"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?

Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet
another
Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
London. Although he started in the United States, no US government
authority
has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.

Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended
to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a
private
company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner
of
that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA
a
private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company
and
should be allowed to behave as such.

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the
right
of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.



Well after slogging through all the other (mostly) moronic posts containing
such obligatory propagandistic left-wing phrases like "fascist police state"
and "narrow minded bigot", I'm giving this post the award for having the
most common-sense and defensible premises. Congratulations, sir, for being
just about the only person here that seems to be able to think critically
and logically about this issue.

Now, my opinion on this issue is that tactics like those used by Mr. Gilmore
are a self-fulfilling prophecy and he knows it. He chose to flaunt the
post-9/11 heightened sense of security for the simple juvenile purpose of
being able to scream "fascists" when BA took the pre-determined action that
he wished to protest against. Not only that, but if I were a passenger on
that plane, I certainly wouldn't have looked at him as some kind of "freedom
fighter" or revolutionary who standing up for his rights by fighting the
"oppressive totalitarian state", but rather I would have viewed him as an
immature simpleton that thinks he's making a profound sociological
statement, when all he's really doing is holding up a plane full of people
that don't give a **** about his "cause".


-smc