Autistic girl kicked off flight because captain was uncomfor

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and the alternative, can potentially snowball into an increase of these kinds of situations:

No they can't be in education system, it might be dangerous to the other students.
No they can't be allowed in special interest groups, they could end up hurting someone.
No they can't get their drivers licence, that would be putting testers at risk.
No they can't use public transport, it's for the safety and comfort of other passengers.
No they can't be granted public housing or loans, they should be in proper facilities to get treatment.
No they can't have access to shops or restaurants, it's much safer to have their helper or parent get food for them.

Then there's the potentiality of a repeat offence, especially when you consider that they don't even think they did anything wrong.
And should that then become more of the norm, how many more AS people would then be killed out of concerns for the "safety and comfort" of other people?

Don't put "non normal" people on our planes we might get sued.

There are laws against discrimination against all sorts of people including "disabled". Everybody hired gets a company rule book stating stating that our wonderful company does discriminate. They still find a way not to hire who they do not like and fear notably black people and Autistics. Got to ease then eliminate that fear. In this case the public focusing on the "greedy" mom does nothing in that regard.

If anyone feared me, I would like to tell them as a joke "Don't worry, I won't hurt you so don't be afraid to say no. I won't hit you or go on a rampage or give you a black eye."

That only happens when expecting more from others than is normal, like expecting special treatment in a workplace environment. That particular situation of fearing being sued is unlikely to happen. Being treated like everyone else, and the expectation that you don't have to face such blatant discrimination, the exact same expectation everyone else has, isn't a big ask.

It is important that there's some sort of consequence for these people, and that the legal precedent, needs to stay where this appalling behaviour is correctly seen as unlawful discrimination. They already seem to feel inclined to discriminate against AS people again, they haven't even admitted any fault yet. Should no consequence come to these people, not only will they think it's acceptable behaviour, but it will embolden others to do the same.

No matter what the actual intent of the mother may be, everyone aware of the situation is going to have their opinion, and only the mother knows for sure. Both litigious and non-litigious action have their benefits and pitfalls. For example, avoiding the courtroom and taking to the media in various ways to create awareness that autism is not psychosis can be very effective when the proper tactics are employed. People en masse can be led to believe anything. The money she would have spent on an attorney and possible court costs could be spent on a public relations and marketing strategist. After reading various posts on this website is seems public opinion about autism is a major hindrance to us as a demographic and, if a poll were taken, probably one of the first things we would change if we could. As the LGBT community has demonstrated numerous times, it is easier to effect legal change with the backing of public opinion putting pressure on judges and legislators.

On the other hand, there is the legal question of the pilot acting in the interests of the other passengers or out of his own personal interests. Only the pilot knows for certain, and while it is ridiculous and insulting to think that in 21st century America we would need laws passed that compartmentalize every societal group in this country so that their rights are protected, such changes in the law are most rapidly effected in the courtroom, not the Congressional floor. By setting a legal precedent, future decisions by both service providers and judges have a solid standard upon which to operate. That precedent can be challenged and overturned at any time, but while it is relevant it serves as a foundation for change. However, as the black community has experienced, just because laws are set in place to protect the rights of the people doesn't mean the social attitudes and behaviors about the people will.

When it comes to setting legal precedent, though, one needs to be careful. If, for example, it is found that this is an Americans with Disabilities Act violation, does that publicly pigeonhole those of us on the spectrum as disabled? I don't consider myself disabled, I have super powers.

Not true in the USA
We are the world’s most litigious society


Litigious Societies: A Comparison between the UK and the US




If a suit against a person or business is nonsense it still can be quite costly in time and money and stress to the party sued as well as the party suing while the lawyer still gets rich. Thus the cynicism when "suit" is mentioned. Not saying despite this that there are times the benefits of suing outweigh the risks. I think in this case the risks outweigh the potential benefits.




Do not underestimate media stigma. It is the modern day version of public shaming as us Autistics know all to well. Bolded important idea

You are spot on. The American mass media is controlled by what, six major corporations? The internet is ripe with misconceptions about autism ranging from reasonable misunderstandings or well-meaning yet ignorant people to spiteful, xenophobic, alarmist nonsense. While it is frustrating at times, such is the price of free speech, and while I disagree with what may be said I support their legislated privilege to say it. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and if you try to convince them otherwise, I would wager that most likely they will go seek out information that supports their idea of what is factual. After all, of course I am going to say positive things about the autistic, I'm biased. Will we ever live it down? Probably not. I'm sure someone out there thinks we have an agenda to turn children autistic with our brain-altering vaccines (that don't exist).

I already carry a media-fueled social stigma on top of being autistic, and I am all too familiar with how damaging it can be. I've seen families torn apart due to social hysteria escalated by social media and have been personally affected. Will I ever live it down? No, not in my lifetime.

If people want to think that this discrimination is a-ok, then yes they should be fearful of that. The average person or business would simply not. They'd view it as; United Airlines and the people involved, did something wrong, which is accurate, and that's why action was taken against them. More discrimination for fear of being sued, as a result of any legal win is unlikely in this situation.

The cost of losing however, or even doing nothing, (not just for the family, but the entire AS community, both in the states and abroad,) is just too high, and I applaud Beegle's efforts in this.

You would be surprised how many people would take United Airlines side. Most of the comments in the articles I have seen are if not pro airline definitely think the mother was in the wrong, even here there is that sentiment. Don't forget that one of the main reasons airlines have all these draconian rules and attitudes because of the lawsuits that happened as a result of 9/11. A bunch of airlines that were there at the are not now. So the strategy is to make them more fearful?

It's not going to "make them more fearful". It will prove legally, that it IS indeed discrimination, and that hearing others talk about Autism or Asperger's or the word 'meltdown' doesn't justify hysteria, and isn't grounds to remove other people.

The case can then (like the scouts case) be used as a reference in future cases.

But telling a flight crew that your child may start harming herself or somebody else, if she doesn't get some hot food, certainly is grounds to remove her.

No it isn't, nor is talking about it, and no there wasn't a threat. Next they'll be removing people that have seizures under suspicion they might be possessed by demons.

Lol yeah, and the founder/backing money behind Autism Speaks, Bob Wright, used to be the head of NBC and through social connections probably has influence on their depictions of autism.

Talking like that is certainly grounds for removing someone from anywhere, most of all a plane. What is a threat if not, "If we don't get what we want, someone will get hurt?"

I'm fairly sure that a person having a seizure would result in a flight being grounded, though not for the reason you suggest.

When I get mad, I turn into the incredible hulk so you better not get me within 10 feet of a plane.

For medical emergency, just like what this situation was. If there is a risk to the person they'll land, it's as simple as that. The mother's words were vague so they decided against having an unknown situation occurring mid air in a close environment between hundreds of people.