Start Yelling Fire In A Movie Theater

If I was Raed Jarrar, I would be pissed I only received so little! I mean, a woman was awarded $1,000,000 from McDonald's, for spilling hot coffee on herself. Apparently, she was not aware that coffee was actually hot, and that needed to be included on the lid. Hamburgers, Chicken Nuggets, And fries cooked in high temperature cooking oil are hot too. Maybe that food packaging needs to have a warning as well. Personally, I am more concerned about the false advertising perpetuated on me at Starbucks, claiming that a "Tall" is actually a "Small". But do not worry, I know the coffee is "HOT". But hey, this is not about faulty product liability or insufficient labeling claims, this is about "Free Speech". And it is one of our most important Constitutional rights as an American citizen; so pay attention!

In August, 2006 - A man named Raed Jaarar was stopped from boarding a Jet Blue airlines flight and forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script. After alleged intimidation (I am sure "Gitmo-Style" tactics), and fear of being detained, he agreed to cover his T-Shirt. Accordingly to the ACLU, this was clearly a blatant violation of "Free Speech", and racial profiling due to Arabic decent. Subsequently, they won their case, and Raed was awarded $240,000 dollars in compensation. What am I doing wrong here, is it that easy to make money in America? Of course it is, that is why America is so great. Only if I wore a T-Shirt that said, "Muslims Suck", and I was detained and forced to cover my shirt, the ACLU would not be running to my defense. Let's face it, the ACLU is biased on so many levels, but boy did they have their "Poster-Child" in this case. An man of Arab decent, forced to cover his shirt, and racially profiled based on his ethnicity; they must have been salivating. It is also didn't hurt that Raed Jarrar is a half-Iraqi, half-Palestinian blogger and activist; in addition to salivating, someone must have wet their pants. Raed Jarrar received the pay out from two U.S. Transportation Security Authority officials and from Jet Blue Airways - the ACLU kindly listed the perpetrated "atrocity" on their website as, "U.S. Government Silences "We Will Not Be Silent" T-Shirt". Apparently two security officials and an airline are the alleged "government cronies", that forced this man to cover his shirt (oh the horror). Of course, this does not seem like a fair practice, I mean, all he did was wear a t-shirt that said "We Will Not Be Silent". Surely this could not cause any alarm.

An ACLU lawyer made the following statement: "The outcome of this case is a victory for free speech and a blow to the discriminatory practice of racial profiling," said Aden Fine. It is difficult to determine whether racial profiling had actually occurred, or just a reasonable security issue. But I will be honest, an Arab-looking man wearing a shirt like that, doesn't help. But if that is the case, are we not in an era of heightened awareness and security precautions due to terrorist developments around the world? The attacks on "9/11" are not a distant past, and increased violence overseas has everyone concerned. I will not argue whether "Profiling" is right or wrong, but given the circumstances of today, is there a place for this, and does the "potential" for harm merit it's use? Should our laws be that "Black And White"? In this case, it was imminent danger, or at least the "fear of" imminent danger that led to the security officials actions. Raed was told that other passengers felt uncomfortable because an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt (With the words "We Will Not Be Silent") in an airport, was basically like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber," the ACLU said. And I agree in this case. Would freedom of speech protect me from wearing a "I Am A Robber" shirt in a bank; or yelling, "Fire" in a crowded theatre where there was no fire. Wouldn't these two actions, although one visual and other verbal, be cause for alarm? Wouldn't either of these two actions have the potential to cause imminent danger or potential rioting? What if he boarded, and harassment ensued from other passengers causing a potential riot and endangering the lives of others; wouldn't that be cause to take such actions? That is the whole point, and though the ACLU will cloud the issue under "Racial Profiling", the security officers and Jet Blue had a valid case. And justly so, since this could fall into the category of "inciting imminent lawless action" (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater with no threat of fire). Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. - Wikipedia. Raed was not denied from purchasing a ticket, he was not put in a dark cell and tortured, he was asked to cover his shirt. Now I can think of some other infringements on my personal rights that would be more serious, but for some that is not the point. Let's put it this way, would you let a Boston Red Sox fan board a plane with a "Yankees Suck" T-Shirt, full of Yankees fans right after the "Sox" knocked them out of the playoffs? Yeah, I don't think so. Even without being drunk, there "would" be a strong possibility of "Incite To Imminent Lawless Action".

Raed eventually agreed to cover his shirt: he was allowed on the plane, and given the public awareness of the situation, his seat was switched from the front, to the rear of the aircraft. The rationale for doing this; was to reduce the occurrence of an altercation with other passengers that may have taken personal offense to his T-Shirt. Did the airline go to far? To some "Yes", to some, "No". Moving his seat may have been dramatic, but wouldn't you err on the side of caution. We can all agree that discrimination is a deplorable practice, but when there is threatening behavior or a perceived threat; do we have the right? We all know that security is a top priority in airports, and I wouldn't even say "Boo" in a security line, let alone wear something that could be deemed inappropriate. In this case, people felt threatened, and the officials made a decision they felt upheld safety on their aircraft. And certainly, Jet Blue did not want any lawsuits; God forbid something happened mid-air. What would the ACLU have said then? Nothing, they probably would have "lost" some of their "Voice" against profiling: at least in these types of cases. More recently, there was another incident where Muslims, including three children, were ordered off a domestic U.S. flight after passengers heard "what they believed" were suspicious remarks about airport security. Although the passengers, eight of them U.S. citizens, were cleared by the F.B.I., they were reportedly still banned from the AirTran flight. In this case, was there precedent? I do not know, it could go either way (most notably was there direct evidence versus hearsay). I can empathize with representatives of the Muslim community that say the escalating security measures have led to frequent discrimination and harassment. But, regardless of recent events, the actions taken by U.S. Transportation Security Authoity officers and Jet Blue, had precedent and were justified.

But in the case of Raed, could it be more than that? This guy has a history of activist work, so I am sure he is well versed in the understanding of manipulation and self-promotion, right? By wearing that shirt, he either wanted to cause controversy, or be a part of it. And yes, that is his prerogative. But, "pushing the envelope" in an airport, knowing the heightened security sensitivity, smells quite like.....PUBLICITY & MONEY! AAhhh, a true capitalist; I am proud. And of course, knowing the ACLU would run to his corner, like a parasite to blood, he was well poised for the defense of his so-called "Freedom Of Speech". Well kiddies; you can now thank Mr. Jarrar for paving the way towards the continual fight of constitutional infringement. Think about it? For example, how dare your public schools ban certain articles of clothing. I mean, isn't absurd that this may, in some way, detract from the learning environment, or in the case of "slutty clothing", maybe, just maybe, "Incite To Imminent Lawless Action"? ACLU; anyone? I can tell you, if I was barred from a plane full of Muslims, with a shirt that said, "Your 70 "Friggin" virgins are burning in Hell right now!" I am sure, actually positive the ACLU would not be leaving their card for me. Plus, I would be back page news in the New York Times, or under the editorial corrections section hidden beneath the article "Fungi And You; 20 Steps For Understanding Bacteria". Unfortunately, my cause would not be "anti-establishment" enough for the ACLU, so to appease, I am looking for an "I Hate Whitey" T-shirt; and I just bought tickets to an overcrowded movie. I can not wait to yell, FIRE!