Grandmother arrested after refusing to delete JetBlue fight video
Marilyn Parver filmed an altercation between two passengers on a recent JetBlue flight. When she refused to delete the footage from her video camera, she says the airline threatened to blacklist her and accused her of interfering with a flight crew, which is a federal crime.
You can read the account of Parver’s flight and subsequent arrest here. And look for Parver on ABC’s Good Morning America, along with the incriminating footage.
Parver contacted me yesterday to, as she put it, “get the word out.”
I am a 56-year-old grandmother who has never had so much as a speeding ticket. But on July 26th, I was taken by armed officers, in handcuffs, off JetBlue flight 195 for refusing to delete a video I had taken of a minor altercation between passengers over a screaming kid.
The flight crew made up a charge of interfering with the crew. My recording proves I did nothing wrong. I never even stood up. I was left with the threat that I will never be able to fly on JetBlue, that I will go on the no-fly list, and have a report written about me filed with the FAA.
I only refused to delete a legal short video. This is a complete misuse of power and what happened to me could happen to anyone.
I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t find any rules that would prohibit a paying passenger from filming the interior of a JetBlue aircraft or of any commercial plane. Parver said she phoned JetBlue later, and that a representative told her she could tape whatever she wanted.
My reading of the law — and again, I’m no expert — suggests the JetBlue flight crew overstepped its boundaries. In a big way.
I asked Parver if she would consider posting her footage to the Web so that we could see what the fuss was about. She said the JetBlue crew specifically told her they didn’t want the material posted on YouTube, which is why they were so insistent that she delete the videotape.
Instead, Parver is taking her case to ABC News, where its legal department can fend off any attack from JetBlue. I think that’s probably a smart move. YouTube might delete the footage, anyway.
This case underscores the travel industry’s sensitivity to the growing influence of social media, and particularly to viral videos. Makes me wonder how many other passengers have been asked to delete images that were not flattering to an airline.
You may also be interested in these articles
Comments
103 Responses to “Grandmother arrested after refusing to delete JetBlue fight video”
I think it’s an interesting question whether or not she interfered with the flight crew. On the one hand, she certainly did NOT follow crew member instructions, when they instructed her to delete the video. On the other hand, surely there is (or at least ought to be) some limit to the requirement to follow crew member instructions.
I mean, if a crew member instructed you to dance an Irish Jig on seat 31-C, and you respectfully declined, would you be in violation of federal law?
My first reaction was to think how ridiculous and PinkBerry-like JetBlue’s no-photography stance is.
But, as I started to write this comment, I realized that there’s a difference between filming the interior of an empty airplane, and filming private citizens.
I really don’t care if videos of the inside of a jet get posted on YouTube, but if someone was taping me and my child while on a flight, I wouldn’t like it one bit. Any parents out there agree with me? From that perspective, I would appreciate the flight crew protecting my right to privacy.
So, to me, it looks like this: she may well have the legal right to film - and certainly taking her off the airplane in cuffs sounds excessive - but I find it rather rude and intrusive that she would do so. What is the purpose of recording this incident? Sounds like a case of crass reality tv-informed voyeurism to me.
I’d be interested in getting the facts from a neutral party on this one. Remember how the media reflexively jumped on the side of those two young ladies who got kicked off a flight for being “too hot”? Maybe this “grandmother” has a nasty streak as well.
The good news: at least they flew the flight to its destination before arresting her. I’m sure USAir would have landed en route, inconveniencing everyone.
What’s being a grandmother have to do with anything?
I think “being a grandmother” simply adds to the sympathetic tone of the story teller. One assumes, when hearing the “victim” is a grandmother, that she is harmless.
I agree with the previous post, why in the world was she taping? For her own enjoyment later? I doubt it. To be involved if it came to a legal matter later? Seems likely, she’s a bit of a busy body.
She shouldn’t have been filiming, it wasn’t her business to film. I mean come on! It wasn’t like we’re talking about a hijacking are we? But leading her away in cuffs is more than excessive.
Victor, you don’t have a right to privacy (for non-commercial purposes) when you’re out in public.
“What’s being a grandmother have to do with anything?”
Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.
I am with Victor here. I guess the flight attendants might have prevented a possible fight between the child’s parents and this lady. We should hear it from other passangers to confirm that.
If I found out that somebody is filming me and my daughter, I would certainly ask the person to delete it. Be it in public or not! And if they donot, then I will contact authorities. I donot know for what reason they are filming a child!
And I am not any legal expert either, but isn’t it necessary to get any person’s explicit permission to post their photos/videos by a third party?
Victor, Shri: If you’re out in public (and an airplane is public) anyone can film you any time they want. The only time they would need permission is if they were using it in a commercial enterprise.
The basic rule is that anyone can be filmed unless they are in a circumstance in which they have a reasonable expectationof privacy, e.g. one’s own home, a bathroom, etc. (And thank God for that, remember Rodney King) Let’s not mix up the two issues. One is whether Granny had the legal right to film and whether she ought to do so.
Granny clearly had the right to film as confirmed by the Jetblue representative. The flight attendants could have ordered her to stop filming when it was time for electronics to be put away. The flight attendance had absolutely no right to order her to delete the tape/file. A creative prosecutor might go after them for attempting the destruction of evidence.
The larger issue here is whenever you give police or quasi-police powers to an individual, appropriate safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse. Consider, there are very few people who can give a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet a direct order and enforce it with threat of arrest. A flight attendant is one of the few folks who can.
Power currupts…
I’m with the camera owner here.
1) Whether or not the woman deleted the video is certainly not a matter of flight safety for which the laws were written to cover, not embarrassment of the airline or those involved in the screaming match. I could understand if they ordered her to stop taking the video, and calling it in when she refused, but instead she simply refused to delete it.
2) The woman likely needs permission from nobody before doing almost whatever she wants with the film. It’s at least somewhat newsworthy, which means she doesn’t need permission to take it, or do anything she wants with it.
3) The folks on board the plane do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, which is what the laws regarding the use of your image usually cover. Basically, if you are in a public place, you can be filmed for almost any reason, especially news-type images. Selling t-shirts with your picture on them might be crossing the line, but just about anything short of that is not. You may not want your image used in somebody else’s video, but there is nothing you can do about it.
SirWired
Like I said, BobH, what she did is at the same time legal and obnoxious. Since it would be illegal to physically take her camera from her, I guess the next best reaction would be to whip out my own camera and start filming her filming me. Then I’d post it to http://www.busybodygrandma.com and let her worry about getting it down.
On August 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am Dobernala said
“Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.”
The above is typical misandry. I can see how age might be a factor in how someone should be treated, but what has gender got to do with it?
@Shri
There is no requirement to obtain someone’s permission in order to photograph them. There is no requirement to obtain a parent’s permission to photograph a child. There is no requirement to obtain permission to publish a photo of someone for editorial purposes.
The only time permission is automatically required to publish a photo is if the photo is for commercial purposes. For example, if I took a picture of you, and used it without permission in an advertisement for my company with a caption that says, “Look at Shri. Shri likes Bob’s Widgets. You should buy Bob’s Widgets, too,” that would be misappropriation of your likeness, and you could sue me for damages.
“And I am not any legal expert either, but isn’t it necessary to get any person’s explicit permission to post their photos/videos by a third party?”
Apparently not because as has already been stated, you don’t have a right to privacy (for non-commercial purposes) when you’re out in public.
I used the word “grandmother” to describe Parver because that’s how she described herself.
You do not have a right to not be photographed in the United States in a public area. Only in places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (your home, a public shower/bathroom, etc) can photography be prohibited.
The only entity that can compel the destruction of a privately created piece of intellectual property (video, photo, book, drawing, etc) is a court of law. And a US court has over 100 years of precedent and law they refer to when deciding whether to issue such an order.
Even if the photo/video were taken on private property, once it’s created, the owner of the private property from which the photo/video was taken can only ask you to leave. If they touch you or your gear in any way, they’ve broken the law themselves.
You *do* have a right to sue for economic damages if your likeness is used publicly under certain circumstances. Things like implied commercial endorsement, etc.
You *do not* have the right to stop your likeness from being used for the purposes of news gathering/reporting.
My take on this, with the limited information provided, is that the grandmother felt an injustice was being done and she wanted to record it for the purposes of newsgathering/reporting. You do not have to have special blessings from the government to be a news gatherer/reporter.
This part of the article bothers me the most:
“After sitting in a dark room on a wooden bench, the officer told her the flight crew told the law enforcement officials that she had taken pictures of the cockpit, the galley and other suspicious things on board, Parver said.”
The fact that JetBlue employees would lie like this is simply unconscionable. Not only are they a bunch of bullies, but they’re the kind of people who will stoop to whatever slimy tactics are necessary to push around others.
Not the sort of people I want to do business with.
Yeah Shri, unfortunately even the authorities cannot make someone delete pics or footage from a camera as long as the recording is done in public. When you leave your property, you relinquish any reasonable right to privacy - unless you are in rented accommodations (hotels, etc) or a bathroom/dressing room. Even in your car - someone can videotape you driving down the street. In most cases, if you leave your curtains open, you have also given up your expected privacy and I can videotape in your window as long as I am not on your property - because then it becomes peeping.
But pretty much, as long as I am on public property or private property open to the public, I can film or take pictures of whatever I want to.
Like I said, I am not a legal expert, but when ABC shows it on their channel, isn’t it for commercial purpose?
Anyways, my point is somebody taping someone’s child without proper permission. I mean would you say the same thing if someone goes in the park and starts taping children because it is a public area? Unfortunately we live in a society these days where I would be damn suspicious about anybody’s motives in filming a child.
Folks, the inside of a commercial airplane is not a public place. The sidewalk is a public place. If the airline wanted to require everyone to wear a pink tutu to board I believe they could as long as they didn’t discriminate in some prohibited manner (age, race, sex, ect.)
@Victor - Where do you get this idea you have a right to privacy in public? If you don’t want someone to take you or your child’s picture in public, STAY HOME.
Would you demand someone delete a picture of their child if you or your child happened to be in it?
@Shri - What do you think the authorities are going to do? Make them delete it so you will feel better? Well, I take that back…after reading the news, they may try.
I wish people would stop invoking the “for the children” argument whenever something happens they don’t like. Can’t they come up with a reasonable, well thought-out response instead of an emotional one?
Shri - please read everyone’s responses above. Once you or your children are in public, you cannot prevent photos and video of them from being taken, absent a restraining order, which is granted for reasons other than “He’s photographing me, make him stop!”
Now that doesn’t mean your local cop won’t do everything he/she can from making your life miserable if you are shooting children and the parents call the cops. We all know Police in the USA have unlimited powers to harass people illegally with no recourse, including arresting you and holding you for 72 hours and then releasing you (a common tactic used against icky people who aren’t technically breaking the law.)
But the basic facts remain: if you or your children are in public in the United States, you can be photographed and videotaped with no recourse.
@Shri
No, when ABC shows it on their channel it is the exact opposite of commercial purposes. It is for editorial purposes (news reporting) and it is 100% protected by the United States Constitution.
Also, there is no such thing as “proper permission” to photograph a child, because no permission is in fact required. Going to a public park and photographing children is protected by the United States Constitution.
Tim
An airplane is a privately owned vehicle, but for public use. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy, which is why they can arrest you for masturbating in 26A. The only place you can expect privacy is in the head or the cockpit (and that’s limited).
“Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.”
Yes. I would treat both individuals courteously and reasonably. If you are implying a younger male is less deserving of consideration and respect, then you are the one who should be ashamed.
Whether the flght attendants were right or wrong, how they treated this indidual would have been right or wrong regardless of age or gender.
As a caveat, the one differentiating factors for me would be physical ability. I would offer to help someone elderly and visibly feeble with a heavy item, and I would assume a younger, more robust individual would not need my offer of help.
i’m guessing jet blue didn’t want their name attached to a video of people arguing on one of their planes on the very slim chance it was uploaded anywhere.
congrats jet blue, you’ve just made your problem 10,000,000,000x worse.
-dan
I AM THAT GRANDMA and I just want to clear some things up. I did not attempt to show any identifiable people in the video. I taped the argument to send to my daughter so we could discuss what happens when you fly (or dine)with a small child who is out of control. My first grandchild will be flying across country soon and I have strong opinions on this topic.
I could not believe I was being DEMANDED to delete or suffer consequences.
If I had been ASKED and given any logical reason to delete it, I WOULD HAVE>
The threats were unreal…over a video that really is more about the audio than the visuals.
I never was a threat nor did I argue with anyone. I just told them to arrest me because I did not feel they have the right to tell a passenger to do something against their will THAT WAS LEGAL and not affecting the crew or passengers.
This is still America..right?
By the way, My pride in being called a grandmother stems from my ist grandchild having 2 heart surgeries in her first 2 weeks of life , just weeks before this flight. I was on my way home from my first visit with her since she came home from the hospital when all of this took place.
NO CHILD nor any bad behavior by the child is is my video. The tape is really NOTHING but verbal anger about a mother not controlling their child.
The issue is whether Federal Marshall’s can be used to intimidate a passenger..this is misuse of the power the airlines have been granted. The video shows NOTHING in terms of action…just WORDS!!!
JetBlue, as a private company, has the right to regulate the conduct of its passengers so long as they (JetBlue) do not violate existing law. It is not particularly important whether these regulations are consistent from airplane to airplane, although consumers might object otherwise. Whereas photography is normally permitted by law in public, this was in a private airplane and these protections do not arise.
As Bob points out, airline personnel have enormous power over their passengers, with very little recourse. Disobey them at your own peril.
[...] troubleshooter Christopher Elliot picked up on an interesting item in Northern Arizona’s Kingman Daily Miner last week about an altercation on a flight from New [...]
Liz, as a addendum to your proviso, I’d also be happy to help certain younger, more robusty individuals (oops, should have read robust…)
Dear Marilyn Parver,
Thank you for braving the black bag to stand up for our rights. If I had attempted to do it myself, as a male under the age of 25, I’d be automatically treated like a terrorist. Please do your best to expose JetBlue for being a tool to accustom the United States to being an authoritarian state.
Thank you,
A grateful citizen
All I have to say, after reading all the accounts, including the ABC write-up is that we have entered a phase in air transportation in which the mentality by attendants are: “we are the boss, you are the passenger, so sit your butt down and dont do anything to tick us off…otherwise we’ll just call the federalies and have you hauled out of the airplane like a terrorist”
A good lawyer, for the grandmother, could really take JetBlue to the woodshed and beat the heck out of the airline over this. Furthermore, the Federal Marshalls should stop being like keystone kops and actually assess a situation before you haul off someone in handcuffs.
It should also give pause to the fact that air travel is transportation of people who are law abiding, not a bunch of convicts on “Con Air.”
Go Granny Go Granny Go Go Go!
The only things a flight crew can order is something to do with actually safety. Don’t the the paid astroturfers posting here tell you different.
Vadim - your comment is unclear as to whether you recognize that while filming/photography can be prohibited on private property, the only entity that can compel the involuntary destruction of the film or video is a court of law.
IE - JetBlue can ask her to stop filming and even call the cops if she doesn’t, but only a court of law can compel the destruction of the video and/or photos. JetBlue can’t compel her to delete it, nor can the arresting officer.
Victor, others, we *are* recorded whenever we are in public. How many cameras do you suppose an air traveler gets recorded on before they get to their destination? Dozens? Hundreds?
It’s too late to do anything about that. The only “defense” we have is to make sure we all make our own recordings, too. We have to hold on to that right.
When you go out in public, 90% of the time your on a camera somewhere, whether it be private citizen or public official. Everyone has a right to film out in public if they want to. As long as she broke no laws she is fine. Cameras also STOP a lot of crimes from being committed. If someone gets disordorly, when they see they’re on film, they tend to calm down.
To those of you saying that the airline employees can do whatever they want because the airplane is their private property, you’re misunderstanding a few very important ideas.
1) Private property does not automatically mean not-public.
When you have private property that is open to the general public, that space is now semi-public space. You have a right to refuse certain people entry, you have a right to make a specific person leave your property, but you don’t have a right to violate their rights just because they’re on your property.
For instance, if you own an amusement park you can tell people that they can’t come in if they aren’t wearing mickey mouse ears, and you can tell someone that they need to leave your park because they’re emitting a bad body odor, but if you don’t like that someone is in your park but not spending any money you are not allowed to stick your hand in their bag and take a $10 bill out. You can make them get off your property, but you don’t a right to violate their personal rights and freedoms just because they’re standing on land that you own. You own the land they’re standing on, you don’t own them.
2) Entering private property means you agree to the property owner’s rules.
If Jet Blue had a stated rule printed on the ticket and posted on signs that said passengers were not allowed to make any recordings while in the airplane due to safety concerns, then by entering the plane you’re agreeing to their terms of conduct. If you then start video recording after agreeing to their boarding terms then the airline could bring certain charges against you for breaking their safety rules. But if there wasn’t a posted rule against it when the person boarded the plane, and the person stopped filming when the crew said they needed to stop it, then the person has done absolutely nothing illegal and even more importantly…
3) Your property is your property.
Whether there was a rule against recording inside the plane or not, your property is your property. The airline has absolutely zero right to touch your camera. The right to be in control of your private property is the single most fundamental right that our country was founded on. The airline absolutely has the right to tell you that you aren’t allowed on their plane, and as long as what you recoded is not illegal subject material then you absolutely have the right to not have to give away your film under any circumstances.
I could continue explaining several other aspects that demonstrate why the airline has a right to make you stop filming, but do not have the right to confiscate your film, but I think my point is already well made. You have certain inalienable rights. Just because you are standing on someone else’s property does not mean you lose those rights.
Shri, ABC airing the video on a news program is considered journalism, and highly-protected speech. The fact that they make money on the journalism does not cross it into the less-protected category of commercial speech.
SirWired
What’s being a grandmother have to do with it? Absolutely nothing! Males and females of any age should be treated with respect and should treat others with respect. Just because I’m a grandma doesn’t mean I should evoke special sympathy or privileges. This woman had the right to film what she wanted, as would anybody, and there was no reason for her to be treated the way she was either legally or ethically. I hope she goes after jet blue successfully and enjoys an extra vacation or two or three with her family as the outcome.
Just because I’m a grandma doesn’t mean I should evoke special sympathy or privileges.
Yes it does. Where I come from we honor our Elders.
This is bs. It’s her camera and she can do what she wants with it. She wasn’t endangering anyone on the flight and with prisons overcrowded in the US as it is, does a 56 year old grandmother who never broke a law in her life belong in jail over something this stupid.
I’m standing with granny. Jet Blue is a public company. So being on the aircraft is not quite the same thing as being in someones home. So Motulist let’s consider this as though it were a public place and not a private chartered aircraft.
I think, philosophically more about what the laws should-be and give less credence to the element here ‘taking sides’. Most of us would agree it’s GOOD and OKAY to let people film and photograph events, buildings and people in public places.
In fact, it may be one of the best things to happen in mass this decade for improving the social order and poor social behaviors exhibited by the growing element of thugs, bullies and criminals.
The new prevalence of digital photography most certainly has already had a tremendous benefit to ‘policing’ the police. More than a few bad cops have lost there badges this way and I personally never would expect a REAL AMERICAN to deny me of the rights of photographing an event of the public record, especially something related to a possible criminal behaviors..
It is just common sense that most law enforcement agents would prefer to have a record of criminal behavior in progress. In fact, if JetBlue had intelligent ownership, they would be equipping hosts and stewards with MORE cameras.
Knuckleheads. Incidentally, I know of a few more successful corporations that agree with me on that point and have done exactly that.
Is that the same Marilyn Parver, Mrs Georgia 1981, who posed for playboy?
I think I saw her at a Christina Aguilera concert in Vegas with her husband, Michael.
just so you all know the real reason they dont want it on YOUTUBE is because then they cannot control it. If she goes to ABC, no matter what she is filmed saying and what not …they can and WILL edit the footage because all the BIG CORPs in US are friendly. If you dont believe me, nothing will come of this if she goes to ABC, nor FOX, nor whatever the heck channel you go to. There are numerous stories out on the net where people have gone to local news, and big city news stations and their interviews were so skewed on the actual broadcast that people didnt even get the right message, they turned the show around. And noone will answer your calls after, noone will care because they have the rights to it now and its in their best interest to bury it, and you.
So Lady i would get a good lawyer and a strategy. And not put this in the hands of “friends of” JetBlue, LOL.
Im not paranoid, its the way the world works.
I like to simplify, simplify, simplify. Human nature always reveals the reasons for over the top behavior.
The airline employees simply wanted to get their way. They had the ability to force the issue. The police, instead of discovering what was going on, SIMPLY TOOK THE AIRLINE EMPLOYEES WORD FOR IT and arrested the woman.
THIS is the problem. NOT the fact that Jetblue employees when over the top.
Jetblue is going to have a very serious issue here with a false arrest charge. If the local FEDERAL prosecutor has any balls whatsoever he will view the video tape, interview witnesses and then make a serious consideration of possibly charging the pilot who made the call and the flight attendant who pressed the issue with filing a false criminal complaint. This is a serious issue. Interfering with a flight crew is a serious FELONY offense and should not be used because a passenger refuses to turn off an electronic device at the WHIM of the flight crew. Refusing to comply with a lawful instruction, by all means, throw the book at them - this was a refusal to listen to the flight attendant who was probably pretty pissed off that this woman refused to obey her over a trivial issue.
Thats my take. If we did not have this overbearing over controlling safety at all costs stfu and sit down mentality, this NEVER would have happened. . .
I believe in freedom of speech. The airline tries to stifle our ability to report the truth of what goes on. They should face a boycott of their service.
“Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.”
Why are you assuming that this person treats younger males badly?
-jcr
I was DEMANDED to delete a short video.
I put my camera away long before the flight attendant asked to see what I had shot.
They did not want that video seen by the public…I have no idea why!
To Grandma:
You are lucky to be in the US when this happened. In many parts of the world what you did would result in jail time. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy (and more importantly security) when in an Airplane. (I have seen some Asian carriers specify this ). Does that mean that nobody can film anything ? There exist a breed called accredited journalists. They certainly have more rights and privileges than Joe Public. Now if one of them was filming something and the crew told him / her to delete it, that would be a different problem.
As far as the educational value of the video goes… I have been flying since I was 3 (I am 35 now) and here is rule No:1
The captain is the king inside the flight. The crew carry out the commands of the captain. If they tell you to do something, try to obey as far as possible.
To others supporting Grandma:
Would you show the same support to someone with an Arabic name and a Middle Eastern passport who was filming the interior of the cabin ?
Rules differ. When landing in SFO/LAX on SIA flights, the announcement is “…please remain seated until the fasten seat belt signs are off. Please do not switch on your cell phone until the aircraft doors are open”. Now on most US carriers you can switch on the cell phone (while remaining seated) as soon as landing is done. I am pretty sure just by being on US soil (but on an SIA flight) if I switched on the cell phone after landing is complete (but flight is taxiing), I would be hauled off by federal marshals.
@ GG
- “You are lucky to be in the US when this happened. In many parts of the world what you did would result in jail time. ”
This is immaterial. She was in the U.S.
- “There is a reasonable expectation of privacy (and more importantly security) when in an Airplane.”
No, there’s not, as has been explained in many of the earlier posts. If you have any better information, I’d love to hear it.
- “There is a reasonable expectation of privacy (and more importantly security) when in an Airplane.”
Again, that doesn’t matter, because this happened on an American carrier.
- “There exist a breed called accredited journalists. They certainly have more rights and privileges than Joe Public.”
Exactly what extra “rights” do journalists have that “Joe Public” doesn’t? Try to be specific, and please cite the laws that support your assertion.
- “The captain is the king inside the flight. ”
This is a meaningless statement. Does the captain create case law for his airplane? Is he allowed to contravene the laws whatever country in which the plane travels? Does the U.S. constitution not apply in the cabin. I’ll help you out here; the answer to all three is No.
- “Would you show the same support to someone with an Arabic name and a Middle Eastern passport who was filming the interior of the cabin ?”
The race of the individual has no bearing on this discussion. Only the citizenship of the individual would make any difference under the law, and that would be an ENTIRELY different discussion. Congratulations, GG, on being a race-baiting, non-sequitur-spouting fool.
While it’s true that they probably (unless specified as part of the contract of passage, perhaps) don’t have the right to demand she delete the video, it’s worth noting one thing:
It’s perhaps newsworthy *now*, because she and JetBlue both made it that way, but it *is* a crime (in most jurisdictions) to make an audio recording of a conversation with another person without their permission and then disclose that recording to a third party (some exceptions being for legitimate news purposes).
If we assume the person posting as the grandmother is, indeed, the person in question, then her described original intent of what to do with the recording *was* in fact illegal (and was not for a legitimate news gathering purpose).
It’s not a simple case of public photography, nor really a 1st amendment issue.
But in any event, as annoying as this is, you really do pretty much have to obey any instruction from the flight crew (the limits on that being *very* narrow, and related to ordering you to *perform* certain illegal actions). You might be able to sue their ass off afterwards if they make an illegal demand such as this, but it’s still a felony to disobey it (almost always).
“Would you show the same support to someone with an Arabic name and a Middle Eastern passport who was filming the interior of the cabin ?”
No, I would show MORE support because in such an event I would assume that racism was at play in the incident.
In any event, your understanding of law is extremely flawed. Neither the captain or anyone else is a “king” who is above the law on board an aircraft. They are the highest authority there, but they certainly can still be held civilly or criminally liable for abusing that authority.
As for your observation that there are places in the world where fundamental rights are not protected or respected, I most certainly don’t think that implies that the USA should adopt similar policies.
[...] of America’s airports. It seems that the condition may have spread to the skies (hat tip: Elliott.org). According to Marilyn Parver, while en route from Las Vegas to New York recently she was arrested, [...]
[...] (Via WSJ and Christopher Elliott) [...]
The use of the word “grandmother” reminds me of a case here in Canada where a women was attacked by an animal at a local zoo. Almost every news source referred to her by her occupation… She was a stripper.
How we “label” and classify people in the media has a huge impact on how we perceives them. Was the “stripper” less deserving of sympathy because of her job? Is the “grandmother” more deserving of sympathy because she is a grandmother? (Because she has children and grandchildren it’s okay for her to film children or situations involving children?)
I agree that it’s a question of rights, not of age or role.
However, I’m worried that people think it’s okay to actually film someone else’s life in order to prove a point or win an argument in their own. Information taken out of context is a very dangerous thing.
@ nm
Regarding race: I only asked would you ? And the answer was simple. Most people said yes.
I think many people miss this point–JetBlue obviously has an issue with staff training. The flight attendants were certainly way out of bounds (and not properly trained in handling this situation), the pilot was way out of bounds and the JetBlue representative was way out of bounds. All of them have created a public relations nightmare for JetBlue and violated the rights of one of their passengers.
The only legal command that the flight attendants could have made was to stop filming as the filming could have potentially exacerbated the situation. However, that situation had long since ended. The situation the flight crew created is called a public relations disaster….just what JetBlue does not need.
JetBlue needs to discipline these employees who are only tarnishing JetBlue’s image–and perhaps fire them. (especially the employee who threatened to put her on the no-fly list…do low level employees really have that right??? I think not!)
They also need to issue an apology to Ms. Parver and settle with her. It is the least they can do and it will help rebuild their customer friendly image.
Here’s my take on all of this:
I.
The cabin crew acted in an over-zealous manner, they could have simply asked the woman to not film the altercation if this is a company policy, filed a trip report on landing with JB and let internal security determine if any violations were made and how to move forward. All the customers information is easily attainable in their record locator.
Obviously this crew did not revert to their manuals before acting.
II.
Ms. Pavel was being intrusive, not by law but by the very nature of interfering with her electronic equipment the private discussion of parties that did not include her. She is a prime example of what is happening in our country, a citizentry that screams out about government intrusion into our privacy, yet so willing to intrude in the privacy of others, and to add insult, post it in public domains such as youtube. The “grandmother” may have serious issues with personally decency and morality.
I can neither come up with defense for all parties involved, as a flight attendant myself I can see things from a “crew point of view” yet also as a amatuer journal-photographer, I can understand the desire to capture a moment that is out of the ordinary.
The only difference between myself and the other parties:
I would NEVER threaten a customer in any way, there is a certain amount of power I need onboard an aircraft that should be used only when absolutely necessary (when physcially safety of the customers, crew, or aircraft is imminent), otherwise a simple request would suffice.
I don’t photograph any personal interactions without the EXPLICIT permission of those on the lens side of my camera, and I don’t put anything in a public domain without this permission.
I read the story and had to shake my head, all of this was so unnecessary.
Oh for the love of…
First off, Elliott posted the ‘grandma’ because that is how she referred to herself as (if I read his comment correctly)…
Secondly, the point of it is that, statistically, elderly people pose less of a threat than a younger person would… Unless they’re behind the wheel of a vehicle (tongue in cheek)… At least that is my interpretation. And while some people profiling is bad, is the other extreme any better? Oh, she’s not a terrorist because she’s a grandmother. I’m not saying she is or is not one, my point is pragmatic. I personally would think that she’s less of a threat because she is older, weaker and not currently armed thanks to our wonderfully invasive airport security. But if I didn’t profile her based on her age, she might be considered as equally likely to be a terrorist, as absurd as the idea sounds to me.
I don’t think she deserves any more courtesy or respect than a younger person, except in the instances that make sense… ie, she’s arthritic and not giving up a seat to her is rude and inconsiderate (and depending on my mood, I am a rude and inconsiderate person).
Anyway, back to the real issue… JetBlue employees throwing their weight around in post 9/11 world and LYING to police.
This is why I don’t fly anymore. Skype, ooVoo, and teleconferencing are all I need now. Vacations now require a bus, train, or drive, but it’s worth it to know that I’ll never have to deal with the Air Gestapo nor flight attendants who think they’re FBI instead of glorified vending machines.
@ Tony James: you don’t photograph anyone without their express consent?
You ever taken a photograph at . .. Disneyworld? A global tourist attraction? A sports event?
Give us all a break from the holier than thou attitude. . .
JB would argue that their aircraft are a public space. Thus, the RULES and LAWS apply - such as taking off your clothes. After all, there is no rule against taking your clothes off on a plane, EXCEPT the law against indecent exposure which only applies - guess where? In a PUBLIC place.
I just fail to see how anyone operating a camera in an airline cabin is breaking any rules. The issue is NOT using the camera, because people take travel photos and photos of the ground ALL the time. The issue is the altercation which was taking place - and the FA did not want a photographic record of it. Lets really all stop this preachy legal and USA USA USA Stuff - it is about control. Pure and simple.
JB will simply amend its contract of carriage to state that photography of persons without their consent on airline property is prohibited.
@ Tony James
- “I read the story and had to shake my head, all of this was so unnecessary.”
You’re only shaking your head because this turned out to be a relatively minor incident. But what if the air marshal had tased/hit/assaulted one of the arguing mothers (not an unthinkable occurence these days)? Would you still be condescending to grandma about “not getting explicit permission” from the subjects?
Take this another way: do you think people ought to get explicit permission from police officers before video taping them?
- “She is a prime example of what is happening in our country, a citizenry that screams out about government intrusion into our privacy, yet so willing to intrude in the privacy of others…”
There is a *profound* difference between the government intrusions and the intrusions of simple neighbors. The constitution provides its citizens some privacy from the government as a check against government power. There is no such check against grandma’s power, and I hope the reason is clear to you.
- “…and to add insult, post it in public domains such as youtube.”
Be careful with your accusations. Grandma is being quite careful here; she gave her video to a news organization for legal review, and only because she herself was threatened. Again, if something more serious had happened during that argument, would you still be preaching to us about Grandma’s lack of etiquette?
More on old Tony James - the Constitution, yeah, the pesky little document that protects YOUR freedom - was designed to limit the power of government. not the power of corporations, not the power of your employer, not hte power of your neighbor, but the power of GOVERNMENT to snoop, control and limit your freedom. There is a HUGE difference between your employer snooping on your computer and the police doing it. If you do not see, go back to grade school and start again.
YOU are the problem here, you and 100 million people like you who have ZERO conception of freedom and what it means.
@Ray
It’s perhaps newsworthy *now*, because she and JetBlue both made it that way, but it *is* a crime (in most jurisdictions) to make an audio recording of a conversation with another person without their permission and then disclose that recording to a third party (some exceptions being for legitimate news purposes).
________
No, that is completely not true. The specific law that you are talking about only applies in situations where the taped person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy which is impossible if strangers can see you. Further, the crime (usually a misdemeaner) is the taping, not the disclosure.
As far as obeying the captain and the crew, they are entitled to respect and obedience within thebounds of their authority. If the flight attendant orders me to dance on one foot and bray like a donkey, I’ll decline and hope that Granny is there to film the entire exchange.
Why was this video ok to take , in Las Vegas on the ground no less??
http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l14/xxramx24/?action=view¤t=DSCN4132.flv
Dr. Tantillo (’the marketing doctor’) has a branding blog ( http://blog.marketindoctor.tv) on which he’s twice done critical posts of JetBlue.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/05/14/jetblue-again.aspx
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/05/07/tantillo-on-the-news-jetblue-needs-to-remember-its-customers.aspx
I can concede some points..but personally, Nearly all of my JetBlue experiences have been positive, and they are my first choice of airline to fly…(leg room, digital tvs, and friendly service - and uh..fewer old people flying who slow down the lines with their two huge roller suitcases? I feel like maybe those people are on AA..) - but it’s unfortunate that JetBlue staff had this sort of reaction to the videotape.
Had the videotape been posted, there’s no reason that it necessarily would have marred JetBlue’s name. The altercation is in no way specifically tied to JetBlue and the service they provide - from the sounds of it, it’s just a glimpse into the horrors or traveling with strangers in tight places, thousands of feet and hours from an exit with no chance of escape..) - It would smart of them Not to suppress this video/story and just enjoy the fact that it gets a younger/less-known company more visibility/more talked about.
@ Ray:
Although I would see your point about the legality of voice recordings, the intention of that isn’t quite present on this case.
It would be illegal if it gets to become evidence on a trial if the people speaking were not notified that they were being recorded; however, “grandma” was not hiding the camera, therefore that is not being contested. I am assuming the camera was in plain view that is how the crew was able to see her.
And we do not have to worry about the legality of the recording because it isn’t being presented as evidence against either of the parties arguing on the plane, now, if it was being presented as evidence against the incompetence of JetBlue…well, it would still be admissible..
[...] Link: Elliott.org [...]
I think people are missing a lot of the facts. (My apologies, Mr. Elliott, but you don’t include a lot of the details).
According to other news sources, the crew didn’t notice she was taping at the time. She already had her camera out to film clouds. When they were questioning passengers afterward, Parver showed them the video. She could have lied, but she didn’t.
I think the situation clearly got out of hand, but you have to admit JetBlue is in an awful spot. If they hadn’t asked her to delete the video, chances are we’d be criticizing JetBlue for allowing one passenger to violate the privacy of another (I mean morally, not legally — two different things).
What it boils down to is this: As customers, do we want to fly with an airline that protects the right of the photographer or the privacy of the passengers?
I’m torn. I hate the idea of someone being able to film me without my permission, and would like to see airlines ban photography and filming on board (like museums, schools, court houses and many other public places). And how would Ms. Parver feel if someone were videotaping her daughter involved in a similar situation?
However, if I were the victim of a crime or my rights were abused, I would want to have evidence.
In case anyone’s curious, here’s the August 7 article from the Kingman Daily Miner:
http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1&articleID=16860
To Beth: I read the article and see nothing more than what was reported by Chris with the exception of the treatment by LVMPD which was secondary to JetBlue’s outrageous, even illegal, conduct. This is a travel blog, not a police misconduct blog.
You don’t have a legal (or moral) right to privacy when you’re in public because you should not have any reasonable expectation of it. JetBlue does not have a policy regarding shooting video in an airplane and certainly did not have any legal (or moral) right to demand she delete the video, call for the police and lie to the police.
JetBlue should not ban filming on an airplane. I’m not talking about filming the cockpit (although, give me a break, everyone knows what they look like anyway). You’re incorrect on your reasoning behind where filming is restricted. It is not due to any privacy concerns. Some museums (certainly not all) ban filming because the artwork needs to be protected and for copyright reasons. No such reasons exist on an airplane.
How would Ms. Parver feel if her grandchild were filmed? I don’t know but it’s likely given her conduct here she would probably tell you she would not care. How do you feel? You do understand that you’re filmed or photographed all the time, right?
If people feel so strongly about this, there really is only one thing they can do. Stay inside their own home behind closed blinds. And if people do go out in public, don’t do anything you don’t want ending up on YouTube. Don’t try to trample on other people’s rights by venturing out in public and then demanding privacy
As for the constitutionality arguments, I would consider the airplane to be a public space:
“The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501 (1946). Simply put, JetBlue’s “rights” are outweighed by Ms. Parver’s rights.
To Jennifer
Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Try going to the local park and start filming the kids; the local sheriff would have you behind bars in no time.
To the best of my understanding babies can cry in public spaces. Most argue that an airplane is a public space. But if a baby cries on an ariplane everybody is upset. Double standards ?
GG, you have a problem with the Constitution. Take it up with the Founders. It’s clear from your postings you don’t understand the law on this subject. I understand that people want their privacy (I certainly do) but in the U.S., in public spaces, it doesn’t matter. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the plane. That’s well-settled. You disagree but that doesn’t make your opinion true.
As far as the park, a sheriff would have a Section 1983 lawsuit on his hands, then. Just because I would be arrested (although I disagree with this if I presume the Sheriff understands the law and the Constitution) does not make said arrest lawful.
Your second comment about babies doesn’t deserve a response because it’s completely off-topic and illogical.
almost everyone seems to be missing the point here. how many times in a day are we photo or videographed without our permission in the public arena? cameras are a virtual fact of life. first; the airline cannot tell her to do anything other than comply with all federal aviation regulations and those outlned in their respective safety briefing cards. second; the captain’s responsibilities are to the safety of the aircraft and his charges, period. third; the feds and the morons of the las vegas pd were acting on what appears to be trumped up, fictitious charges of the airline employees and i’ll just bet the charges will evaporate once the legal proceeding, if any, begin. and she is within her very right to demand, yes demand, names and other information she deems necessary to support her case, which looks good so far. wake up, people. we are becoming slaves to a growing state of fear and intimidation.
It’s perfectly legal to photograph or video anything you can see with your own eyes in public. Being on a plane is public.
Jennifer: The links in this article didn’t work in my browser (discovered it was a matter of settings). You’re right, the information is there. No need to be nasty, though.
And yes, I know that museums forbid photography to protect the artifacts. I simply named institutions where there is a ban on photography. (obviously I wasn’t clear. sigh). Although, a more thorough attack on my logic would have mentioned that it’s only FLASH photography they ban to protect the artifacts from exposure to light, but many museums ban all photography because copyright is the issue.
I noticed you didn’t mention schools or courthouses. If a member of the public came in and filmed school children without the parents’ knowledge and consent, you can bet there would be trouble (though not legal trouble, perhaps). I don’t know if it works the same way in the States, but up here a camera or recording device is not allowed in courtrooms even though the public is welcome to observe the proceedings. (You can’t even photograph inside the building, let alone the courtroom).
And yes, I do understand that we are being filmed all the time (duh!). But there is a difference between everyone’s actions in a given place being recorded, and someone focusing just on you and your actions. (Though they are the same in the legal sense).
The more I read about incidents on airlines in the US, the more I can’t help but think that airlines and passengers are both making complete idiots out of themselves. Both parties seem quite good at escalating situations to the point of absurdity.
The use of recording equipment on airplanes could be banned. Post it. Stop it.
Right now it is legal.
.
Should anything that someone captures on film be free game for the world?
What my intent to do with this video should be more or an issue.
I realize many people are upset that I filmed the incident in the first place.. OK That is fair. Realize that MY intent was never to make it public. It was to go only to my daughter. She is not the type to post things on line.
The REAL ISSUE is whether a non threating woman can be forced to do something against her will, that is legal, under threat of punishment. Can the airline crew threaten and carry out those threats, even involving Federal Officers , because they did not like something a passenger did?
This would never been an issue if the crew had not walked down the aisles asking if someone had taken photos. I was truthful. I was never ASKED only DEMANDED to delete the video. I give and expect respect, I was given none.
This was becoming completely unreal…what could I have on that video that was THAT important.
Beth said:
“I noticed you didn’t mention schools or courthouses. If a member of the public came in and filmed school children without the parents’ knowledge and consent, you can bet there would be trouble (though not legal trouble, perhaps). ”
In our neck of the woods, news camera crews cannot tape the face of children in schools without written permission in advance from the parents or guardians (yes, each and every one). Which is why, when you watch B roll of news programs involving kids in schools, they shoot them from behind or from the neck down.
While school and a plane are somewhat different, I find it ironic that JetBlue’s protests landed this recording right where it probably didn’t belong to begin with. (No, I haven’t watched it.)
Was M(r)s. Parver within her rights? Probably.
Was it intrusive and unnecessary? Probably. (Seriously, couldn’t she have just recounted the incident to start a discussion? Did she need audiovisuals, too?)
Was JetBlue out of line for getting her arrested because she didn’t comply? Absolutely.
If it was my family getting taped, would I have sued her for invasion of privacy? Well, I wouldn’t, because I’m not that litigious — but you can bet that I would have had quite a spirited discussion with M(r)s. Parver about taping my family without prior permission.
Having said that, I’m following the example set by my parents — we kids (six of us) didn’t travel on a plane until we well understood how we were expected to act, and knew that if we didn’t that there were consequences to be paid. You can bet that’s the rule my kids will travel under.
Most people would consider it inappropriate for a passenger to film another passenger against their will for more than a fleeting moment. If this happened in a ground-based business, the business owner would ask the photographer to leave, but that’s not practical on an airplane. If this becomes a problem (which I think is unlikely), perhaps airlines should adopt rules limiting photography on board.
However, in this case JetBlue was trying to protect its image, not the privacy of its passengers. And even if they had a rule against photography, their proper recourse would be a civil suit, not criminal charges. So their conduct was outrageous.
Maybe the real violation was her refusal to stop taping when the FA told her to.
Then, maybe she was given the choice of deleting the video or facing the consequences of the previously disobeyed directive. So, while they couldn’t legally force her to delete the video, they can hold her to the earlier issue of not following instructions from the flight crew. This is not the same as getting arrested for not erasing the video. She would have been arrested for not following the instruction., but was offered a way out, that she refused to take.
How about
1. She was told by the FA to stop taping
2. She refused to obey that instruction
3. Because of her refusal, she was offered the choice of deleting the tape or getting arrested for the refusal to stop taping.
4. In this case, the arrest is for her refusing the instruction to stop taping, and not for refusing to delete the video
The camera had been put into my bag after I shot the 90sec video that showed no child misbehaving. only people in shadow, loudly discussing “controlling a child in flight”.
The flight crew asked everyone sitting behind the loud passengers if they had taken any pictures on the flight and I told the truth and allowed them to look at everything I took photos of. They then demanded that I delete. Even after I was removed from the plane, and everyone agreed I had photographed nothing wrong, I was still told to delete or be punished.
Ms. Parver, you’re not making me any more sympathetic to you by your consistent use of ALL CAPS emphasis in each and every one of your posts. If you came across as someone who was a little less volatile of a personality (and weren’t playing the “oh, I’m a defenseless gramma!” card - and insisting on bringing it up repeatedly) maybe I’d sit here and go, “Wow, what a nice lady. I guess this really must be all JetBlue’s fault, sad as I am to hear it.”
As it stands, I’m with several posters on here, like Beth, who shakes their head at the stupidity of it all. I think both sides committed errors. (Truly, do you genuinely to film something with that cell phone you’re supposed to have turned off just to make a point? Maybe for some people that’s cool, but maybe I wound up with a bigger courtesy gene than others - care of my own grandparents and parents…) It makes me sorry, because I’m a devoted customer of JetBlue and have never experienced anything other than amazing customer service (unlike on every other airline I’ve ever flown, other than Delta’s now-defunct Song). And while I think this definitely involves disciplinary action, I’ve no doubt that they’re going to pay dearly for this in many, many ways - just for a couple of employees who really do deserve to be fired (and a few overzealous cops). I’d actually be interested to know if anyone filmed the interactions, though, between Ms. Parver and the flight crew - because honestly, I have a hard time trusting people who go screaming to the news media in every fashion (instead of, maybe, quietly getting a lawyer or trying to work this out afterwards?)
P.S. Are all the other airlines (except Northwest) just being quiet lately, or is all the bad behavior JetBlue’s? Between this and the lady a couple weeks ago who wanted them to pay for her taking the wrong gate - while I admit, this is definitely a much more serious gaffe (and the JB employees who pulled this mess should most. definitely. be fired and there should be some apologies made) it seems like they’re the ones drawing some serious ire in the last couple weeks..
Michael, the crew did not ask Ms. Parver to stop taping. She had already stopped taping. The crew asked her to delete the tape after she volunteered that she taped the incident. That’s an entirely different situation.
I think that Marilyn Parver showed quite a bit of courage doing what she did, and should be praised for her actions. Do we really want the sort of situation we are finding ourselves in these days when we board an airplane? When illegal requests from the cabin crew can land you in jail? I personally think the bar should be set pretty high before LEOs are called to meet a passenger, and when they are I think LEOs should treat the situation as a crime scene, i.e. identify witnesses and take statements (from passengers as well as cabin crew). Not only was this nowhere near that level of event, the fact that the cabin crew fabricated a story to try to justify their actions should at least get them all fired, if not tried for criminal actions.
It is not at all clear to me from Marilyn’s description that the pilot was actually involved, or whether the cabin crew was simply invoking the pilot to try to scare her into complying.
If I was JetBlue, I’d be quickly firing the crew involved and offering Marilyn a public apology and hope that she doesn’t sue. And if they don’t, I hope she DOES sue and continue to generate a lot of bad publicity for them.
As far as I am concerned, JetBlue is on my No-Fly list.
Its funny how people make up facts and then somehow make it the fault of Ms. Parver.
michael - [8/18 - 4.37 et seq] - NO ONE EVER TOLD HER TO STOP TAPING.
The facts are that AFTER the fracas, of which Ms. Parver was not a part, a flight attendant DEMANDED that the image be deleted. She refused. There is NO limitation [legally] prohibiting filming at that time on the aircraft. The persons were in a public space, doing activities that people do in that space. Thus, the DEMAND from the flight attendant was NOT a LAWFUL request.
In order to interfere with a flight crew [in the performance of their duties - which, lets not forget is what the statute states] Ms. Parver needed to interfere with the LAWFUL duties REQUIRED by a flight attendant. The demand to erase the tape is not lawful at the place and time. Demanding that a tape be deleted is NOT a duty of a flight attendant under the Federal Aviation regulations. The Flight Attendant had NO legal or lawful reason to believe that Ms. Parver was interfering with the flight attendants duties. Thus, the report to the Captain, requesting police to arrest Ms. Parver is LIKEWISE unlawful. At an absolute minimum, the flight attendant needs a stern talking to by the management at JB and by the federal prosecutor.
If I am JB, if the facts are as stated, I immediately offer Ms. Parver an apology after conducting a detailed interview of witnesses. If Ms. Parver made ZERO effort, other than refusing to delete the video, to interfere with the Flight Attendant’s duties, then I send the FA BACK to training to learn what it means to be interfered with. I then refund Ms. Parver’s airfare and give the a one year first class positive space pass to fly anywhere they fly. In exchange for a complete release that is.
Ms. Parver then also sues the LVMPD for violation of her civil rights; police have a duty to conduct an independent investigation and not merely take the word of the flight attendant and captain.
We, as a society, need to start pushing back on this over bearing airport security apparatus - WE, as in law abiding American citizens, are not the threat here. The threat is from Islamic religious extremists.
That being said, if Ms. Parver was ever rude, raised her voice or became abusive to the FA, then you need to accept the dismissal of charges and be done with this. Further, stop playing the poor little grandma card - it gets old really fast. Let people see with their own eyes what you look like. Anyone can be a threat, and anyone can dress up like a grandma and be a threat. You need to pay attention to the reality of the world and come out of your little cocoon and realize that yes, you can be a threat.
To the hard core folks out there insulted by this whole camera thing, get a clue; cameras are EVERYWHERE. Intersections, city streets, airports, bus stations, workplaces, malls, ATMs, EVERYWHERE. You are being recorded every time you walk into a convenience store, is THAT a problem for you as well? If you are worried about being video taped you’d best stay home because there are cameras EVERYWHERE. In fact, Airbus airplanes, just like the one here, have video cameras that can display the cabin to the pilots in the cockpit so they can ascertain what is going on ‘back there.’
You go Ms. Parver - this JB employee WAY overstepped any reasonable extension of her authority and needs to at least apologize.
Everthing Joe Farrell said and more.
Take my civil liberties! I’m not using them right now. I do sincerely hope that some of you “Legal Eagle” types take Ms Parver’s case either pro bono or on a contingent fee basis. It’s long past time to teach the airlines a lesson in civics AND customer service.
Funny thing is that on US Airways when I have taken pics of broken seats, etc oft times the Flight Attendent will come over and ask me to come into the galley and photgraph the filth there.
The US aviation industry as a whole has a customer satisfaction rating BELOW the IRS and that in and of itself should help convince you that Jet Blue was not on the right side of this fight.
Never mind that the charges should never have been brought in the first place as no crime occurred. But for Jet Blue to continue to bully Ms Parver exemplfies the unbridled arrogance that permeates airlines and the TSA, FAM’s.
Too bad she didn’t keep the camera running when the flight attendents asked her to delete the file. Some spy cams are voice activated, now that would be a video worth watching. Hmmmmm is it illegal to take a miniature video recorder aboard an aircraft? Perhaps this is a way for consumers to fight back against airline abuse of its customers?
The question I have in this situation is with regard to the individuals engaged in the altercation that was the subject of the filming. If the flight crew felt that a relatively passive observer, who remained in her seat, was a “threat” to security and order, then what, if any, action did they take against the people who were actually causing the disturbance?
I wanted to see the feedback on Southwest Airlines, not grandmas on JetBlue. What’s with the links from your email?
Grandmother arrested after refusing to delete JetBlue fight video
Her lawyer should file criminal charges of giving/filing false charges/reports/statements to authorities. There were plenty of witnesses and the lawyer can get affidavits to tell the truth. It should name all the crew personnel actually involved. I’ll bet the airline will be begging to settle the civil suit. there should be exemplary/punitive damages to send a message to all airline personnel.
@ Jerry Mandel - Ms. Parver’s lawyer cannot file criminal charges for anything. Criminal charges come from police and prosecutors.
She can press a complaint. Do you REALLY think the Las Vegas police will accept and forward charges for false arrest? If they do they indict themselves and admit what they did was wrong too. The one thing law enforcement does is protect its own.
That all being said, it all depends on Ms. Parver’s attitude toward the FA during the confrontation. If the interviews reveal a calm demeanor, then you can expect some reaction from the US Atty. in Vegas toward the flight attendant. Not ‘criminal charges’ perhaps but a request for an interview. Then the charges against Ms. Parver get dropped. If Ms. Parver was in any way rude or obnoxious, expect the charges only to be dropped.
The government simply cannot admit fault in any way here. If the FA went too far, and it certainly appears the motivation for the arrest was the anger of the FA and not the actions of Ms. Parver interfering, then this will be handled quietly since there can be no admission that the rules can be abused for personal gain. That shatters the ability of the FA in the future to invoke the threat with passengers.
Once Ms. Parver hires counsel and starts the legal processes, we shall never hear from her again since the settlement terms will be confidential.
Wow.
From comments I’ve read, it appears that a number of you would have no problem with her being tasered for refusing to “obey.”
What a scary country we’ve become.
Beth said “What it boils down to is this: As customers, do we want to fly with an airline that protects the right of the photographer or the privacy of the passengers?” I don’t think that is what was happening here. I think JetBlue was afraid of bad publicity, that’s all. They mishandled this and are out of bounds.
OK, ARE YOU READY TO HEAR FROM A JB EMPLOYEE?
Tim: an airplane is considered a common carrier, therefore is considered a public place. Additionally, the law doesn’t say you can only take pics in public places, it says you can take them in any place where an expectation of privacy does not exist.
Vadim: JB operates as a common carrier, and as such, private citizen rights DO exist that would normally not be applicable to private properties.
Ray: Any recording – video or audio - made in a location or situation where an expectation of privacy does not exist– does not fall under the laws you cited. And while you are required to obey a crew member in most cases, they are still not allowed to infringe upon your constitutional rights. Let’s say a FA ordered you to call the passenger next to you a fat pig. Would you be obliged to do so? After all it is not an illegal act. But it is also not a felony to disobey. Your lack of common sense is what is wrong with the American judicial system.
Tony James: With idiots like you as FAs, I think we all know why this incident occurred.
Beth: If you “hate the idea of someone being able to film me without my permission” don’t do anything stupid like argue in public and you’ll be ok. And do you not also hate having other people argue in public and disturbing your peace? How about others smoking in public places? That doesn’t bother you? Give me a break!
Jennifer: I just went down to the local park today and started filming the kids at play. It took almost an hour, but a cop finally asked what I was doing. I was not arrested nor harassed, especially after I explained why I was there. I never came close to being “behind bars.” I guess some cops (and FAs) just know how to do their jobs better than others.
Michael: either you’re an idiot or you can’t read. She was never asked to stop taping. The FAs never even knew of the recording until she told them about it. It’s time to take your ADHD drugs!
Jess K: I’d like to see your calm reaction if this happened to you. If you aren’t smart enough to know that emotions continue to flow long after an incident then you are too stupid to be commenting on blogs.
Marilyn: Sorry, but to show the video to your daughter is considered making it public. Ticky-tacky, I know, but you know how laws go. Unfortunately, JB can legally ban you from their flights. However, threatening to have all other carriers blacklist you would most likely be illegal. In addition, because your illegal arrest was public you may have a defamation claim against JB and the police agencies involved.
I do not know any of the FAs involved in this incident. I am embarrassed by their actions and would hope that none of my co-workers would ever act this way. Folks, airlines are in the financial toilet these days for a reason. This incident and JB management’s response to it make pretty convincing evidence that they belong there. Unfortunately, the few will take down the rest of us who really care and try to do our jobs well. Please keep that in mind when flying JB…or any other airline, for that matter.
@Anonymous: Truthfully, calling others ‘too stupid’ doesn’t make you an awesome employee either, any more than those who threaten others - amazing that you say you’re ashamed by their actions, yet you’re willing to - anonymously - call others names on a blog.
FYI, I completely understand being upset long after an incident; however, I am actually smart enough to also understand the difference between public face and private anger. Also, if you vent anger in public - especially tossing Net etiquette aside (and grammar, by the way) and speak in an uneloquent fashion, just blowing things out of proportion - righteous upset or not, I also understand that you have to be prepared for it to reflect on you in some way; people are going to be more inclined to see you as an antagonistic personality. And, that was what I was pointing out there. Sorry if it doesn’t come off as intelligent enough to you. But then, you’re busy wasting your time insulting multiple people, instead of rationally discussing things.
Unfortunately, Many airline employees view us (the customer) as “Self Loading Cargo”.
I would gently remind the JB employee that Ms Parver was indeed a customer or as I like to refer to customers, “YOUR SALARY PROVIDER”.
The times they are a changing and people are starting to stand up to the arrogance of the Airlines.
Oh and thanks forproving my Mr JB employee regarding arrogance.