• Placid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 days ago

    To give them a designated spot to stay in so they’re not wandering around bothering people waiting to collect their bags from baggage claim. It limits disruptive and frankly antisocial behavior.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      But you could just kick them out or refuse them entry to the airport as they aren’t required to permit free speech?

      • Krudler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I’m not trying to justify or leap to any defense, just trying to understand myself.

        But I’m kind of getting the feeling that they are trying to do a catch-all.

        For all practical purposes, if it was a free-for-all of people treating airports like public forums, it just keeps sliding. The reason the airport is there is to facilitate people’s travel, travelers don’t want to be annoyed by constant destractions, let’s face it, customs and enforcement wants the least amount of chaos. The airport doesn’t want to bear the continual cost of extra staff to manage. Police don’t want to have a hotspot of constant nuisance calls.

        I think this type of post really inflames people, but in a way it seems to have practical purpose. I’m not even sure that it implies that free speech is not allowed in the airport. Just like tacitly… Dear annoying assholes that hide behind Free Speech, go stand here.

      • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes, but they can still annoy you with dumb lawsuits. Maybe this reduces those.