Would you have sued the airline too?
By ersmommy1
@ersmommy1 (12588)
United States
January 6, 2009 10:49am CST
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt. Raed Jarrar received the pay out on Friday from two US Transportation Security Authority officials and from JetBlue Airways following the August 2006 incident at New York's JFK Airport.
Jarrar, a US resident, was apprehended as he waited to board a JetBlue flight from New York to Oakland, California, and told to remove his shirt, which had written on it in Arabic: "We will not be silent."
3 people like this
7 responses
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
6 Jan 09
The payout amount is a bit extreme if you ask me, but aside from this aspect, I say good for him! Even when translated, these words on his shirt are not offensive in any way in my opinion so what was the issue? Maybe there was more to the whole situation because it sounds odd that someone would be asked to cover a t-shirt like that!
2 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
6 Jan 09
I missed seeing the link in the first response section..... I find this quote from the article in particular interesting:
"He was told other passengers felt uncomfortable because an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt in an airport was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber,'" the ACLU said."
Sorry, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever! It's an AIRPORT and bound to be full of many foreigners. So French, German and Spanish inscribed t-shirts also make people uncomfortable? I am not someone who would immediately think "Sue, sue, sue" if it were me in this situation, but I can understand why this guy ended up offended.
1 person likes this
@Modestah (11179)
• United States
6 Jan 09
the message attests to his purpose in wearing the shirt.
no , I would not have sued. But that is what he wanted to do, win or lose it gave more voice to his tshirt than the flight alone would have done.
I do not think he should have won the lawsuit either.
Any service can enforce a dress code. His shirt could be a potential for trouble or a signal of potential trouble. The security was acting responsibly.
There was no injury to the individual who only had to conceal his shirt.
I think it would have made more sense that if he was permitted to wear it and show it that everyone else on the flight would sue for being made uncomfortable and uneasy. IT was quite possible a mellow act of terror to encounter others in such a manner.
1 person likes this
@mtdewgurl74 (18151)
• United States
13 Jan 09
Wow,...umm anybody got a shirt I can borrow?..lol Now that was easy money. But they did violate his rights I guess. But with the money struggles we are all having now that is a huge amount.
@DaddyOfTheRose (2934)
• United States
7 Jan 09
He got money for that? No, I would not have sued over that. "We will not be silent" has ominous undertones given two facts. 1) Islamic fundamentalists blow up innocent people. 2) They probably consider blowing up things "not being silent." Bombs do make noise, after all.
I also think a Klan member shouldn't be allowed to wear a T-shirt while flying on an airplane that would be offensive to African Americans. You know, some scenic depiction of slave trading with a slogan indicating this was a good thing.
I don't think free expression means that you get to be blatantly offensive to people.
So long as you are a member of a religion which advocates doing whatever you wish to 'infidels' and supports raping women as a way to show displeasure for some act committed by her father or brother, I think you can just deal with being asked to take off your shirt.
@jhhayes777 (46)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I would sued the airlines also. They are stopping freedom of speech. I am not an arabic but eveyone has a right to exist and a right to express themselves as long as it does not effect or tramples another rights.
1 person likes this
@ersmommy1 (12588)
• United States
6 Jan 09
oops! Forgot the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/ts_alt_afp/ustransportairsecuritymuslimsrights_090106002219
1 person likes this
@stephcjh (38473)
• United States
6 Jan 09
I think i may have sued also. I do not see anything really wrong with what he had on his shirt.