder. Collateral damage happens when you’re sloppy and careless — if it happens while murdering someone and committing a war crime, that just makes it worse.

          • Lefim

            It was asked: “Can a U.S. citizen — himself or through another — use the U.S. judicial system to vindicate his constitutional rights while simultaneously evading U.S. law enforcement authorities, calling for “jihad against the West,” and engaging in operational planning for an organization that has already carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the United States?” (Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 – 2010) Many here feel they should.

            I disagree. The reasoning for that relies on the 2000-year-old concept of war against pirates, which is the only known example of state versus non-state conflict until the advent of the war on terror. First of all, terrorist crimes take place outside the known jurisdiction of any civilized state. This creates the “jus cogens” (universal jurisdiction) norm for cases where domestic criminal law can’t reach. Second: since the very nature of their crimes is extra-territorial, the criminals themselves became enemies not merely of one aggrieved nation, but of all civilized nations. This is the rationale behind the old, but still quite valid, concept of “hostis humani generi” (“enemy of all
            mankind”) originally applied to pirates. Thirdly: like pirates with their bands, terrorists are inferred to have renounced their own citizenship through membership in jihadi bands – becoming enemies of, and deem at war with, the whole human race. These belligerent entities lack the legitimacy of states yet their actions transcends ordinary criminal law. So their crimes are given universal jurisdiction in recognition not only of the unique qualities of the act, but also that of the actors. That is the purpose of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in not specifying territory but the organization and their affiliates waging war against the U.S..

            Granting universal jurisdiction to terrorist crimes accomplishes two very critical purposes. First, it gives them their proper definition as enemies of the human race whose actions transcend ordinary criminal law. Second, it recognizes that, like pirates, terrorists are quicksilver brigands who use the porous borders of nation states in precisely the same way as pirates once used outlying shoals—to emerge suddenly, strike, and retreat into obscurity. Also like pirates, many of these terrorists enjoy the protection of sympathetic harboring states. Universal jurisdiction removes both obstacles. It requires all nations to assist equally in pursuing terrorists, puts pressure on harboring countries to relinquish their suspects, and most importantly obviates the need for extradition. Terrorists may be captured or killed wherever they are, by anyone who finds them. To paraphrase John Wayne: Out there due process is a bullet.

            Frankly, I find affording these brigands the status of “enemy combatants” is the single most damaging development in the entire “War on Terror.” Treating terrorists as quasi-military combatants gives them too much legitimacy. While combatant status removes some restraints regarding pursuit, capture and/or killing, it replaces domestic criminal law with another, equally inappropriate surrogate: the Laws of War. If terrorists are combatants, then terrorist organizations must be regarded as so many belligerent states, a definition which gives these brigands precisely the recognized status as international actors they desperately crave. Relegating them as combatants fails to recognize the unique threat terrorism poses to our society. Moreover, it raises a host of legal obstacles impeding capture, chief among them the continued intransigence of harboring states. And choosing an ad hoc basis about which body of law, military or domestic, should apply on a case-by-case basis invites total chaos, as we saw with the “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation against a U.S. Citizen …” White Paper.

            As pirates, defining terrorist as international criminals are neither armed combatants nor ordinary criminals, but a global scourge that can be eradicated. Hence they lack both the protections granted belligerent armies under the Laws of War and rights given ordinary criminals under our own domestic laws. Given the nature of modern organized terrorism, it is a truism that as long as some country somewhere is willing to harbor terrorists, terrorism will continue. It is only when all nations recognize that terrorism is simply beyond the pale—as they did with piracy in the 19th century—that we can finally win the War on Terror.

            So why is it so hard to understand that there is a category of behavior not covered by the legal system?

          • Difdi

            It’s not hard to understand at all. You raise very good points, and your argument is solid. Unfortunately, you missed a fundamental flaw that makes the whole thing very shaky.
            The Bill of Rights portion of the U.S. constitution does not grant anyone any rights whatsoever. Nowhere in those constitutional amendments will you find the word citizen. Instead, those amendments protect the rights of people (all people, not just citizens) by prohibiting certain actions by the government. No exceptions are built into those prohibitions.
            Since there are no exceptions and the prohibitions, as written, are not exclusive to citizens, the United States is uniquely handicapped when it comes to dealing with the sorts of outlaws you mention in your argument, by being required to give them trials as well.

          • Lefim

            Except our laws only apply where it has jurisdiction and “If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. Let me be–let me be very clear about this. There are two levels. There’s a huge gap here that– that frankly far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.” Refer to Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950).

            Nowhere in the amendments were Article 3, section 2, clause 1 (Citizens of different states are citizens of the United States) amended, nor was jus soli citizenship concept inhereted from English Common-law altered, only that Congress has Article I, Section 8 powers on Naturalization. And US courts absolutely will use jus sanginuis but not jus soli to rule that someone is a citizen. They have done so.

            You’re only half-right that the Bill of Rights does not grant anybody anything. The Bill of Rights frees citizens from coercion (freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.), while at the same time providing the means to secure these freedoms (guarantees of certain rights, etc.). Our founders believed that rights were inherent and existed independent of the government. Both the Constitution and the BoR embody this philosophy. The BoR is the short list of rights the government cannot legally infringe. The BoR is not a grant of privilege to the “people” but a set of restrictions on the power of the State. It says things like, “Congress shall make no law” and, “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”

            But remember: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

          • Difdi

            The shouting fire quote is a popular one. But it’s invalid, since the ruling it supports was overturned in 1969.
            The quote comes from Schenck v. United States in 1919. Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 for handing out pamphlets opposing the draft. The pamphlets did not exhort anyone to violence, they were quite clearly political speech urging people to vote in opposition to conscription.
            By the standard applied by the court, any speech that disagrees with the government’s official position, even campaigning against an incumbent candidate, would be seditious during wartime. This is plainly unconstitutional, since it would tend to result in any incumbent either running unopposed (due to all opponents being in prison) or running against people with EXACTLY the same political platform (since any dissenting opinion that conflicted with a government policy would be sedition).
            Brandneburg v. Ohio in 1969 overturned the Schenck decision on the first amendment, restricting such a limitation on speech to only that speech that was intended to incite unlawful actions, such as a riot and was also likely to do so.
            This still might permit criminal prosecution of someone for inciting violent actions. But they still retain the right to due process of law, a trial by jury, etc, since the U.S. government is prohibited from punishing anyone without it. An execution is certainly a punishment.
            Holmes himself, later in life, came to believe he had committed a grievous error with regard to the first amendment in his decision, though even had he voted the other way, it might not have made much difference, as the Schenk decision was unanimous. Still, if Holmes himself declared himself in error, it certainly weakens the arguments of those who rely on that shouting fire quote (especially for those who omit the word falsely from it).

          • Lefim

            You’re confusing Schenck, with its “Clear and present Danger” test with that of Whitney v. California (1927) “bad tendency” test which was overruled by Brandenburg’s “imminent lawless action” test and narrowed Schenck somewhat. Holmes’ quote still holds even under the “imminent lawless action” test, but you’re welcomed to test it for yourself.

            No American court has ever issued a decision granting an injunction against the use of military force: the political question doctrine bars judicial resolution of issues whose resolution has been committed by the Constitution to the President and Congress – and the Constitution places control of national security and foreign affairs into the hands of the elected branches of government, to the exclusion of the judiciary. American citizens affiliated with a band waging war against the U.S. does not entitle their citizenship, whether jus soli or jus sanginuis, to an exemption from the normal rules of war; we need not wait until they initiate their next strike against Americans before taking steps to kill them. And the Supremes held enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

      • Rick

        exboyracer You need to do some research on some of the executive orders and laws that have been signed since Obama took office. You might start with the NDAA which allows Americans to be detained indefinitely. That’s authoritarianism and it wasn’t a republican who signed it into law. While you are at it you might also want to do some research on the number of drone strikes in the last 4 years and the number of children killed. Again this is Obama not Bush or some republican carrying out these actions.

        • exboyracer

          I guess the answer is to just invade and stomp another country into dust. What was the collateral damage on that little adventure. You need to do some research on authoritarianism.

          • Hamlet

            Says an uninspired troll on a blog that champions our Inalienable Rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.

            A stupid troll too. Pick your audience assclown.

          • Difdi

            As do you. Obama is actually more authoritarian than Bush (either one) ever was. Every single thing Bush did that had the Liberals up in arms over, Obama has done and gone even further than Bush did. But that’s okay, because he’s a member of the Good party. Right?

      • Hamlet

        How asinine. The Emperor Bronco Bama is the one who claims the Constituion gives him the authority to assassinate American Citizens on American soil. He’s the one who has openly assassinated Americans Citizens already. No trials, no legal representation, no proof, no charges. No chance for the victims, one a 16 yr old and his 15 yr old cousin, to meet their accusers.

        Crack a book dummy and petal your snake oil somewhere else. They are ALL cut from the same cloth. And we aren’t buying.

        • Difdi

          I wonder, how would someone assassinating HIM and then claiming it’s not murder because he had been declared a traitor by the town dog catcher do in court?

      • Difdi

        Democrats do the same thing. Obama, to name one. They just want to abolish different rights than Republican Authoritarians do.

      • Herbert Napp

        Are you retarded?

        • exboyracer

          I am not retarded because you are illiterate. I am tired of the right thinking they are not the authoritarians in the room. There are many sources, not just wiki which I am sure is not allowed in the right wing bubble (not approved information citizen) – this is what it is – live it embrace it you are it.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

          • Herbert Napp

            Oh you’re labeling people as “right” and “left”. I see you have a lot to learn. I figure most people on this site would be beyond that, sadly you aren’t. One day you will grow up, and wake up.

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            Actually, had you read the wikipedia article, you would have found that “RWA” did not refer to right-wing (conservative) or left-wing (liberal), but the level of agreement that the subject had with the group then in power. Now of course, that is the left-wing or liberal side under Obama. So for the past 4-1/2 years a RWA would be a liberal, according to Altermeyer, who stated that: “The phrase right wing in right-wing authoritarianism does not
            necessarily refer to someone’s politics, but to psychological
            preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow
            the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the
            authorities could have either right-wing or left-wing political views.”

            Try reading the entire next time.

            Thanks for playing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rooftop235 Dave Cain

    Continental/United once stranded a plane full of us in Newark because one of the crew were late and we missed our take-off slot. They cancelled the flight and rudely told all of us that we were on our own. That was my only time ever flying with them and I will never friggin do it again. I usually take three trips per year.

  • Skyy

    The problem lies with this guy that is obviously showing his lack of respect for rules and thinks he is the center of the universe. Now he probably wants his 15 minutes of pity-party fame so others like him will gloat over his deed. The rules are clear but this generation thinks they supercede any rules because rules do not apply to them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1065384910 Luke Bogash

      It would be nice if they enforced the “turn off your devices” rule better. The reality is, there is an uneven enforcement of their own rules.

      • Clark

        What are they going to do to enforce that? Bring a smurf from the insecurity checkpoint to patdown every passenger, remove their electronics, then turn them off? Plus, the rule means nothing. No plane has ever been brought down by the millions of devices that aren’t turned off.

    • WhereAboutsUnknown

      I’ve taken photographs out of aircraft for twenty years and not one airline ever said a word about it. Anyone who thinks this shows a lack of respect is a dumb-ass.

    • cjm69

      Nobody should respect “rules” simply because they exist. Rules exist for reasons (or should), and people should be aware of them and abide by them to the extent that those reasons are sensible and rational, not arbitrary and capricious. But slavish obedience to rules for their own sake? Sorry, that’s never been a virtue, in this or any other generation.

    • Nite_Owl

      You’re quite the little ass kisser aren’t you? I bet you were the teachers pet rat too.

  • wilder125

    Always remember. Bring a guitar to sooth the savage United. They need to break something.

  • wilder125

    Just remember. A guitar in the hands of a United employee is similar to catnip for a cat. Just bring the instrument so they can smash it.

  • http://twitter.com/BlueKarl Karl Mamer

    There are certainly people who take photos of airline attendants and other passengers for fetish purposes. Unlike a public place, it’s very hard to get up and move away. As well, I guess one might want to calm the content provider by having some kind of anti-piracy policy in place. It’s not unreasonable to have a policy to protect other passengers from such intrusions. But who of us has not photographed our food or tried to document an airline’s inflight entertainment services? A policy can be implemented with intelligence and nuance, Or in a zero tolerance manner. Is the latter the policy of United? Is it an over zealous attendant having a BAD day? Or did a simple “Sorry, sir, just so you know…” attempt to inform a passenger about a new policy result in a surly and indignant response from the passenger himself? Which was the real reason he was kicked off the flight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.minerley.1 David Minerley

    I will never fly United after seeing this – because a strict “no photos” policy SCREAMS “we are afraid of what might become public knowledge”.

  • jack

    The lesson everyone should get from this story is that if you’re on a transatlantic flight never do anything that could be questioned until you are past the point of safe return (P.S.R.). Atleast you won’t have to get another flight of be delayed. But think about this, what if the FA knew what he was doing and that he was a travel reviewer and for some reason regarding that info wanted him off the flight?

  • ZombieStomp

    Why are the unthinking borgs unable to ascertain common sense on a case by case basis? Humans being human will find themselves unfairly caught in authoritarian dragnets. I judge who I fly with based on how these types of things are handled.

  • Skipdallas

    United… in douche-baggery

  • Rick

    Carlos, the link to the video was hilarious. I would like to see this happen more often when there is poor customer service.

    Freedom is under continual attack in the U.S. This incident is just another indication of the war on our liberties.

  • rick

    Why is the creation of an unimpeachable A/V record of the space around us verboten? We can already see our surroundings with our eyes. We can hear most noises with our ears.
    It’s quite clear 9/11 caused far more damage than anyone could have imagined.

    • Joseph

      That was the plan and the answer to every crisis real or imagined: More gummint control and less liberty. it has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry with 30,000+ contractors not to mention the military contracts.; what a bonanza for our millionaire collectivist rulers.

  • Tom Jankowski

    Someone needs to write and perform songs like writing a song about this may make United change their policy. It worked last time with United.

  • scruffylookingnerfherder

    Okay Carlos, you just got greenlighted on fark.com.

    That’s, like, the big time! :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/FATtoney Anthony James Palumbo

    It is a private airline. It is different when the State acts because you don’t have the ability
    no not consent.

  • El Guapo

    It makes me sad to think about how glorious it was back in the day to fly. Now look at us. Lemmings. Take it up the rear, Lemmings!

  • crna

    Any poster here who berates Republicans is certainly out of line. If you don’t realize Democrats are in bad shape with the likes of sister pelosi and brother reid, and Obama, better put on your thinking caps. Talk about a party of dictatorship like actions. The only reason many individuals like the democratic party is it’s a party where anything goes, as long as what goes is controlled by the government and let me help you is just another step toward attempting to control and govern by the use of handouts. What a pity that we don’t have a country anymore where people earn their own way.

  • http://twitter.com/mblitch Michael Blitch

    Since Mr. Miller seems to rarely do any follow-up (unless linking to another news story that follows-up on an incident), here is a blog post of the victim concerning a ‘relative’ resolution to the flight incident.

    http://upgrd.com/matthew/resolution-to-the-united-photo-incident.html

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.