Comments on: Porn on a plane: It's all or nothing

You can't access porn online while on a plane, but you can read a Playboy and watch a pornographic DVD? Don Reisinger thinks something is wrong with the airlines.

[Zimm2]

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that in the case of internet content, the airline is providing it.

[aztec92154]

The airline is providing data to a requester via an unfiltered public information pipeline, but it is not distributing porn to children. A man sitting in his seat with a dvd player watching porn would be in a sense distributing this material, just like a movie theater does.

[jvreeland]

This is no different from the debate of coffee shops or other public Wi-Fi areas regulating the content that can be viewed in their establishments.

Just filter it and be done with it. Nobody will care or notice once its filtered as its that way in other Free Wi-Fi Locations.

[dd13reis]

Good point. I wonder why it's so hard for these airlines to understand? It's just like every coffee shop in town where people come together to surf the Web.

Good call!

-Don

[bullet25]

first shut up my spelling is bad
now.
this is intrensting. don you are compleatly correct eather all or nothing. to Zimm2 you are also correct that they are just trying to cover there ass but doeset the airlines also supply the playboy, they could just as well not sell it in there magizne store. but i do remember that last time i flew [which was 2 years ago] i dont recall any playboy in the magizne stories?

[dd13reis]

I flew last week and went to a store to buy a book. I saw Playboy on the stands and even asked the clerk if I could read it on the plane. He said I could. (I didn't though -- don't worry).

-Don

[universeman]

Let's just keep the banning of the unpopular stuff to a minimum, can we? We all do things that annoy and offend one another (who hasn't smelt a fart on a flight?) Let's let human decency and civility handle this one, not the heavy hand of law and corporate policy. Do we have to regulate every single thing that transgresses our personal sense of right and wrong?

[aztec92154]

It surprises me that they haven't banned alcohol on flights. Its these same people who complain about porn that will say "if you allow alcohol on planes, you're condoning drunk, violent, abusive behavior" (see an example of the 'slippery slope' in 4wights post).

[dd13reis]

In a perfect world, that would work. But in the real world, it's practically impossible. Do a quick search of "porn on a plane" and you'll see what I'm getting at. There are tons and tons of jerks out there and they just don't care about anyone but themselves.

-Don

[benjaminstraight]

Bringing porn on the plane and accessing it through a service provided by the plane are apples and oranges.

[dd13reis]

Really? How so? If you're making people uncomfortable in either instance, I don't see how it's that different? I'd like to hear your thoughts though -- it sounds like an interesting point.

-Don

[fredtheviking]

Why would you look at porn on the flight, period? It's not that you can be descreet about it. Why not just where a sign that says "I am pervert!"? That why people know not to mind you. The moms can keep thier children away from you. Serious. Porn should be view in private and when you have some alone time. Everyone knows that!

[dd13reis]

True. Very true. But there are tons of people out there that would do it for the laugh, on a bet, for anything! I wish it was true that everyone thought like you, but many don't.

-Don

[4wight]

I think, Don, that you should spend just a few minutes doing some research on porn sites on the web. If did, you'd quickly realise that nothing in Playboy or any magazine that you can buy legally in the States contains the kind of content that anyone can access over the Internet. The issue is not about people accessing pictures of scantily clad women (or men) on planes - though why they'd want to do that on a plane I don't know - it is about people accessing the kind of material that show things that are abusive, violent, degrading, exploitative and even illegal. You do the issue no service by conflating magazines llike Playboy with the kind of morally indefensible pornography that is the staple of the internet.

[aztec92154]

Its a slippery slope isn't it? You went from scantily clad women to "abusive, violent, degrading, exploitative and even illegal" material. Note the slope.

The bottom line is this:

- If someone watches porn or "forensic files" on an airplane that has children who can view said materials, they are in a sense distributing this material to minors. The person distributing said material is at fault, not the airline, the INDIVIDUAL. We cannot expect the airline to filter all the content passangers bring onboard, this includes magazines, internet, music, ect The flight attendant can ALREADY ask you to turn off your electronic devices without citing a reason, no new rule is needed.

New rules dont make business sense. It will cost us more money (monitoring software + updates), more time (they will need to visually monitor everyone, instead of bringing us drinks or peanuts).

[dd13reis]

Actually, you can find pictures online like what you'd find in Playboy. It's called Playboy.com or Google image search. But that's not the point -- where does it end? And I think you make a good point -- it goes beyond just porn, which then raises another question: why even have the Web on flights anyway if we need to worry about all this stuff?

-Don

[ghosford]

Actually, what 4wight is saying is that many of the images you will find online would never be printed in Playboy, not the other way around.

It's not a "slippery slope;" the internet is a vast plain - that encompasses everything from uplifting, encouraging material to "abusive, violent, degrading, exploitative and even illegal" material (I'm assuming scantily clad women or men falls in the middle there somewhere). So if you're going to call it a slope, my slope is even steeper. But I doubt it's very slippery. It's just there.

Although the individual is responsible, if there is a recurring problem and the airlines do nothing, they are, in part, responsible also. The "new rules" have been requested by flight attendants, and the debate appears to be heated!

[The_Darklady]

Another tempest in a teapot. Porn is online! Run for the hills! Panic! Scream and wave your hands! Look busy!

Until someone actually accesses porn online and it annoys someone, isn't this just a lot of, dare I say it, mental masturbation?

I work in the adult entertainment industry and with alternative sexuality populations and one thing I've noticed is that one person's "porn" is another person's "social networking." Yes, it's pretty obvious that watching the latest exciting episode in *** Drenched Cheerleaders 169 is pornographic, but what about visiting a GLBT or BDSM community site? How about a dating site with photos?

And why is it always sex that gets this kind of hysterical response? I collect forensic photos. Would those go over better with the abstinence-only crowd or do they want their kids to wait a little longer to find out what a man who's been sawed in half during a suicide look like? And how about those war stories, huh? Does reading about another batch of teen girls in Afghanistan being shot and buried alive qualify as family friendly? Why is violence apparently fine but the infamous nipple an obscenity?

Frankly, it seems like common sense once again being ignored for the fun of a fit. If I'm the only person at the back of the plane and I decide to look through some naked photos, good for me. If I do it when there's someone under age next to me or without checking to see if I'll bother my seat mates, I'm a jerk and deserve to have my access limited -- but I'd love to see that applied to *anyone* who has bad manners, including the parents of kids who kick seat backs, scream at earsplitting frequencies, and run up and down the aisles.

[Matt Asay]

You "collect forensic photos?" Wow. If you collect them to see people sawed in half, um, I think you may have problems more dire than a porn addiction.

Long story short, porn isn't just a private choice that hurts no one when consumed in a public place, especially one (like a flight) where you have nowhere to go. It's wrong and should be summarily banned from flights. End of story.

But, to your point, should we also be more careful about the other kinds of content we allow on planes? Absolutely. I've seen things on the screen next to me, as well as over the public screens, that I found highly offensive and contacted the airline to ask it to please exercise more discretion. Did it change anything? Nope.

[dd13reis]

I see your point and I understand where you're coming from. But I just don't think everyone is as "open" to porn as you may be. Many people are against it for any number of reasons and we can't forget that.

But you make a good point: what is porn, exactly? And an even better point: what scares us so much about the human body?

Thanks for the comment -- it's a good one!

-Don

[ghosford]

Where do I start? How does someone commit suicide by sawing himself in half? Oh wait, this was about porn. There is a legal/criminal difference between viewing porn with a minor present and kicking, screaming and running.

But you do have a good point: where do you draw the line and who determines where that line is? Having said that, sex gets this response because, at this point in time in our country, obscenity is primarily defined in sexual terms. Could a picture of someone being sawed in half be classified as obscene? Perhaps, but we don't have the case law to support it that we do for sexual pictures.

Apparently, at least American Airlines has had minor problems with this, although I haven't seen any details. As of now, their approach is to have the flight attendant deal with it as they would any other situation where *anyone* is annoying another passenger. The "tempest" comes because flight attendants have requested a filter that would avoid some of the conflict they now have to deal with.

[Dalkorian]

by Matt Asay September 17, 2008 11:21 AM PDT
Long story short, porn isn't just a private choice that hurts no one when consumed in a public place, especially one (like a flight) where you have nowhere to go. It's wrong and should be summarily banned from flights. End of story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't people get this? Define "porn". Define "hurt". What's harmful about viewing pictures of natures creations? Where does the line get drawn, genitalia and boobies? Penetration? Whips and chains? Belly buttons? Thighs? Buttocks?

I agree with The_Darklady here, there are things on the web that are much more offensive to some than a nude body is. War pictures? Snuff films? Why stop at "porn"? That's the problem with censorship - one man's perversion is another mans pleasure is another mans nightmare.

We shouldn't be legislating being decent to one another, at least not to this degree. If I can bring a Playboy (or worse) onto the plane for my viewing, I should be able to access "porn" on the internet as well. It's really no different, nude is nude.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't be caught dead viewing "porn" (graphic displays - "Debby Does Dallas" kind of stuff) on a plane in public. I personally feel that's a private thing to do, but that's me. That does NOT mean I wouldn't be caught looking at say Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Edition online and yes, some of those images might show some nipples (think wet tee shirt). Is that porn too? Why or why not?

I should also add that I find screaming, out of control kids to be more offensive than nudity. Consider that when you let your monsters run wild through a plane!

[biffhenerson]

If people provide porn for my child to view on an airplane, whether it be a magazine, internet, or movie, whether intentional or reckless, I will have them charged and they will be found guilty. I will also move the court to have them register as sex offenders and have to notify local law enforcement the rest of thier lives. Go ahead perverts. Make my day!

[aztec92154]

Thank you for letting our government do your job. You keep lawyers in business, judges on the bench a little longer to suck our tax dollars, and give our legislators plenty to do. You're the type of person that's just looking for a crack in the system to exploit. Its unbelievable... but someday you'll need to take some personal responsibility for yourself and your child.

[dd13reis]

What about asking them to stop so your children can't see? I don't think someone viewing porn of legal individuals should be called perverts or charged as a sex offender. Maybe they're dumb and a little too out there, but sex offenders because your children *might* see it? Nah.

-Don

[ghosford]

Okay, so is it different if someone is viewing porn (on an aircraft or otherwise) and a child happens to walk by and briefly sees an image vs. sitting down next to a child and playing an adult DVD?

You can say other parents need to take "personal responsibility" for their child, but the laws acknowledge that parents cannot be with a child every waking minute of the day, and if someone does not have the common sense (or worse) to withhold displaying porn around my child, it's doubtful that they will just magically stop because I want them to. This is not exploiting the system, it's acknowledging that sometimes people need a real threat before they stop doing what they shouldn't do. I would classify myself as an overprotective parent, and I have pretty good communication with my kids, but many things that they see throughout the day, I have no idea about unless they tell me.

Regarding asking them to stop, airlines have been know to seat children away from a parent. How many children are going to have the nerve or sense to ask the adult sitting next to them to view something else in flight? Once again, I believe there is a difference between brief, incidental viewing and extended viewing. But how long should my child be exposed to porn before some adult steps up and says, "Hey, you shouldn't be doing that with a child around"?

[Dalkorian]

Your inability to control your children in public does not require me to be your babysitter.

[Penguinisto]

Folks, this is real simple.

1) The Airline is the ISP. They can do anything they damned well please with it, and you have the perfect right to not purchase the access. As a result, you do not have the right to use the airline (or anyone else's) service as you please. If you want the 100% guaranteed right to access whatever you want on any internet connection, then get an SLA with a backbone provider. Otherwise, you're stuck with what's for sale (be it on an airplane, in a coffee shop, through a home ISP provider, whatever).

2) The airline isn't selling the Playboy mags - it's the magazine stand (a different vendor) in the concourse that's selling them.

3) If you were in a public park (pick any city in the US), and you could get arrested for viewing it with a kid or a woman sitting next to you on a park bench, what strange magic gives you the right to do the same thing on an airplane?

4) the one and only exception to all of this where you can claim your rights is if a government gets involved. In this case, government is nowhere to be found. Deal with it.

[dd13reis]

1. True
2. True
3. True
4. True

Great points.

-Don

[ghosford]

1. True
2. True, but the airline is allowing it on the plane
3. True
4. False. First, any business owner can set limits on what can be done in their establishment. They may not be able to arrest the violator, but they can at least refuse them access to the venue. Second, the government (through laws) stipulates that certain materials should not be shown to a minor. Government agents do occasionally ride on planes and have authority to enforce laws (although, I suspect they would primarily rely on the airline to resolve this, unless it were an extreme or recurring event).

[Penguinisto]

@ghosford:

I'm thinking you misread #4 (and I sorta mistyped it) - I'm saying there that the gov't is the only entity that (within obvious limitations*) cannot restrict the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution on US soil).

* those limitations include things like shouting "fire" in a crowded venue, or sexual behavior near or with a child. There are also laws concerning libel and slander, but those are civil, not criminal matters.

[aerosky1229]

Viewing the porn on the airplane through the internet connection should be restricted. I understand that your arguments about invading an individual privilege or about the people having the natural ethics not to watch the obscene materials on the public. Nevertheless, try to think as if you are one of managers from the airplane company which recently allowed the internet use on the airplane. By doing something that no other airplane company did before, the company is certainly taking a risk. And it should cost them a significant fees and resources for the infrastructure and management information system. Now, suppose an accident happens: a person with the laptop was watching a porno graphic material through internet and turned on the volume by an accident. Who would get the blame? Of course, the airplane company can put the rules to follow before the customers make the flight reservations and to make the customer to take the responsibility, if an unforeseen accident happens. But not only the company, as a startup, is already taking the huge risk and pouring big amounts of moneys to try out this service to differentiate itself among the competitors, the company probably does not want to get into a trouble by taking a blame for a customer who causes the commotion by watching the obscene material from the internet.

For those here claiming that the flight attendants are not needed, you have a point. Some of these flight assistants can be rude and crowding the airplane aisle. However, just whom would you blame if an accident happen? After the hurricane Katrina incident, the citizens in this country become more afraid of the natural disasters and blamed those who could not prevent the accident. Few years later, the hurricane Gustav came to the New Orleans area, and the people there evacuated. The damage was minimal, and no one died. However, the odd thing is, some people now regret why they even bother to evacuate. People can be very selfish and foolish. They are afraid of disasters like wars, vehicle accidents, and natural disasters, but they internally seek for thrills and get bored if nothing happens.

[benjwah]

It's a banner day people. I agree with Don for once.

I agree with The_Darklady. Why is this such a big deal? If I did something that's deem offensive to someone, all they need to do is ask me to stop. It's just common courtesy. Until porn becomes as socially acceptable as, say, alcohol, I'm sure no one will really argue against you asking them to put their porn away.

Oh wait, I remember why it's such a big deal now. It's the fear of lawsuits. Yeah, I'll sue the airline because they provided the guy next to me with porn. Better yet, I'll start a class action suit. Woo hoo, bring on the porn! I can't wait to get rich by suing! How pathetic is that? Our children are seeing lawsuits as the way to "solve problems" and to get rich. God I fear for the future of America.

[ghosford]

Oh come on! How many of you have the nerve to ask someone smoking next to you to stop if it's offensive (or lately, illegal)? And you're saying we just need to ask them to put their porn away? If someone is stupid enough to view porn on an airplane, 20 inches away from a stranger's face, they have some sort of problem that needs to be addressed.

[aztec92154]

How can you NOT have "the nerve" to ask someone next to you to put their porn away, ESPECIALLY if your children are present. Also, if someone does have "some sort of problem", I would presume a mental health issue, a law would not be necessary. On a flight, its not your job enforce rules, ask the flight attendant to deal with the situation. If the passenger does not obey, they will take the appropriate disciplinary actions. Any normal responsible adult should be able to handle this situation.

[djfelix512]

Whoever told you that you can read Playboy on an airplane is a liar. The only time I have ever seen anyone get away with reading pornography on a flight has been on an international flight. I remember reading a recent story of a German man who attempted to read a pornographic magazine on a flight and was asked to stop. He didn't understand, and continued reading. The disagreement escalated to the point that it made national news.

If you read Playboy, Penthouse, or any of those other magazines on a flight, and someone notices it, don't be surprised if the flight attendants tell you to put it away. Just because you can buy it in the airport bookstore doesn't mean you can READ it on the plane. You certainly can take it on the plane, and read it somewhere private. You could even wait until you reach your destination, purchase a pornographic magazine, and take it with you to the hotel.

At the end of the day, it's their planes. Federal law requires you to comply with flight attendant instructions. If you refuse, you can be arrested, and people often are.