Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Anti-gay group sues FAA to fly over Disney

LGBT Anti-Gay Disney no fly zone

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 07:46 AM

http://www.advocate....852&sd=06/05/03

Quote

Antigay group challenges Disney World's "no-fly zone"
The airspace above Walt Disney World has been free of aircraft since March, when the government said the resort was a terrorism target of symbolic value. But a Christian organization that wants to send banner-towing planes over the theme park during this week's Gay Days festivities believes the no-fly zone equals no free speech. The Virginia-based Family Policy Network seeks to preach during Gay Days "the truth that Christ can set them free from the sin of homosexuality," according to the organization's Web site. The 13th annual Gay Days, which starts Thursday and lasts four days, is expected to draw more than 100,000 gay and lesbian tourists. While Disney doesn't sponsor Gay Days, which includes several events planned around the weekend under no single organizer, the Magic Kingdom theme park is the center of the activities.

Part of FPN's outreach program, said president Joe Glover, would include planes pulling banners reading, "JESUS CHRIST: HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM." The same banner was flown in 2001 without incident, FPN said. But Federal Aviation Administration restrictions now prohibit aircraft from flying within 3,000 feet of ground level or within three nautical miles of the resort, located about 25 miles southwest of Orlando, Fla. No-fly zones also cover Disney parks in Anaheim, Calif.

A lawsuit by FPN and an aerial advertising company, AirSign, seeking a temporary rollback of the flight restrictions is expected to be filed in U.S. district court in Orlando this week, with the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy handling the legal work. Stephen M. Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA, said Disney has long desired no-fly zones around its properties to prevent competitors from advertising. But fears of terrorism gave the entertainment giant the cover it needed, he said. "We're not advertising; we're trying to reach a specific target audience with a very specific, noncommercial message," Crampton said from his office in Tupelo, Miss. "But Disney and Disney alone has managed to achieve a total ban, effectively, on such speech."

Disney spokeswoman Rena Callahan said the "safety and enjoyment" of its guests are the only reasons the company wants the no-fly zones and that it wants them kept in place. "We pursued the FAA restrictions for the safety and enjoyment of our guests and believe this extra layer of protection is in the best interests of those who work and visit the Walt Disney World Resort," Callahan said. The no-fly regulations were part of an appropriations package approved by Congress in March, FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said, and any attempt to repeal them would have to be addressed through legislation. She refused further comment. A spokesman for the Department of Justice, which would defend the regulations, did not return a call seeking comment on Tuesday.

Nan Schultz, vice president of Orlando Gay Days 2003, refused to discuss FPN's plane plans. "We like to comment on the positive issues of Gay Days: the economic impact to the area, the 125,000 people coming here to have a good time," Schultz said.

I think the no-fly zone should be enforced... not only for safety, but because I really don't like these people. ;). Free speech, you may ask? Perhaps, but to have your vacation ruined by bigotry? C'mon...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:11 AM

Since the no fly zone is not discriminating against any one kind of speech I don't think these guys should win.
Posted Image

#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:12 AM

Free speech is not always what we want to hear sadly they have a basis for it. I do not agree with the group but if at a christian gathering what that be I  do not know and group wanted to fly something then as long as they have the proper permits then let them.

Now if the banner is beyond the message they have said they are flying then it can be argued that it's hate speech. Remember they are not saving flyover and drop anything.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:24 AM

Even if it's protectable speech (which I think it is) that's only the first step.  If the public policy (in this case, protecting against the threat of terrorist attack by having a blanket no fly zone) outweighs the interest in allowing the speech, the speech can still be stopped.

In this case I would think that factors such as the anti gay group's other venues for demonstrating at this event (which I'm sure they will), the fact that their "message" isn't being singled out, and the fact that it *is* a strong public policy in the circumstances, would I think mean that the FAA should win this one.

My views.
Posted Image

#5 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:24 AM

They want to fly planes over a no-fly zone that was made no-fly for reasons that have *absolutely* nothing to do with their group... and they claim that's against their free speech?

I suppose it's impossible for them to say their message on the ground, eh?  :sarcasm:
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#6 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:30 AM

Actually in Florida it's impossible for saftey inspectors to go in to the parks without telling park management. They can keep protestors out and off the grounds of the entire resort. They can and have inthe past escoutred off folks who have gone in and tried to take in any sort of simular message.

So no ground level would be unworkable.

They cannot protest at the edge of the property becasue the exits are on to highway property and pedestrians are prohibited. So they cannpt protest at the edge of the property. So the air is about the only avenue  to  speak their message. Since the aircraft will only carry a banner and not loudspeakers it can be ignored.

The question will be for the FAA and the courts to consider.

Edited by G1223, 06 June 2003 - 08:34 AM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#7 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:35 AM

Enforce the no fly zone and I’d say be ready for this group to potentially violate it if they find a pilot crazy enough to do that.  An F-16 ADF with Slammers on the wings should  deter any violators rather nicely.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#8 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:36 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Jun 5 2003, 02:39 PM, said:

Enforce the no fly zone and I’d say be ready for this group to potentially violate it if they find a pilot crazy enough to do that.  An F-16 ADF with Slammers on the wings should  deter any violators rather nicely.
I sincerely doubt you could find anybody crazy enough to violate a no-fly zone, especially after such a high-profile case. ;).
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#9 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:40 AM

Right now there is not need for any extream actions. They get clearnce  they fly their little message and that's it. end of story a few people get upset others could give a F.F and the world moves on.

Now if the message is "Die gay die" or worse then yes action can be taken. Their message is not too far out there in way of a message.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#10 iMel

iMel

    New and improved!

  • Islander
  • 2,338 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:42 AM

I'm all for free speech, but why can't groups like this just respect others instead of doing stuff like this?  :angry: :angry:
I use these words pretty loosely. There's so much more to life than words.
--Over the Rhine, "Latter Days"


Formerly known as Neozephryus :)

#11 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:51 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 5 2003, 09:40 PM, said:

I sincerely doubt you could find anybody crazy enough to violate a no-fly zone, especially after such a high-profile case. ;).
You’d be surprised Rov…  

Back in the 1980s we had a small aircraft flown by a Canadian pilot land right at the local SAC base.  This was after he was warned away by air traffic controllers and everything was done to warn him away short of sending an ADF after him.  IIRC they even vectored in a B-52 that was up to investigate him.  Suffice it to say he got a warm greeting once on the ground…  He did get the plane back once it was determined he wasn’t a threat; however the plane was mailed back to Canada in the smallest pieces the USAF could break it down to.  

I don’t think any private company would be loony enough to attempt to violate the no fly zone.  There is however always the potential that this group might have a pilot with an aircraft among their ranks who is crazy enough to do just that.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#12 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:54 AM

First they feel that homosexual behavior is not genetic and is learned behavior and wish to try and help show the homosexual that there is another option to there lifestyles.  Therefore they feel they are saving souls by doing this.  To some folks that is more important than anything else.

As I have said if they fly only the message they have stated No one is hurt or really needs to feel offened. It gives a site's address and that is that. No one is made to go there and no is made to listen to it soI personally do not see the harm.

But Disney is claiming they are not doing it only for saftey but for want of avoid offending the visitors. On the first I would agree the. Second one is more dificult to say no to unless we live in animal farm where some are more equal to others. That is what is always to be avoided.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#13 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:05 AM

Why should the US make exceptions to a no-fly zone rule that's meant for the protection of Americans so that a religious message could be spread?

Sure, they're Christian.  So are lots of other people.  Sure, they want to do something.  But there's lots of things in life that people want and don't get.

If the group wanted to put someone's life at risk to get their message out, should they be allowed?  Of course not!  But the no-fly zone is there to protect people's lives from being put at risk, and in my not-so-humble non-American opinion, should not have exceptions made to it for any reason.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#14 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:05 AM

It doesn't matter what the banner says. It's a no-fly zone for security reasons. If someone wanted to fly over the park with a banner saying "Gay Pride!" or "God Bless America" they'd still be denied. So, I agree with Lil - I don't think these people have a case.

Morrhigan
Posted Image

#15 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:11 AM

Disney is also saying  that it's not wanting it done for reasons of not offending park visitors whcih means it's not totally a security matter.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#16 iMel

iMel

    New and improved!

  • Islander
  • 2,338 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:14 AM

Even not considering terrorism, isn't Disney private property, though, with the right to allow who they want to on their land?  Wouldn't that be like taking banners saying something like "The Anti-Christ - Hope for Christianity" over a church during outside services?
I use these words pretty loosely. There's so much more to life than words.
--Over the Rhine, "Latter Days"


Formerly known as Neozephryus :)

#17 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:18 AM

Actually Neo such thing could be done and in someplaces may have been done ( I place it at the level of urban ledgend)

But Disney owns the property but the FAA controls the sky.  Since the FAA allowed them to fly as close as they did.(Bet a dollar and get ten Disney had paid experts watching for any violations of the range part of the aircraft)
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#18 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 03:25 AM

G1223, on Jun 5 2003, 04:58 PM, said:

But Disney is claiming they are not doing it only for saftey but for want of avoid offending the visitors. On the first I would agree the. Second one is more dificult to say no to unless we live in animal farm where some are more equal to others. That is what is always to be avoided.
Then no exception to existing regs should be made because they want their  message airplane to target gay participants (and anyone on the ground during that time basically).

And, safety is a big concern.  The mindset that wants to advertise gays out of being homosexual can certainly be twisted to think that taking a few out with an airplane to make sure your message makes the news with a bigger headline will bring even greater glory to the Lord.

Ro

#19 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 05:58 AM

Then they fly in with biplane and drop the termanuclear device  and fly away to their secret base in Atlantis.

Basically this is to me sounding like security is being used as the excuse and not the concern. We do not want to be bothered so we will find anexcuse to prevent dialog sounds like animal farm to me more and more.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#20 Laoise

Laoise

    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 06:07 AM

G1223, on Jun 6 2003, 01:02 PM, said:

Basically this is to me sounding like security is being used as the excuse and not the concern. We do not want to be bothered so we will find anexcuse to prevent dialog sounds like animal farm to me more and more.
Basically this is sounding to me like these American Christians are being treated like American citizens, no more equal or less equal to everyone else.  The FAA isn't giving the Christian group special privileges that aren't available to the rest of Americans.  How is treating someone the same as everyone else discrimination?
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Anti-Gay, Disney no fly zone

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users