While his wording was a bit crude, he's accurate in what he said. It's private property. As such, the airlines can place whatever restrictions they want on you. You don't like it? Don't fly.

It's much like the stores who do not allow firearms. You can cry about your constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, but the stores are private property. You don't like it? Shop somewhere else. Again, it's private property.

If you don't like guns in your home, you have every right to forbid those who come on your property to have one on them. Why? It's private property.

Honestly, Amy. The way you rail about this out of colossal ignorance makes me embarrassed for you.

"the airlines can place whatever restrictions they want on you. You don't like it? Don't fly"

Actually, they can't place whatever restrictions they want on you.

They're licensed by the government and follow government laws, restrictions, and guidelines, particularly when it comes to security.

The security issue has just been an excuse for a government power-grab (note the disgusting Congressional testimonies of John Pistole).

I believe the entire thing could have been handled better without creating the Department of Ze Fadderland Secret Police - probably by having the Israelis train the gate security companies.

In addition, most airports are part of the municipality or whatever the local area is incorporated into.

I'm reminded of the time I held a thankless position as a volunteer message board host on AOL. This discussion about the TSA reminds me of the way some people would threaten lawsuits because their posts were in violation of the rules...the rules that they agreed to abide by when they signed up for AOL.

"Why does AOL think it's above the Constitution?"

"What happened to freedom of speech?"

Freedom of speech is alive and well, but AOL is private property. They are not obligated to give you a platform to spout ideas that are not in compliance with their rules.

So it is with TSA. You agreed to be searched when you bought the ticket. (Cue the duh-sisters, my biggest fans, lujlp and Radwaste, who might say, "You can't sign away your Constitutional rights!"

People give up their constitutional rights all the time. "And they shouldn't..." some might say. But the fact is they can and they do.

When people allow the police to search their cars, they just gave up a Constitutional right. When people talk to policemen when they're being accused of a crime, they just gave up their right to remain silent.

Yes, you can, in any number of circumstances, voluntarily give up your constitutional rights.

Patrick-- I don't remember giving away my rights when I last bought an airplane ticket. As I DO recall, it takes a 2/3 majority vote by the several States to change the Constitution, meaning, we do not leave our rights at the door when we enter an airport. IMO, the hypothetical fine print on the back of my ticket doesn't take precedent over the Constitution... especially when I print the ticket on my own computer.

While his wording was a bit crude, he's accurate in what he said. It's private property. As such, the airlines can place whatever restrictions they want on you. You don't like it? Don't fly.

Great point. And totally irrelevant as the TSA is not a private security firm hired by the airline businesses, but a federal police agency force upon them by government fiat.

Wanna try again sweetheart?

jefe: Patrick-- I don't remember giving away my rights when I last bought an airplane ticket. As I DO recall, it takes a 2/3 majority vote by the several States to change the Constitution, meaning, we do not leave our rights at the door when we enter an airport. IMO, the hypothetical fine print on the back of my ticket doesn't take precedent over the Constitution... especially when I print the ticket on my own computer.

Your purchase of the ticket is you agreeing to honor the rules placed on you by a private airline.

You sound like the message board posters and chatroom denizens of AOL I mentioned earlier. Someone lets fly every vulgar name under the sun, the room monitor bans them. Some idiot who thinks he's the expert on the Constitution cries, "Why does AOL think it's above the Constitution? They're suppressing free speech!"

They're not suppressing free speech. They're just not allowing this person to use their service to express your free speech. The banned person will have to find another venue to express his views. Privately-owned internet service providers cannot be forced to let you say just any old thing you please. The owners have rights, too. Go to any message board, online dating service, any online forum, and you'll find rules in place, direct prohibitions of things you cannot say on their forums.

The same argument applies to TSA. Airlines are not required by law to let you use their service if you refuse to comply with their rules for boarding.

And as I pointed out above. Rad's and lujlp's pedantic pronouncements to the contrary, you can voluntarily give up your constitutional rights.

You agreed to the search when you bought the ticket. When you bought that ticket on line, you, in effect, signed the contract.

But the whole point is that it's not the airline placing the rules and restrictions on you. The federal government did.

Good point, BunnyGirl. But the Federal Communications Commission is also a government agency (or, at least, created by federal statute), and they place all kinds of restrictions as to what you can say on television and the radio.

Is this a government agency enforcing unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech?

Patrick, why do you defend the Feds in this?

Second, why do you seem to insist a private entity is stripping travelers? It has been pointed out to you ad nauseum that airlines operate at the discretion of Federal authority.

I imagine the biggest attraction on this blog for you is the "submit" button.

Patrick: One more time: Those are NOT rules placed on you by the private airline, but rules placed on the airline by a government agency. Notice how neither the airlines nor the airports compete by trying to make security faster, less humiliating, or even less obviously stupid.

I suppose you would also be perfectly happy with surveillance cameras in your bedroom, if required by the zoning code, because you bought the house from a private builder. If government acting through a regulated private company nullifies your constitutional rights, we might as well shred that document.

Patrick,

The FCC is absolutely violating freedom of speech by fining the companies who have "unacceptable" things said on the air.

I will vote for any presidential candidate whose goal is to abolish the TSA!

Sadly, Jay, although I'm not a one-issue voter, I'll make an exception in this case and agree.

So I've been reading through Delta's contract of carriage (available here), and they are pretty weasly about how the security requirements are stated. In some places they state the TSA's rules as being their own, such as in Rule 35 which says: "Delta may refuse to transport any passenger [...] When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons,
dangerous materials, or other prohibited items." However, in other places, they specifically disown any actions the TSA might do that would cause problems for passengers; a big one is in Rule 135(D)(3) where it says that it is the pax's responsibility to arrive at the airport in time to clear security, no matter how long that takes. This is a bit of a Catch-22 since, if you arrive more than six hours to departure time, they can refuse to check you in -- in fact, pax who try to check in very early are often regarded as security threats.