Comments on: Porn on a plane: Flight attendants want filters

Flight attendants ask American Airlines to use filtering technology to block porn from in-flight Internet access.

[gefitz]

"Flight Attendants want Filters". Translation: Flight Attendants, who are ironically tasked with the safety and comfort of the airline's patron, no longer want to take part in that uncomfortable conversation when a patron complains. They'd like that conversation to be completely automated.

Well, here's a thought: how about we replace the galleys with vending machines that sell drinks, blankets and pillows to passengers, and replace the flight attendants with one person tasked with maintaining the safety of passengers...but not for busing, serving, or preparing meals or drinks?

I mean, really, I could do without flight attendants entirely, since customer service is always low on their agenda anyway...

[rad91]

Yes... that's what we need... more people walking around the plane.

[Penguinisto]

Hell, for most flights, we could just allow folks to buy and bring their own drinks and snacks onto the plane (they already make you buy such things after the security checkpoint anyway, so its not like there's some sort of security hazard.

OTOH, forget the flight attendants - the last thing I want to put up with while jammed onto an airplane for x amount of hours is the schmuck next to me cruising for pr0n... and I don't even have kids.

[mojitosas]

it's simple really..just tell people - "Sir/Madame please refrain from watching adult material as there may be children or those seated next to you that would feel the material inappropriate or be uncomfortable with it. If you feel the need to watch such material, please head to our rest room to do that, and ensure that your hands remain above the equator while seated in public."

[Ross1984]

I cound not agree more. Why not lose the air waitresses? Have you ever heard this statement: "Wow, I am sure glad there was a flight attendant on board." NO.

[cnguye5]

I really don't get why you guys are defending watching porn on an airplane you're in close quarters and chances are you probably have an minor or a little kid next to you and you want to whip out your laptop and check out porn when you have another passenger that's sitting right next to you? You guys are freaks. it's called being a decent person in society people - get a clue and stop thinking about yourself for once.

[David Turner]

cnguye5 the issue here is much larger then just porn. I believe that most sensible people do not view porn on a plane and would not because social rules dictate that it is impropriate. This is back up by the fact that one could already easily watch porn on dvd players, ipods, laptops etc. Yet people don't because they know it is impropriate.

The bigger and real issue here is that you are allowing a corporation to decide what you can see or can't see. This has massive civic liberty issues as whom are they to decide what is offensive or inappropriate. They might decide that an article about how bad their service is inappropriate and thus block it. Once you start down the path of censorship it can become very hard to determine an unbiased view of the world. Just look at any dictatorship through out history of which censorship and propaganda are the backbone of how they retain power.

All these risks just because 1 passenger in a million might look at porn and have a flight attendant have to ask them not to. Get real.

[cnguye5]

@ David Turner

I hardly would call putting a filter up a step up towards violating one's civic liberties. You're paying for permission to use their online service while you're on their aircraft. Not to mention this is a private corporation you're talking about, not a public one. I would think that once they do put a filter up there would be a big asterisk on their offer saying that objectionable content would be filtered - so you get what you pay for. Of course no filter is perfect - but of course corporations which rely on customer service such as airliners wouldn't go as gung-ho as severely limiting internet access. And I'm guessing the majority of people who buy internet access are business users who want a constant check on their email and corporate websites for which I think they would be safe from the airliners blocking objectionable content besides pornography. Calling it a "massive" civic liberty issue is going a bit for the drama isn't it? Give me a break.

It's about picking your battles, and going paranoid about "the man" looking over your shoulder while you're surfing the web for a few hours on an airplane, is a stupid battle to pick.

[Steve Parker--2008]

"Well, here's a thought: how about we replace..."

What an @-hole you are.

[sigzero]

It should be blocked. Definately.

[mullendarrell]

No it should not be blocked, definately not. Sex and nudity are not offensive; unless nature itself is considered offensive. Perhaps we should censor nature itself. Though I believe personally that religous material should be blocked (because it is not natural and is inappropriate), I have to say not to block that either. The point is this: We are paying for a service, internet access, this service has to be unrestricted to be accessible to all people no matter his/her personal interests. This means very simply, you have the right to not visit porn sites if they offend you, you also have the right to not "spy" on the person sitting next to you. If you see something offensive, it is only out of your own decision. You see, if you see porn and it offends you, STOP LOOKING AT IT! This is so simple it just might work. You do not have to worry about hearing anything offensive as people on planes use headphones. There are too many people with too many ideas on what offends him/her. If we keep censoring every little thing that offends someone there will be nothing left to censor or to watch for that matter. Everything is offensive to somebody so it is the responsibility of the individual to determine what websites, in this case, to visit. The fact that you restrict a site that I personally enjoy may offend me. People need to accept that people, as part of the animal kingdom, do have sex and it is not something to hide. I agree with expatincebu, the real problem is the "aging hags" do not like being reminded of their failing looks. This is life, get used to it.

[choctawfootball]

HELLO !!!

You must be CHINESE bc u certainly have no problem against unlawful and unconstitutional censorship

[expatincebu]

While I do not consider nudity and sex (two natural and normal things) to be offensive in any way, I do consider all religious material to be inappropriate and offensive. Will American Airlines be blocking this as well?

Personally, I think the real problem is that the aging hags that pass as flight attendants don't like being reminded of their rapidly failing looks.

[bosunj]

expatincebu has it exactly correct on all counts. Good on ya!

[z00merT00]

expatincebu-- it'll be the same way as your aging prostate begins to silently grow and the 'flow' won't be so 'max' anymore... You'll be the male version of the so-called hag.

[Penguinisto]

It's easier to ignore someone reading a bible than it is to ignore some slob on a laptop eyeballing sexually explicit images or movies.

Use your head FFS...

[depage]

Just for the historical value, I'd like to point out that soon after they stopped requiring an RN for flight attendants, they went to the "32 skidoo" policy: all attendants were female and less than 32. More recently, that has backfired, first by employment suits, but then by suits due to the increased radiation exposure of flying. The atmosphere protects us from radiation. One flight may not add much, but a career of it adds up, especially if young. Now the trend is to encourage "post-fertile" employees to avoid liability, producing the situation you mention.

Attempts to replace fuel expenses by cutting back on food rather limits much of the "service" provided.

[fhegner]

Expatincebu - YOU GO NOW. You hit that one out of the park.

Expatinbangkok

[PWallen]

There is no reason to block religious material since there are no laws against it. There is, however, a reason to block pornography which is illegal when given to minors sitting next to you.

[andrewrm]

Can you get any more sexist and pathetic? The days of flight attendants being sex objects are long over. However your point or religious material is somewhat relevant.

[gregorytga]

I'm in agreement here, unfiltered is just asking for problems.

[ldabeck]

So to follow your "logic," you don't like religious matter because you don't like being reminded of your rapidly fading life? that you're accountable to God?

[OrigamiIntheRain]

expat, defecation and urination are also natural and normal things, but who really wants to watch people or animals doing those things while on an airplane?

There is a level of decorum we should all agree upon and sexual acts are considered private and personal, just as bathroom activities are considered private. This is why there are doors on the bathrooms on flights. People should not be having sex on planes or in public places because it is not just offensive to some, but it's intrusive. Have any of these exhibitionists thought that maybe people don't have time to be distracted by their selfishness? Also, there could be young children on the flight who could view the material.

[Don Key]

The problem becomes who decides what is offensive or not? What's offensive to me may not be offensive to you.

[Gabey8]

I'm reasonably sure that a fair dividing line could be found if they filter content that anyone under 18 would not be allowed to purchase from a newsstandj, go to see in a movie theater, or view online.

I offer that as a suggestion because I don't think I've ever been on a flight without children among the passengers. Anyone viewing the above-described content on their computer screen could also be exposing children seated in the vicinity to seeing it.

That could rapidly turn into a legal issue for the airline and also for the person whose computer the porn is being viewed on.

It could also turn into a labor-related issue for the airline for the same reason that people in most workplaces aren't allowed to post X-rated pictures in their cubicle. Only in this case, it's the airline employees voicing an objection to being exposed to the X-rated content that a passenger, rather than a coworker, is putting on display. It's still their workplace and if they don't want to see that content, they still have the right to say so.

I believe that the airlines that allow for in-flight internet will end up blocking the same adult-content sites that many workplaces also block. It's just easier on the airlines to do so, for a long list of reasons.

[cnguye5]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of American society would deem watching a guy become aroused watching porno while he's sitting right next to you on an airplane as offensive.

[Penguinisto]

Well - which images/films will get you arrested if you play it with a minor sitting in the seat next to you in eyeshot of the thing?

[chrisx1]

This is so easy to solve. Instead of filtering the internet access, require screen filters on the laptops.
Screen privacy/glare filters will prevent PAX sitting next to you and walking down the aisles from seeing your private corporate data and e-mail and it would solve this problem as well.

[InkyRed]

How come all of these other guys aren't as smart as we are?

[jpmays]

And who, pray tell, is going to supply the screen/glare filters? The passengers? The airlines? I shouldn't have to purchase additional equipment/filters just for a simple flight. The airlines should provide these gratis!

[ghosford]

This idea has some merit. There is some complexity in that they would need to stock a variety of sizes with the wide variety of screen sizes, and cost would be a factor. However, if the passenger wants some control over which screen filter to use, he or she can purchase one before boarding the airplane. Those who have not thought ahead about that can purchase one in-flight for a one-time fee. Those who do not wish to purchase a filter must wait until exiting the flight to use their laptop.

Sheesh, it's not like there are no other restrictions on airplanes! This one is minor, and only affects a small portion of passengers who are enjoying a privilege they didn't have a few months ago. Compared to the other restrictions on flights and cost of owning a laptop, this one is minor. I wish airlines would provide headphones gratis also, but at least the screen filter can be purchased and re-used, vs. "renting" the headphones.

[chrisx1]

This is so easy to solve. Instead of filtering the internet access, require screen filters on the laptops.
Screen privacy/glare filters will prevent PAX sitting next to you and walking down the aisles from seeing your private corporate data and e-mail and it would solve this problem as well.

[cybervio]

Very good point, the screen filter is just a simple accessory and requires no technical hassle for everyone, low cost, also protected privacy for users.

[MTGrizzly]

Continue to manage it as they manage inappropriate materials from other media. With their ability to sic the cops on anyone who does anything, whether a crime or not, I doubt anyone will dare defy them.

Seriously, if I could choose, I wouldn't pay for filtered Internet access. However, if that is the only Internet Access available and I am bored out of my skull, I'd probably still buy it...

[rad91]

I don't want government to regulate this, but I do ask the airlines to place a filter. As a parent who spends a lot of time watching everything my kids do, this is the last thing I need to look out for. Next thing you know, porn reading/surfing passengers will start pulling a Pee-Wee Herman on us.

[Concerned1450]

@ rad91,

Why does it matter if the government regulates this as opposed to the airlines? Are you insinuating that only corporations should be allowed to control our actions??? Let us look at an intersting side effect of your idea. First, only certain planes will block the content, leading to the creating of pornographic travel. Lets say the cheapest/only way for you to get to a certain place is through this smut plane, and your forced to endure this behavior, would you like it? I doubt it. Atleast with government action there is uniformity.

[malapropist]

You having children gives you absolutely no right to control what I or anyone else does. If you're so worried about it, drive.

[OrigamiIntheRain]

Someone was doing just that on a NYC subway I was on years ago. Definitely unpleasant to be a "captive audience" to someone's selfishness.

[MCOjerry]

Stop being nosy and looking at other people's business and you have nothing to worry about. You can avoid looking at other people's computers. As for the children...make them behave and sit in their seats and you have nothing to worry about. It's the parents that think their little monsters are so cute when being little brats that have anything to worry about, and those damn kids are already screwed up.

Come on people, take responsibility for yourselves and stop holding others responsible for you.

[Penguinisto]

wait... wait... lemme get this right: you're saying that if you don't like the guy sitting next to you surfing pr0n less than 20" from your nose, you're obligated to just turn your head for the rest of the flight?

Sorry kid, but them's some rather cramped quarters in that there airplane.

I got a better idea - how about whoever is dumb enough to surf porn on a flight show some common courtesy and shut the fscking thing off?

[wintaki]

Amen! I can't believe idiots like rad91 who are afraid of someone pulling a "Pee-Wee Herman". Incredible. Be responsbile and make your children behave. And anyway, if they happen to see a bare breast, what's wrong with that anyway? It's the most natural thing there is!

Stop "watching" what your kids do and take control of them. I hate parents like you who think it's so cute to watch their little brat bastards running around kicking and making all kinds of noise.

[Penguinisto]

* most porn shows far more than the occasional bare breast.

* airlines often have this idiotic habit of seating kids in another row.

[kcovi2]

I like the idea of people using screen filters to prevent viewing from the side. They are a cheap solution that the airline could provide and it's a win for everyone.

In coach you are practically sitting in eachothers laps. You could have the best behaved child in the world and if your son or daughter lifts their head at all to look straight foward they will catch a glimpse of whatever is on the laptop next to them in their periphery. I would not want my son seeing killing, sex, or anything like that, but unfortunately to get to some places we need to fly. I don't think banning any type of media whether it's sex or religous is a good idea but the screen filter is a great solution that would eliminate anyone but the laptop user from viewing the screen.

I take great resposibility for my actions and for my son's. I can't keep my son in a bubble forever but please show some respect for parents, kids, and childrens innocence. They will be exposed to the garbage in this world soon enough. No need to accelerate or encourage the process.

[pretenderkc]

sane people don't watch porn while someone sitting next to them.

it's ok to watch a movie where someone's head get chop off with a sword or blown away with a gun but not ok to see people making out?

there's a public decency law.
and most adult can police themselves just fine.
the only people who would likely to surf porn on the plane or public place are underage kids which they shouldn't have access to the internet the first place without parental supervision.

if they actually banned this, the wi-fi service won't fly (no punt intended). :-)
what's next?
if a person wants to read about "sexual transmitted disease" and that get banned too?
afterall, it has the word SEX in there and the filter won't allow it to go thru.
how about if a person wants to read a movie review about, "SEX AND THE CITY".
get banned too?

give me a break!!!

[cnguye5]

reading about STDS or watching people kiss is not the same as watching hardcore porno. There's a huge difference you know.

[Perry_Clease]

How much of a problem would it really be? To be sure there will be a few exceptions, but when was the last time you saw someone looking at a porn (what ever that is) magazine during a flight. Besides, if someone has such a porn addiction that need to view it during a flight then they could just put some images or video on their laptop.

[OrigamiIntheRain]

Porn is generally considered sexually explicit material that is created and/or used for sexual arousal and gratification purposes. It is also material with no other artistic content. That's just the strict definition.

[johngalt9]

Give me a break, this isn't going to be a problem. People currently bring dvd players and laptops and watch movies, yet I haven't read about a lot of problems with people watching porn. Why will it be different with web surfing??

[lnxpro]

Ah heck. ban it or not. i can still access my VNC anywhere and use my desktop at home to browse whatever i want. not that i would. but if they censorise the access then it should be $5.99 / flight and get it over with. I would not pay $12.95 for a "limited" access.

that's about it.

[jpmays]

This is the whole of the problem... if the airlines are going to charge $12.95 for a three-hour plus flight, then by God that better provide unfiltered/unlimited access... otherwise if they're going to filter everything under the sun, then they should provide the Internet access free, or at the very least, at their cost!

[Wookiee-1138]

Unfortunately, many legitimate sites often get lumped in with porn sites by name or reputation alone (somethingawful, deviantart) which is cause for legitimate complaints against censorship.

[albizzia]

That reminds me of one blogging filter that censored the name of a well known Japanese firm, so every time someone tried to discuss it, it appeared as "Matsus**ta because it had the letters s**t in it!

[assclownbush]

It is none of your damn business. Since they are paying for the service, they can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, then stop staring at the person's screen. Cough up 50% of the fee and stop ripping off pron from the guy next to you.

[Gromit801]

Doesn't matter a damn if you pay for it. The system BELONGS to the airline. Paying for something doesn't automatically make it yours to do anything you want.

I can go buy ammo at the store, but because I bought it, does that give me the automatic right to pop holes in my neighbors house?

Nope.

Grow up.

[canberra_photographer]

Porn on a plane, you'd have to be very comfortable with yourself given everyone can see you. Do people really access that stuff on a plane or in public?

[da_alman]

Now we know the real reason for those fold down trays ;^)

[assclownbush]

You people are all hypocrites. You know you love your porn and want access to it anytime, anywhere. Want proof? The only industry to see a significant revenue increase after the disbursement of Bush's stimulus money was the porn industry. FACT. Priests, pro-lifers, teachers, religious nutjobs, liberals, independents, whomever all flocked to porn with their stimulus money. Your self-righteous BS isn't fooling anyone so go close the blinds and do your thing.

[ferretboy88]

If you had to wait for a check from the govt to buy porn then your really a loser and should have saved your money for food and a good doctor for your brain injury.

[Penguinisto]

You must be joking. If I wanted 24/7 access to porn, I'd just as easily store it on the laptop's hard disk.

[DarkHawke]

Precisely the point: t'ain't the activity, it's the propriety of engaging in it in public! Exactly NO ONE needs to jack it in public, let alone view the material that gets them in the mood for such an activity where everyone and their aunt's uncle can see them. So show some restraint (as un-P.C. as that is in this day and age) and maintain till you get to your home or hotel room. THEN you can go at it till you blister yourself; makes no nevermind to me or anyone else at that point!

[celticbrewer]

uhm... I highly doubt your source, there. The porn industry on the net has actually seen a decline this year. And I know there's other industries that have increased since the stimulus checks- video games for one. I have never paid for online porn- why bother when you can easily find it for free?

[OrigamiIntheRain]

The key point of your comment was "go close the blinds..." If only people would keep their sexuality personal, we wouldn't have a problem.

[camp88]

I was on a flight the other day, the airline screened the latest Demi Moore crapola on a big screen that everyone had to watch. Talk about your offensive content, sheesh.

[Machaira]

Demi Moore has a new movie out?

[williambrodie]

And if they did filter the content available - SO WHAT??

My school filtered Porn and facebook.com from the internet - by the time i left there was not a single CHILD in that school who did not know how to log on to a proxy site (or some other circumvention) to use Facebook.

If a filter is implemented there is a good chance that if people are even only slightly computer literate could look at whatever they wanted, in my opinion the type of people who end up watching porn on planes will probably be used to getting past filters implemented at their workplace or ispend a short ammount of time searching "Proxy site" on google.

Internet filtering never really works evan when thoroughly implemented on systems such as Saudi's, Qatar's or China's Interent (Believe me, I've lived in the Mid East) - Its just a gesture, an attempt at creating a certain image that the organisation is doing 'something' about it, or confirming their disapproval.

Happy Flying

[kpj2]

Given that standards for (video) content on airlines have been in existence since video entertainment on airplanes has been offered, and given that they were conceived to accommodate the sensitivity of carrying a diverse population within a highly confined space, why waste time on a new paradigm? If you don't filter, you eviscerate the existing standard. Of course, content that's already deemed unsuitable for that environment should be filtered. This is not a hard question and the price issue is irrelevant.

[mullendarrell]

Too bad they cannot filter it completely. Those of us with higher intelligence than the majority of the population have the ultimate power. You see, we know how to view porn sites even if the airlines filter it. The filter only gives the public a sense of security. We know how to break it, and they (the government) simply CANNOT stop ALL of us. So get over yourself and stop staring at the porn if it offends you!!

[csUser]

kpj2 - the standards for video content on airlines has been content that the Airline has been responsible for selecting. I love some pornography, but I would be a little offended if "*** ***** 3" started playing while I was traveling with my mother. However, if I have a pocket DVD player, the airline can do nothing about it.

The issue here is whether or not the sites you visit can be deemed "delivered" by the airline. If you say the airline delivered it, then the airline is responsible for filtering. If you say the airline (like almost every other ISP anywhere) is not delivering the webpage, just providing the means to do it, then the airline should not be responsible for filtering.

If they do filter, it's their perrogative. That's like trying to force M&M's to add more chocolate to their peanut M&Ms. They sell the product to you - if you dislike that product, or some aspect of it, then you are more than welcome to not buy it.

I support which ever decision the airline chooses - if you don't like it, don't buy it.

PS - Anyone looking at blatant pornography on a plane is either a freak or a loser. Use your imagination and the image of that 12 yr old sitting next to you.