I sure hope that the filter program is a good one. I was working for a company that decided to go this route and the software that they used was so terrible, it was taken off line within 6 months. We couldn't even go to Virgin Atlantic website because of the word 'virgin'. That said, I think a little policing is fine.

Posted By Lili on September 17, 2008, 12:13 PM

I'd be much less likely to pay for in-flight wifi if I knew it'd be filtered. Not 'cause I'd be looking up porn, but exactly because of the trouble with filtering software Lili mentions.

Posted By Paul Brady on September 17, 2008, 3:04 PM

Yes, definitely. Although I'd like to think no one would actually look at porn or other offensive websites while sitting two inches from someone else, sadly I actually don't believe this would be the case.

Posted By Megan on September 18, 2008, 1:04 AM

Unfortunately yes, they should install the filters. I would hate to have my daughter sitting next to some idiot that cannot refrain from "viewing these materials" for the duration of a flight. Sometimes we're forced to police people because they fail to act responsibly.

Posted By Steve on September 18, 2008, 12:12 PM

Yes. I would not like to sit next to someone watching porn.........nor would I want my granddaughter or grandson exposed to it.

Posted By Joan Raymond on September 18, 2008, 12:14 PM

I agree with Megan.

Posted By Kathi on September 18, 2008, 12:15 PM

Sorry, folks, but no, they should not install filters. Not only are these filters flawed, as noted abouve, but Its not the job of an airline to curtain what can be viewed on the internet -- ESPECIALLY after I have paid for it twice -- once for the seat and again for the in-flight connection. Airlines are not employers, they cannot police what is viewed.

Posted By DJP on September 18, 2008, 12:17 PM

Yes, airlines should monitor wi-fi. This is community space and tight quarters at that. X-rated viewing should be done in private not public.

Posted By Lisa on September 18, 2008, 12:17 PM

yes please. its bad enough to rub elbows, SMELL your seatmates and try to ignore the guys head in front of you,in your lap sometmes. to be bombarded with raunchy computer programs a would be too much! they can wait 'til they are in a more private setting. offensive!

Posted By sherry on September 18, 2008, 12:18 PM

Yes, they should install filters. An airline full of different age groups including children is not a place for porn to be available! This is a no brainer people!

Posted By Lisa on September 18, 2008, 12:20 PM

It would be a sad state of affairs if someone can't sit through a flight without checking out porn, but let's face it: there are millions who can't go to WORK without looking at porn. So, yes, put filters on. At some point, someone needs to step in and say IT'S NOT OK to do this in front of others who are not interested.

Posted By Natalie on September 18, 2008, 12:20 PM

Well what's to prevent someone from bringing a portable DVD player and sticking a porno in there? I'm not against some filtering but how far do you go?

Posted By Paul on September 18, 2008, 12:21 PM

All good comments. The airlines, like all businesses, have the right to limit activities on their premises.
You should poll the idea of cell phone usage on planes... if the federal regulators ever try to pass regulation that allows cell phone usage on planes, I ban them all to tourist class seats 6 inches from a salesman or someone with endless personal problems for the rest of their lives.

Posted By Pat on September 18, 2008, 12:23 PM

Absolutely. I would not want to be sitting next to some idiot that doesn't have the common courtesy to be looking up pornographic material in a public place.

Posted By Terri on September 18, 2008, 12:25 PM

Airlines should have anticipated this use/misuse. Airplanes, by necessity, have lots of tightly-packed passengers. I can understand why flight attendants don't want to add 'aroused' to that adjective. On long (or short) flights, I don't want to have to wonder what is going on beneath the tray table next to mine! Airlines should also be aware that many passengers only wanted access for this purpose and their anticipated revenues from internet will drop, but not as much as the sexual-harassment lawsuit settlements might be.

Posted By Lisa P on September 18, 2008, 12:26 PM

Yes, I believe they should install filters. Anyone who is bold enough to watch this stuff sitting inches from someone else is scary because obviously they do not have enough self control to police their actions.

Posted By Donna on September 18, 2008, 12:27 PM

Internet filters are notoriously unreliable and easy to thwart as the Chinese government discovered during the Olympics. All those government filters accomplished was to inconvenience reporters and others who were trying to do legitimate Internet research from China. If airline passengers are inconsiderate enough to view porn in proximity to other passengers, they can do it with magazines, pictures stored on a hard drive or DVD videos. It seems to me that the simplest solution would be to have the flight attendants deal with anyone who is offensive to fellow passengers.

Posted By Lewis Edge on September 18, 2008, 12:28 PM

No way. We don't need morality police - this is America, after all.

With that said, anybody who is viewing objectionable content with the intent of harassing or offending others on the plane should have their access revoked immediately and perhaps permanently.

Posted By Joseph on September 18, 2008, 12:29 PM

Airlines should NOT offer WiFi service on domestic flights.

Posted By Bill J on September 18, 2008, 12:31 PM

Yes ,if people are that sick in their thinking,filters or NO WiFi is the answer.It is a sad and demented world we live in now.

Posted By Barbro on September 18, 2008, 12:33 PM

I used to work at public library, where we dealt w/ this kind of thing all the time. Being a library, we were very anti-censorship, so instead of outright blocking anything, we instituted a policy where every person wishing to have internet privileges had to sign a form agreeing not to visit any "inappropriate" sites (mostly pornography, but other things could be included). First offense got a warning, 2nd got internet privileges temporarily or permanently revoked, and 3rd could get all library privileges revoked.

This system could work well on planes, especially b/c it allows it to be up to the discretion of flight attendants, since their workplace rights are being violated if they are forced to view material that is offensive in this way. it would be easy for customers wishing to access wi-fi to sign an internet policy at check-in, or agree to one online when buying tickets.

Posted By Libby on September 18, 2008, 12:33 PM

I certainly hope they filter internet activity. I would definitely not want to sit next to a person viewing anything objectionable.

Posted By Elaine on September 18, 2008, 12:34 PM

Yes I am strongly for filtering, and as an aside, I am also concerned about the potential future offering of in-flight cell phone approval. Loud conversations are bad enough while on board on the ground and in the terminal waiting areas, enough is enough!!!

Posted By Gerry on September 18, 2008, 12:37 PM

My real concern about Wi-Fi in the confined space of airline seats relates more to Voip than to porn. Will services like Skype be usable on the planes?

Posted By Bruce on September 18, 2008, 12:37 PM

We all know that when are given a privilige, at some point someone will find a way to abuse it.
I like the idea for people who we communicate through a e-mail a lot. But they really have see into the rules to avoid conflict with the person sitting next to you during a flight.

Posted By Edgar Menendez on September 18, 2008, 12:38 PM

The only answer is to eliminate wi-fi from in-flight service. It is only a matter of time before someone offended by porn in the seat next door takes a swing at the offender and starts an outright brawl on board at 35,000 feet. That's my idea of an exciting flight! The filters don't work and, people being people, there's no such thing as courtesy or consideration for others -- witness the use of cell phones. By the way -- don't like cell phone users in public places? -- just speak VERY loudly in the ear not pressed to a cell phone and discuss his/her mother, clothing, bad breath....

Posted By Bob on September 18, 2008, 12:38 PM

While I support each individual's right to look at whatever he wants, I also think that the airlines have the right, and perhaps, the responsibility, to limit the sites that may be viewed while on their planes. There are already restrictions on many activities while on board - such as wearing seat belts and cell phone usage - so this is just an extention of those restrictions. What if a passenger started looking at a site that showed you how to make a bomb out of a lap top computer. I don't know if there is such a site, but I would certainly be a little apprehensive if I was sitting next to someone that was looking at someting like that.

Posted By bill on September 18, 2008, 12:40 PM

Yes, apply filters. And yes, the concept of filtering would extend to X-rated DVDs and magazines. Another adult (e.g. a flight attendant) should not be in the position of having to tell another adult (a passenger; and hopefully not a teenager) to behave with good manners in public. No one should be subjected to view X-rated material. Not the flight attendant walking down the aisle on a plane, not the grandmother sitting next to you, not the 7 y.o. who's curiousity and future could be changed forever with pornographic images. It's a personal choice to view such material - in my opinion - trash, with nothing worthy or edifying. As for as porn - NOTHING good comes from it. However, when that personal choice includes others by virtue of someone sitting next to you on a plane where that person cannot move to another seat - your rights and choices must be compromised....otherwise it's all about SELF and SELFISHNESS.

Posted By Nancy on September 18, 2008, 12:41 PM

I disagree. Airlines are providing a service, and filtered Internet just doesn't work. I'd also like to know how this even came about. My guess is a nosy neighbor couldn't help but spy on what someone was looking at, and their fundamentalist, right-wing, righteous indignation took over. Or one of the aging beauty queens they try to foist off as flight attendants, who regularly require the assistance of a walker to bring you the beverage you have ordered, happened to pause in the aisle and read over someone's shoulder.

Listen people, if they can take this drastic step, then they sure as hell can shut up the crying and/or obnoxious children or remove them from the plane, especially for those of us who suffer through the nouveau riche family travel in business class! If they can do this, then they can also get hardcore on the carry-on luggage which won't fit, and the people who insist on putting their carry-ons in the overhead area of your seat when they're sitting twenty seats back and/or in a different flying class!

This is nothing more than personal sensitivities being forced onto other people. I really don't think too many people will be looking at porn on the Internet on a plane. Most people would have the common sense that God gave geese to do that in the privacy of their hotel rooms. Ubiquitous pop-ups excepted, of course.

Posted By Albert on September 18, 2008, 12:41 PM

I already sent my comment but I didn't notice the form for ID. my comment was about the use of a form for the FA, as justification to disconnect a seat access. Sorry. I hope you do post the suggestion. Thanks

Posted By David Kennedy on September 18, 2008, 12:52 PM

Albert, relax! If you can't share the plane nicely, charter your own.
I'm all for these filters. I know they are imperfect, but they are helpful. Because computers and even the Internet are "objects" and not human beings, they are much easier to control. I assume you do not have children if you think that they can always be "shut up." :)

Posted By Tori on September 18, 2008, 12:52 PM

It's no one else's business what people do online, unless it is illegal. Keep the heck away from our 1st amendment rights.

Posted By Angie on September 18, 2008, 12:56 PM

Yes, filters would be in place to block out porn AND football also. My son in law screams and yells every time his team makes a play or misses a play. I thought he had fallen through the plate glass door last week but he was only screaming because his team was 2 point behind! The entire house was upset because he scared us so much.

Posted By Thomas J Duncan on September 18, 2008, 12:57 PM

So, I don't care what they do as long as they do not allow cell phone use during flights.

I had the unfortunate experience to have to listen to cell conversations ( several trips ) on the train from DC to NYC. It is amazing what people say on the phone in front of about a dozen people they have never seen before. There just couldn't be another car with "no cells" to move to if you are on a plane.

Posted By john on September 18, 2008, 1:00 PM

I cannot see any valid reason for ANYONE to view anything other than business or The Disney Channel while seated NEXT TO SOMEONE ELSE!

I would want a refund from the airline if I were subjected to porn "aboard". And it would be worse if children are exposed to that as well.

There better be some really heavy-duty filters if they are going to let the dogs out!

Posted By Steve on September 18, 2008, 1:02 PM

Absolutely. The airlines never showed x-rated movies; why should people be allowed to view worse from their seats? My children or mother should not be forced to sit next to someone viewing porn.

Posted By Kathy on September 18, 2008, 1:03 PM

Big Brother is alive and well in American Airlines. If they offer wifi, fine; that doesn't give them the right to breach the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution. Who is the judge of what is pornography, American Airlines? They should mind their own business or not offer wifi.
Also, why are Americans so interested in not assuming responsibility for what their kids watch? If you don't like what the person next to your child is watching on her computer while in flight, then exercise your options: object to the person who is using her computer next to your child, or object to the flight attendant, or trade seats with your child, or ask to be moved, etc.
American Airlines, stay out of the censorship business and stick to the transportation business.

Posted By Virginia on September 18, 2008, 1:07 PM

Tori, to each their own. I'm much more offended by people's lack of ability to control their children than I would ever be at somebody's lack of ability to control their desire to look at porn.

Don't punish the masses for the deeds of a few.

I can't believe something as innocent as pictures causes such a ruckus amongst people.

This really needs to be taken on a case by case basis by the flight crew, who can determine if somebody is breaking a law or otherwise causing a disturbance.

What's next? You can't watch porn on your in-car DVD player because the children in the car behind you might see it? What about the guy with the nude woman tattoo on his arm sitting next to your kid on a plane (or the bus)? Where does it end?

Honestly, if you don't like it, don't look at it. Your brain controls where your eyes are pointed. You can censor your own world to your heart's desire but don't pin your morals on me.

Posted By joseph on September 18, 2008, 1:13 PM

Yes - they should filter both on-line content and DVD or other video content. Where has the basic standards of Public behavior or manners gone? Just as we would expect people from public displays of sexual behavior, displaying it on your laptop for all who pass by or are sitting nearby is as bad. Even though you purchased a ticket, you are in a public area - save the porn for your "private" time and quit complaining and grow up. It is unfortunate that businesses are forced to enact rules to enforce common decency. Another example of people feeling "entitled"...

Posted By Rose on September 18, 2008, 1:15 PM

Yes, filters, is one can be found that actually works. My thought is "why have the connections on domestic flights in the first place" Take a nap, take a break, relax, read an actual book, you'll be on the ground again very soon.

Posted By Cheryl on September 18, 2008, 1:17 PM

I do not think that internet access should be allowed at all. It is impossible to sit next to a computer at night and sleep!!! The visuals are invasive to the people around the computer! I have sat behind, and across from someone who had a computer going during the night and the screen was brilliant. He sat there talking to the screen, and keeping everyone else up!! Anyone can do without that intrusion.....we are sharing close space. Absolutely NO PORN, NO VIOLENCE, NO-NO-N0. Be quiet, and try to not to be disruptive to anyone!!! It is silly that we need all these distractions to exist, and at the expense of intrusion of others. This is not just an employee issue!! We are all paying for tickets to fly to our destination, not to be intruded upon during this uncomfortable flight by the entertainment choices of another person. These are expensive tickets!!! If this is a choice, then have a section in the back for computer access and let them look at what they want. RESERVE as many seats as seem reasonable and they can gamble, listen to violence, keep each other awake to their hearts delight and the others can have peace, quiet, and not be subjected to their light pollution, and their viewing choices and utterances. thanks, a frequent flyer who wants to arrive refreshed, not angry and exhausted......

Posted By judy marcel on September 18, 2008, 1:24 PM

If they offered levels of service for different
costs, then okay. One price..one internet no censorship....

Posted By Mike P. on September 18, 2008, 1:24 PM

Sure, they do it in public places such as libraries.

Posted By John on September 18, 2008, 1:37 PM

Remove (block) the porn and the airlines will be able to reduce the WIFI fee - dream on....

Posted By Art Schwartz on September 18, 2008, 1:53 PM

I have to disagree with everyone and say they should not install a filter on wifi. First of all they hardly ever work 100%, second there are easy ways to get around it so what’s the point. If I bring my laptop on board a flight and I have porn already downloaded are you going to stop me from watching it during the flight? I can only imagine the knock down drag out between the person who decided to do this and flight crew. What if someone needs access to a site for business and the filter blocks it because a weird word in the URL? During mid flight are you going to ask the staff if they can override this? I don’t think so! Let the 1st Amendment live!

Posted By Chad on September 18, 2008, 2:02 PM

Egads....another good idea (WiFi)gone awry and the "righteous" suffer. This is just another example of bad manners that seems so prevalent in so many areas of our society. Block the sites.

Posted By Ann Emel on September 18, 2008, 2:04 PM

No porn on planes!

The more tightly people are packed together, the more controls there have to be.

Flight attendants and children need protection the most.

Posted By Marianne on September 18, 2008, 2:05 PM

As if these poor flight attendants don't have enough to worry about on these flights! Can't people sit for 3 hours without visiting porn sites? I recently flew with my 19 year old daughter and if she had to sit next to some person watching a porn movie or for that matter anyone having to sit next to someone utilizing their first amendment rights watching porn.....how desperate can someone be

Posted By mona on September 18, 2008, 2:15 PM

My Lord!! Who is THAT IMPORTANT they can't be off the internet for the duration of the flight? What have we become? Charter your own plane if you are that important. I hope travelers stay away from American Airlines because they allow the internet on flights.

Posted By Bill on September 18, 2008, 2:17 PM

Yes, of course, there should be some kind of "censorship" of those things. Imagine if there were a person that was highly offended sitting next to a person with that objectionable material. After being asked a time or two to shut the material off, the offended person maybe could not control his anger, and a verbal or physical fight could ensue. They cannot stop the plane in mid-flight to eject the fighters (and why should the offended man be be made an object of of punishment for merely requesting that the other seeks a more appropriate use of his computer). There are many scenarios, and if there is going to be a potential of abuse, then we should keep the policy as is lest we open the Pandora's box that cannot be closed.

Posted By Rosemarie on September 18, 2008, 2:19 PM

. . . you're not renting an apartment, you're sitting cheek to jowl with other people, including young children and teenagers . . . . you can't always get what you want, and in this case, shouldn't get . . . . .

Posted By marilyn on September 18, 2008, 2:23 PM

My thoughts are that they should never have made access available on a plane....if you can't do without electronics for the time it takes to make a trip, then we are much to dependent. Wifi should not have been installed at all....then there would be no problem. What is wrong with flight approved movies?

Posted By Rita on September 18, 2008, 2:24 PM

While I really don't personally care what my fellow passengers peruse on-line, (1) there are children on the plane, and even if they are not sitting next to the porn lover, they do get up to use the restrooms do not need to be exposed to that. (2) Even I would not be excited about sitting next to the porn lover should he become -- er -- excited. So I say, in this circumstance, censorship is good.

Posted By India on September 18, 2008, 2:35 PM

Obviously if flight attendants are asking for this then there must be a problem, so they should absolutely filter the internet on flights. No decent person wants to be subjected to porn in a public place.

Posted By Debbie on September 18, 2008, 2:59 PM

I would say this situation calls for filters. I would not be offended by pictures of naked humans, but what they might be doing on a pornographic basis would be unacceptable. Also I would say that there are lots of families and children, so a filter to sift out racy content would by approved by me. I may not be able to afford the service, so I might not be affected by the filters so much like other people who have commented on the use of filters. Who knows if they are the ones who would be viewing porn and not want the filters applied. Let them eat cake!! BJV

Posted By Bill V on September 18, 2008, 3:00 PM

Yes, they certainly should. Same reason there aren't hookers in the air to take care of you in the toilets - its just not appropriate.

Posted By KJC on September 18, 2008, 3:04 PM

I agree with Paul's comments that I can bring my DVD player and watch all of the porn I want. Just how far would they police this? I also agree with Rita's comments. For 2 or 3 hours you CAN live without access to electronics and the internet.

Posted By Tom on September 18, 2008, 3:14 PM

If you pay for Wi-Fi, it's not the airlines' business, nor anyone's, what you're looking at. I personally would never look at such things while seated next to a child anymore than I would open up a Playboy to the photo pages. But if someone did, it's not necessary to install Wi-Fi filters to correct the situation. Polite adult interaction is usually sufficient. We don't need to Disney-fy the entire public world just to protect children from the potential sight of the human body. Most of us caught glimpses as a child, and I doubt anyone was permanently damaged by the sight.

Furthermore, why the concern over the human body, but not over violence?

Posted By Lance on September 18, 2008, 3:27 PM

As a woman, I would VERY uncomfortable sitting next to a strange man while he watched porn. And if you add alcohol into the mix, it could make for some very ugly situations. I have a 20 yo daughter who flies all the time. If some guy was watching porn next to her, I shudder to think what she would do to him.

Posted By joyce on September 18, 2008, 3:37 PM

As Pat says:

"All good comments. The airlines, like all businesses, have the right to limit activities on their premises."

While I am an ardent advocate of human rights I also recognize that property is property, it is owned. The airplane belongs to the Airline and you are their guest, albiet a paying guest.

It is really a question of proprietorship on the part of the airlines and manners on the part of the customers. The Airline transports people but also assumes responsibility for their safety as well as customer satisfaction. If you don't like what happens on the flight say so to the Airline or fly with a different carrier. Or take the train. The Airline doesn't have to sell you a ticket to travel on their airplanes if they feel you put their business at risk. Passengers sharing the space with others must be considerate of others as they would be in any public spaces.

That said, the Airline would have to use a filter delicately limited to porn and nudity and not one that blocks out U-Tube and other non-offensive sites by overlarded blocking. Also the light and noise may invade others sleep besides the open porn that flaunts one's sensibilities. So why not block off a separate area for those who want to use cell phones and laptops. But bring back the smoking section while you are at it.

RightsFreedomsandRights.blogspot.com

Posted By Robert L. Gisel on September 18, 2008, 3:56 PM

Yes, filtersx should be used. You never know who may be on that flight; I. e., some children, adults who do not care for that sort of programming, etc.

Posted By Howard Jones on September 18, 2008, 4:00 PM

They shouldn't have cell or wi-fi service on planes.
What makes the American people think they have a right to disruped anyone they please, with their personal phone calls and their annoying clicking on the key-board. Why can't they bring a book. You know reading is a good way to pass the time. Work can wait put your personal life on hold while your in the air. P.S. DON'T lean back in your seat into my space. Your not going to like it when I start Kicking the back of your seat..

Posted By Gene Abbott on September 18, 2008, 4:02 PM

Definitely!! I'm not a prude, but I don't care to be exposed to racy websites. There are also children and young people who travel the airlines that also should be considered.

Posted By Joan Scales, RN on September 18, 2008, 4:27 PM

I am a public librarian. If it is accessible, people will view porn on public computers. And it creates an awkward situation when you have to tell someone to turn off the porn website. Almost all those I've had to confront got up and left after they were discretely "called out" for porn viewing. The flight attendants don't need to deal with this issue while in a locked down airplane. Our staff was glad when we finally got filters, and the filters work well in setting where users engage in a wide variety of online research.

Posted By MAR on September 18, 2008, 4:39 PM

Not sure if someone's mentioned this already; don't have time to read through all these comments...

It's not totally a wifi issue. On a recent flight, I sat behind a young man watching a dvd that would be considered porn under some folks' definition thereof. I think this is best solved on a case-by-case basis -- i.e., if you are offended by something you see, complain to a flight attendant who should be empowered to instruct a passenger to change the behavior (with risk of prosecution for non-compliance, of course).

Posted By Keala on September 18, 2008, 4:54 PM

yes, you don't need that on an airline flight where anyone can look over your shoulder and see it. Also, remember airlines aren't restricted to adults, there are many children on those flights.

Posted By jean on September 18, 2008, 4:57 PM

It may be hard to police, but I definitely don't want to see the porn on a computer of the person sitting next to me on an airplane. Also, how about youngsters that may be subjected to such sites just because they are sitting next to someone who is watching it. Some things should be left for a person's home, and this is certainly one of them.

Posted By Suzanne on September 18, 2008, 4:59 PM

Airlines should NOT filter WiFi.

What happens when the filter is incorrect and I can't get work done? Will I get a refund? Probably not.

The other issue if filters are in-place: what happens when someone manages to visit a porn site and then argues, "hey, it's not being caught by your filter, so it must be okay, right?".

Let's focus on people's behavior and having them want to do the right thing, and not on trying to corral us with a fence that's obviously going to have holes in it. Seriously, our prevailing American mentality is a real sad sometimes.

Posted By John Tyler on September 18, 2008, 5:03 PM

I will be praying for them that they will be successful. This is absolutely ridiculous that they even have to do that. Some folks are so inconsiderate and truly extremely selfish with not regard to fellow passengers and we'll stop at that!

Posted By fran on September 18, 2008, 5:06 PM

Since the airline is 'hosting' the service, they have every right to install filters. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many people either cannot control themselves and/or do not use normal common sense regarding others. An airplane is still a public place, so definitely the answer is a resounding YES!

Posted By Cindy Patton on September 18, 2008, 5:08 PM

Yes, or, in the alternative, designate a section "for perverts only".

Posted By John Musilli on September 18, 2008, 5:14 PM

Personally I don't mind looking at someone else's porn if it interests me--and probably would feel free to make comments if the spirit moved me. After all the screen would be in public view.

Posted By Billy Bardo on September 18, 2008, 5:43 PM

ALL you righteous lying so call church going people are WRONG. There should complete freedom. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT..... LOOK AWAY....DUUUUHHH. DO not put your backwards moral head trip on other people.

Posted By Richard Holland on September 18, 2008, 5:52 PM

Do they prevent people from watching porn on portable DVD players? From looking at the centerfold in Playboy? From reading an article in Playboy? From reading British newspapers with 'page 3 girls'?

Honestly, suggesting that we should police one medium more than any other is just ridiculous!

And I say this as a person who won't even read Cosmo if I'm sitting next to a child....

Posted By Glenda on September 18, 2008, 6:03 PM

Definitely - it should be censored. Who would want to sit next to someone on a plane, inches away, watching porn. Neither would I like my grandchildren sitting next to someone watching things that they may see.

Posted By sharon on September 18, 2008, 6:50 PM

The issue does extend to violence as well... and it's all well and fine to say "if you don't like it, don't look at it". But in a confined space that's pretty difficult.

I personally don't see any reason why people can't live without internet connection or their phone for a few hours anyway, so I'd prefer that it not be an option at all.

Posted By Megan on September 18, 2008, 7:12 PM

The right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins....seems to me that there are rights and interests on both sides. I wonder if this could be addressed by screen filters which require you to be sitting directly in front of the computer to view the screen. If the airline had those as clip-ons, it could ask anyone who may be viewing offensive material to accept the clip-on. This keeps them out of the business of moral police, but also respects neighbor's rights. This could also be an answer to DVD's mentioned as an alternative source of conflicting views.

I find violence in many movies at least as disturbing as naked bodies...this would allow me to request someone watching one of Mel Gibson's recent bloodbaths to also use a clip-on so I don't have to sit through hearts being ripped out, etc.

It is too bad civility has reached the level it has, but I don't think big brother tactics will restore it, so let's find a workable solution. As to those who would be so offended to even be sharing a row with someone watching something offensive to them, I'd suggest that if you are not being exposed to it (thanks to a clip-on screen shield or other mechanism), then just get over it. If the statistics are correct, probably your boss, family member, pastor/priest, or teacher is into something you'd find offensive, and the point is not about making judgments on people you share a flight with, but in assuring you don't have to be continuously exposed to material you don't feel comfortable with.

Posted By Danno on September 18, 2008, 7:17 PM

I agree that pornography should be viewed in private. Private is NOT sitting next to a stranger less than 2 inches away from you. Planes are close quarters and it's not that you can get up and move if something offends you. BLOCK IT!!!!!

Posted By Pam on September 18, 2008, 7:37 PM

Although I beleive that a person has the right to read/peruse whatever he/she wants; There are times when common sense should be used. In this day and age when the spacing between people keeps getting smaller on flights and people are not too mindful of their neighbor, the airline should limit the porn on the internet. If one cannot wait until in private to view such then they have a problem. Most flights now don't have wi-fi so it (porn) shouldn't be missed. So block it.

Posted By Claudia on September 18, 2008, 7:41 PM

I don't want to sit next to someone watching/perusing porn on his/her laptop, puhlease!

Posted By Sheila on September 18, 2008, 7:42 PM

NO, I do not believe they should filter wifi. If someones pays for an airline ticket they should be allowed to view what they want. Are we going to censor what movies people watch or magazines they read.it would be no different if you were on a train, bus, etc. mind your own business and you won't notice. and I don't think the percentage of people that view porn on a flight is that high.

Posted By stacy on September 18, 2008, 7:54 PM

If American Airlines wishes to market this "additional" service, it should be without 1st Amendment abrogation. Sorry, but I have worked with filters and they are faulty.
If another passenger or flight attendant feels the content being viewed is objectionable, then the individual's Wi-Fi use should be terminated; otherwise, leave it alone.

Posted By John on September 18, 2008, 8:00 PM

I do not feel filters should be added. If AA adds filters to the Wi-Fi, then books, magazines DVD's, etc. will need to be "filtered" as well.

Just like any other public setting, individuals need to practice some level of discretion and respect for others. If an individual chooses not exercise that respect, their privileges should be revoked.

Posted By Tony Dornacher on September 18, 2008, 8:19 PM

In crowded planes, porno is like anything else - if it's offensive to others - says kids, then there best to regulations against its showing. Many times, young people, especially teen boys, want to show their "maturity" or want to shock adults by using this sort of entertainment and then often they will loudly comment -
Please, no port on planes ....

Posted By NANCY on September 18, 2008, 8:53 PM

Yes, filter the internet. No one should be allowed to inflict this trash on others with whom they are in such close proximity as when on an airline. Those who call this an infringment with their First Amendment rights do not know what they are talking about. A private citizen, including a privately owned airline, is not bound to accord anyone First Amendment rights. Only government entities are required to do this.

Posted By Fred on September 18, 2008, 9:17 PM

If one could trust everyone to exhibit some common decency around others, filters wouldn't be necessary. In a public place like an airplane where others cannot choose beside whom they sit, I believe filters are an absolute must...and if they don't work, then the computer access can wait until landing.

Posted By Max on September 18, 2008, 9:17 PM

Some of these comments are hysterical. Their selfishness is matched only by their ignorance. Hello? The first amendment refers to GOVERNMENT censorship, not corporate. Any airline has the right to limit what passengers can view on line or on their own DVDs, IN THE CORPORATE SPACE. You buy a ticket on their airline, you accept their limitations. Don't like 'em? Drive there - and, yes, please, turn off the XXX DVDs in the car. What is wrong with you?

As long as people are as selfish as we see reflected in the comments here, then God bless the corporation that steps in to force them to behave like good neighbors and decent people with regard for those around them. What is WRONG with people, insisting on their "right" to bad behavior?

Me? I blame the parents, who apparently raised them to think the world revolves around them. What a shock when they enter the real world and have to deal with the rest of us!

Posted By Bajagirl on September 18, 2008, 9:29 PM

Why don't the zealots deal with their real concern, they would be looking and enjoying the porno. It is not their concern for their grandchildren!!! The people in the US need to get over their puritanical utterances. It is interesting to look at foreign films such as,"The Son's Room" and other films and see that in European countries it is approved for 11 year old while in US the age is 17. The people in Europe look at people in the US and can't understand the US. That's because the puritans were kicked out of Europe 400 years ago and the US continues with the Puritanical moralist lifestyle.

Posted By Ron on September 18, 2008, 9:39 PM

Absolutely NOT! We've already seen the horror caused by a Southwest flight attendant who ordered a woman off the plane. She had no cleavage showing, no panty peeks. We don't need another power-hungry class of people, since we already have the TSA. What constitutes porn is an arbitrary, subjective judgement. We travellers are the airlines' clients and customers, not their subjects.

Posted By Daniel J. Vandeberg on September 18, 2008, 9:50 PM

Hey if they want to give us a service that might allow us to make a good choice of which airline to fly on i would give it to us WHOLE without the filters and have simple but forceful rules if children are around. Have a great day.

Posted By Steve on September 18, 2008, 10:08 PM

Absolutely, I would not appreciate porn sites on a computer next to me. And please - no cell phone service. Air travel is not pleasant as it is so let's have a little peace and quite.

Posted By Bonnie on September 18, 2008, 10:39 PM

I would hope that the airlines could find a workable filter since there are always a few people that don't use common sense and would go to such sites. Unfortunately, it's really hard to erase porn from one's mind once it's been seen and there are children on airplanes. And I'm no child but I don't want to see it inadvertently.

Posted By Bonnie on September 18, 2008, 11:08 PM

It would be very inappropiate for an Airline who provides internet access, to be responsible enough and respectfull enough to filter out offensive material, for other guest who refrain from such trash. Also chilfren are traveling with their parents, and how insensitive it would be for someone to impose such offensive material on a young mind.

Posted By P Day on September 18, 2008, 11:24 PM

If Bajagirl is saying that the first amendment applies only to government she is in error. Free speech is a fundamental right.

American Airlines, like any other private corporation, is not the judge of what is pornographic or not pornographic. Yes, it can make policy about its operations, but that policy must be legal.

Watch the lawsuits if American Airlines actually decides by its policies what people are allowed and not allowed to view.

Posted By Cecilio on September 19, 2008, 12:22 AM

I think the airlines should most definitely put filters on Wi-Fi to keep people from viewing porn.
I'm sure there are decent people on the plane that don't want to see that filth.

Judy

Posted By Judy Smith on September 19, 2008, 2:09 AM

As long as the filters remove what *I* find offensive -- like political news, war, and golf -- then I think filters are a great idea!

On second thought, I also think the airlines should ban romance novels because those are pretty darn steamy.

Posted By nathan on September 19, 2008, 3:06 AM

Airlines should NOT offer WiFi service on domestic flights.

Posted By Floridian on September 19, 2008, 6:34 AM

Yes there should be controls. Many times older children are sitting next to strangers,and beyond that I don't care to sit next to someone looking at porn. Sure I "don't have to look" but in the size of the seats and area it is almost impossible to be totally divorced from seat mates. Believe me, I would tell him/her in no uncertain terms. That kind of confrontation is not a good thing on an airplane!!!

Posted By Kaaren Scanio on September 19, 2008, 8:42 AM

Here's an idea: If you don't want to see porn on your seatmate's laptop, DON'T LOOK AT THE SCREEN! You shouldn't be spying on your neighbors anyway. No one has the right to tell others what they can view. Low-cut blouses, short skirts, men in tight jeans, bra-less ladies in tank tops. Exactly where does this end? As for the "Oh no, but what about the children?" thing, I'd pay a premium to be on an all adult flight. Who needs the little buggers?

Posted By Justin on September 19, 2008, 9:25 AM

I am all for it. Airlines are private corporations. Sitting next to someone on a plane is not like sitting in your private office or your home where you might argue you have broader rights. And it's darn near impossible on today's planes to not see what is happening on the "screen" next to you. I have had to work hard at not looking at screen's with work information on them when people are sitting next to me. I am not a kid and I don't want to watch someone's porn.

Posted By Lee on September 19, 2008, 10:21 AM

Yes, I believe there should be a filter because there are many children who fly, and I myself would not want to be sitting next to someone watching it.

Posted By Betty Meyers on September 19, 2008, 11:14 AM

I have no problem with airlines filtering Wi-Fi access.

Posted By Robin on September 19, 2008, 11:24 AM

Wi-Fi and talking on a cell phone is not necessary on a plane. Read a good book or take a nap

Posted By Donna J on September 19, 2008, 11:36 AM

While I agree that it may not be pleasant to be next to someone who is watching porn.... but wait !!! try looking the other way, don't look at their screen, read a book, look out the window, in other words mind your own business.

Posted By Vic on September 19, 2008, 12:05 PM

Just because you offer access, in no way does that give you any right to editorialize, restrict, modify or dictate what is acceptable material. I believe the Constitution exists at 35,000' also.
I sympathize with the attendants and their having to deal with others who might be offended, or for whatever reasons have different standards of acceptability. Best not to offer the service at all. But what about DVD's played on brought-aboard computers? The horse has left the barn.
I am reminded that on Saturdays there were women in white nurse's uniforms that made kids sit in a restricted section at the movies. (The worst seats in the house too.)

Posted By David Kurland on September 19, 2008, 12:08 PM

I hope they don't start offering it, primarily because there are too many people like Kaaren ("Believe me, I would tell him/her in no uncertain terms") who believe they have an inalienable right to assault anyone whose values differ from their own. Air travel is edgy enough without the added tension of the confrontations such bigots would trigger.

I am more concerned about the numbers of parents who allow their children (most of whom are not paying full fares) to disturb the entire cabin. I love kids (my own and my grandkids), but if they don't know how to act, or cannot be controlled by their parents, then they need to be kept out of public places. Try a six hour flight sitting in front of an eight-year-old who kicks the back of your seat the entire trip!

Posted By Sid Hill on September 19, 2008, 12:29 PM

I certainly do think it is appropriate to filter sites. This is not a private setting, and I wouldn't want to be sitting next to someone-or have my child next to someone - who is viewing porn or other sites that may be inappropriate or disagreeable to their neighbors. There is a time and place for them to access those sites and it is not on a public transportation venue.

Posted By Linda B on September 19, 2008, 1:31 PM

Either don't offer it or filter it. I personally do not want to sit cramped up against some fat, stinky guy who is logged on to his favorite porn website. If he can't wait a few short hours to get to the privacy of his hotel room then there is a problem.

By the way.. Would somebody PLEASE review what the Constitution actually affords you?

Posted By D on September 19, 2008, 1:39 PM

Fellow passengers, flight attendants and air marshals, please refrain from spying on me by tracking what I am viewing on my computer while sitting in my paid for seat on American Airlines.

Maybe you don't like where I shop online; so make me stop ordering from Victoria's Secret and confine me to Sears while flying American Airlines because your child is sure to see provocative, half dressed models? I don't think so.

Anyone who claims to know what pornography is and wants to have filters or other 'protections' is making a personal, not legal, judgment about what I may and may not view.

American Airlines, don't get your knickers in a knot over this. Either offer wifi without censorship or don't offer it. Frankly, I would rather not have it. I prefer a good book, a nap or, if I'm desperate, some of those stupid movies that are difficult to hear over the plane engine noise (and yes, stupid because they are cut for whatever reason!).

Posted By Patty on September 19, 2008, 1:44 PM

Viewing filth is a personal choice. When you are crammed into a plane sitting shoulder to shoulder, it becomes a very public choice that a lot of the "public" does not want to be subjected to. You people who have to watch that crap can do so in the confines of your home or hotel room, but not in a public setting. However as addicting as porn is, I'm sure there are some that couldn't restrain themselves if it was an option. Sites SHOULD be filtered, and if that can't be properly accomplished, the option for wi-fi should be removed. Look through this list, people. You can see who the porn users are by their comments. Their flagrant attitudes are exactly why we need the filters, or just do away with it completely.

Posted By Jan on September 19, 2008, 4:21 PM

I think the flight attn. should be happy that their is a person on the flight these are not good times. if watching xxx fick does not interfere with the person next to them why not.Is that any different than reading a xxx book.lets get real.

Posted By MIKE RADWICK on September 19, 2008, 6:37 PM

If filters don't work and the airlines aren't the police, then let's make sure there would be a flashing light around a sign that saying "porn pervert" and a buzzer above the seat of the porn viewer, activated upon a resonable compaint to the flight attendant, by someone who can view that screen. Either that, or earphones that can't be turned off and must be used that blast nothing but screaming baby noises. If the earphones are disconnected or not in use, then the screen goes blank. Let's carry it further and post the porn viewer's photos at the end of the concourse with a sign stating "these people spent their flight surfing the web for porn sites."

Posted By Sunny on September 19, 2008, 7:19 PM

I'm a physician, and our hospital has a filter in place that unfortunately often blocks legitimate non-pornographic medical sites because of wording. We can call the IT folks and they can override it, but it's clear that the programs have broad filters that are not all that accurate. It's likely that this page for posting comments would have been blocked because the title contained the words "X-rated air fare." I suspect that some of the folks advocating for a filter either don't plan to use the wireless service, or haven't experienced the problems the filters create. In addition, anyone who is so fixated on pornography that they need to watch it in flight via the internet has a laptop with them anyway, and could just as easily watch videos stored on their hard drive, so the problem can occur without access to the internet. I really feel that the downside of the filter inappropriately blocking sites detracts from the benefit of internet access.

Posted By David on September 20, 2008, 8:42 AM

Airlines have "filtered" the content of movies they've been showing for over 50 years. Just because they put video screens in planes doesn't mean they have to deliver all the content available on their satellite link. They are not obligated to deliver HBO, the Playboy Channel or even PBS Kids.

Likewise, it's not an obligation that they provide unrestricted Internet access or else nothing at all. They could offer to deliver any fraction of they Internet they wished and we can decide whether to pay for that fraction. It is not necessarily censorship to offer only a portion of what another provider offers. It is a business service.

I would pay something small for internet access that only included SI.com, FoxSports.com and NFL.com. I would pay nothing for Oprah.com, but my wife would pay something. I would pay more for unrestricted Internet access. I would pay yet more if the access to all passengers was filtered, because I value that service more than unfiltered access.

In my home, I pay a premium for an Internet feed that is largely scrubbed clean of sites that are inappropriate for my children. The same filtered Internet is worth more, not less, to me in the very crowded public space of an airplane cabin as well.

Think, airlines, think. There's a business model in here somewhere. Maybe they could profit really well by offering unrestricted access only with private-view video glasses that would rent for an exorbitant fee. Kids and gamers would rent the same headgear with restricted access just to try out the technology. They could order their own glasses from the online catalog. The airline would get a cut of the sales.

Posted By OM on September 20, 2008, 10:13 AM

First off, the movement on the screen immediately catches the eye. We, as human beings, are wired to notice that movement - it is a survival mechinism. To say "just don't look" is ludicrous. People can't not look!

It is also clear from some of the comments left here that certain individuals don't understand constitutional law. As a **private** business, the airline is not obligated to provide unrestricted access to anything anyone wants to view. The access isn't taking place in your home, nor in a public place (like a library).

That said, the airlines do have to abide by constitutional law. Porn playing in front of flight attendants would clearly be creating an "intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment" as defined by the EEOC. If the airlines did not filter the content, they would be liable for this. It has already been ruled on by the supreme court.

See the EEOC website at:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

And to those that want complete freedom - I'm sorry but your "rights" and "freedmon" end where mine begin.

Posted By CKH on September 20, 2008, 4:07 PM

Absolutely! I have had to sit by enough weirdos as it is without having to sit next to someone looking at porn. If the airlines can't find a good filter, then they should install curtains between the seats so that passengers are shielded from the salacious meanderings on the internet of fellow passengers. Perhaps a blanket over the head might work as well?

Posted By Cynthia on September 20, 2008, 5:06 PM

Yes. True freedom had limits and it not what the average american public thinks it is. Absolutely. You can have fun and watch TV but you dont have to go the extremely deviant behavior of pornography. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with policing pornography and aboslutely EVERYTHING about policing it is right, for it is a SICK, destructive thing which tears apart marriages and families and makes satan very very happy. Such people who watch it are in no way free, but in bondage to something very very evil and dark. They are not truly free at all. They are slaves of sin, sick, and messed up, and if they dont come to the light (which is Jesus and all that is good, right and true) they will be separated forever from God by their sin and continue to be his enemy, as will any sinner. But in his grace He has made a way, if they will only repent.

Posted By AH on September 21, 2008, 3:18 AM

I totally believe that censorship overall can be bad. However, while I would never want to offend fellow passengers, or have my viewing habits revealed in a confined public place like an airplane, wouldn't viewing any type of pornography in the presence of children be fall under a "contributing to the delinquency of a Minor" type of offense?

Don't know if charges could be filed in those circumstances since you would be "allowing" minors to view materials designated for an "over 18" crowd.

Posted By James on September 21, 2008, 3:14 PM

Yes, the airlines should install filters. If a person cannot wait long enough to watch porn, to get into their home or hotel room, then I say to he__ with them.

Posted By Bart on September 21, 2008, 8:13 PM

Bajagirl and several others seem to believe that those of us whom want the full promise of liberty are selfish beings who want the world to revolve around us. I would say the same is true of them. There is no Constitutional right to live a life free of being offended. We all are offended by something, (as indicated by the individual above who would prefer to avoid all politics and sports) and such rules to avoid all potentially "offensive" material results in a soviet-style police state.

People are offended by religious material, by the human body, by politics they don't agree with, by violence, by by material that insults their intelligence (any Adam Sandler film), by sexual material, by bad smells, by snoring people, by people who take up both armrests, etc, etc, etc...

That's life! Get over yourselves! There's so much talk about "protecting the children," but protecting our children from actual harm is quite different than sheltering them from the realities of the human body, which most children are aware of by 5-6 years old anyway. The world doesn't revolve around me. But it doesn't revolve around you or your kids either.

Posted By Lance on September 21, 2008, 8:15 PM

Is this even a problem? Do people look at porn magazines when they are on board?

If so, how is it handled?

What about those privacy screens that go over the display? Do they work?

Posted By John on September 22, 2008, 9:56 AM

Let them watch what they want--they paid for it. If you don't want to let them watch what they want, don't offer the service. If they are so important they have to be in touch with the office or whatever, they can rent their own airplane.

Posted By JoeS on September 22, 2008, 10:26 AM

Why not mandate in order to use the internet service you have to agree to put up one of those 3M privacy screens on your machine? You know where you have to sit directly in front of the machine and the people to the left and right only see a black screen? Those things were designed for business airline traveler’s right?

Posted By Chad on September 22, 2008, 12:38 PM

Legally, I think they MUST police this. If they don't install filters and one moron pulls up pornography, any one of their flight attendants could sue because it creates a hostile work environment. It's not enough to police it after-the-fact. Currently, many of the airlines have rules prohibiting passengers from viewing DVD's or other material that is not rated "R" (or equivalent) or less.

Posted By FreqTraveler on September 22, 2008, 2:21 PM

YES!! I have a 10 year old grandson and on a recent flight he sat with other people as there were 5 of us traveling together. I DO NOT want him subjected to porn on a plane.

Posted By Jean McCall on September 22, 2008, 6:21 PM

What else will be filtered besides porn? I have no desire to be exposed to religion or politics on an aircraft. The simple answer to allow email and text messaging through the IFE (in-flight entertainemnt) system and make passengers wait to surf the web. And I hope that mobile phones are NEVER allowed to be used in-flight. I am happy to read, sleep or watch a movie and do not look forward to the additional headaches that web access will add to air travel.

Posted By Ronny on September 22, 2008, 6:33 PM

I would hope someone would have enough self respect NOT to watch porn while sitting next to a stranger. Before the privacy screen recommendation (which I like), I thought...how about having a certain section of rows that all the 'sexually explicit' viewing is done? Then porn watchers are sitting next to one another and not next to me, my daughter, my grandmother.

I vote for no filter; privacy screens; in a specific section of the plane...

Posted By Kathy on September 22, 2008, 8:40 PM

What makes anybody think that the airlines can police the use of WiFi when they can't/won't control the size and amount of carry-on luggage.

Posted By Bob on September 23, 2008, 12:20 PM

What's that saying? 'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?' I have the right not to view porn, so is my right to not view it any less important that another person's right to view it?

There would have to be a hard line rule: no porn of ANY kind. Unfortunately, that would mean no internet access of any kind, because if a person is determined to see porn, they'll find a way. If not via the internet, they will bring a DVD player or a magazine.

If a person has the right to view porn next to me I have the right to yell or sing at the top of my lungs. Now THAT would be annoying!

How about having a section of the plan reserved for pervs? And also a section for loud cell phone talkers?

If you can't wait 2 hours to view porn, maybe you should check into that place Duchovny is staying...

Posted By sweetsallowed on September 23, 2008, 1:49 PM

Has anyone thought about what normally accompanies the viewing of porn? I mean, GROSSSSSSSS.

Posted By LeslieS on September 23, 2008, 1:52 PM

Yes. If they are the ones providing it, they have the right to filter it. Duh!

Posted By frequent flyer on September 24, 2008, 9:38 AM

Please! Is this even a question for debate? Porn, etc. should be viewed in the privacy of your home and NO WHERE else. I own a travel agency - passengers are captured on board for hours at a time and being subjected to X rated screens is just one more item that passengers will complain about.

Posted By Joan on September 24, 2008, 10:19 AM

Why would someone be looking at another person's PRIVATE laptop? When you are looking at someone else's porn, you are invading THEIR privacy. And then telling them not to watch. Who would decide what is offensive? I find anything on a laptop during a flight is offensive, unless of course it is porn....

Posted By Chris on September 25, 2008, 10:17 PM

It is a matter of rights. It may be the right of the passenger to view something offensive, but it is also the right of the people next to that passenger not to be subjected to it. I don't see any viable way of policing inflight wifi and, with planes so full, I see no way of moving to another seat if you are offended by your neighbors choice of websites. It is an unworkable system and should be scrapped. People can get along without the internet for a few hours.

Posted By Steve on September 26, 2008, 10:09 AM

NO FILTERS.... the user can put a privacy screen on the laptop to avoid wandering eyes.

Posted By John Garretson on September 27, 2008, 3:43 PM

I think that it is upsurd for them to put restrictions on the internet. Whats in store for the customers next? They run a scan to make sure that there isn't any pornagraphic material on your computer? Irregardless whether or not someone is looking up porn its frankly none of their buisness, is nudity that uncomfortable?

Posted By casey carrascp on September 28, 2008, 1:31 PM

Isn't it funny how almost all of the comments from women are against porn & for filtering ?

99.999% of the people out there would have enough sense to NOT look at porn online on a plane.
I dont need the stupid money-grubbing airlines telling me how to use a service they overcharge for, on overpriced, frequently delayed, cramped flights. Remember the constitution you whiny women out there?

Just becuase YOU don't like what someone else is doing with their computer doesn't give YOU the right to control them. Stop trying to force your right wing, hypocritical, religious puritanism on the rest of us.

If you can't mind your own business and avoid looking at someone's computer - BUY A BLIND FOLD !!!

Posted By Mark on September 29, 2008, 8:56 AM

In response to those individuals like "Sunny" who wish to create a "Perv" section and try to shame & stigmatize people whom have a different viewpoint than their limited ones:

I suggest airlines create a section for "High-Maintenance Uptight Overly-Sheltered Paranoid Uneducated Severely-Frigid Low IQ" people. Then require them to wear blindfolds & earplugs so that while in-flight they will never be exposed to even the slightest possible offensive materials. After all their souls are so sensitive that even the slightest hint of impropriety may result in another 20-years of psychotherapy, or possibly even religious fervor resulting in the loss of all rational thought, which they apparently are already on their way towards.

OR, we can all be rational and IF the airlines allow WiFi, then most passengers can remain sensitive to those around them (avoiding material that is sexual, political, violent and/or religious). When on occasion someone crosses that boundary, those around him/her can simply look elsewhere instead of becoming irrational & hysterical.

Posted By Lance on September 30, 2008, 10:08 AM

Hey,"Mark"

As you so smartly pointed out, those seats on airplanes are cramped and we're all packed in like sardines. So how do you suggest I avoid looking at someone else's armpit, much less the porn on their computer, when I'm literally up close and personal with my seatmates.

Tell me, why it is ever acceptable for a 5 year old to watch porn because the idiot next to him/her isn't part of that 99.999% of the population that "would have enough sense to NOT look at porn online on a plane".

I don't live my life with blinders on and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

And "Mark", whatever issues you have with your mother, sister, girlfriend, grandmother, or boss, I would suggest a nice chat with a therapist, instead of porn on the internet.

Posted By WhinyWomanHere on October 10, 2008, 1:46 PM

I guess I don't understand a basic element in the debate: why do the rights of the ones that would like to have porn available outweigh the rights of those who would not?

And stop all the First Amendment chatter...those same people would not want a video of a televangelist playing next to them, would they? The First Amendment could then be stretched to allow my Baptist neighbors to hand out fliers on the airplanes telling me I'm going to burn for eternity ("just don't read it"), would allow church services on planes ("just don't listen") would allow for public reading of the Book of Mormon ("put in earplugs if you don't like it")...but those rights are also guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Let's show some common sense. Look at the comment from the librarian above. They are already dealing with the problem. Why do we want to put the already underpaid and stressed-out flight attendants under more stress? If "look away" was the answer, why would airplanes edit R-rated movies shown on planes? Aren't they already Big Brothering us there?

Companies are allowed to apply filters in the workplace; wouldn't an airplane also be considered a workplace? Or do you same folks think this should be a free-for-all society without any standards of conduct?

I guess I'm just a man who sides with the 99.999% of women.

Posted By GaryLee on October 15, 2008, 9:28 AM

What I find unusual is that we are worried about our fellow passengers seeing what might be on my computer. Strangely enough, I have more problems with people trying to read my email or files while in flight.

A simpler strategy should be I will worry what's on my computer and/or DVD, and in return, you will respect my privacy by not screen snooping.

My concern about filters is similar to those expressed before, that they don't always work. More importantly, sometimes in the effort to secure people from objectionable content, they also cut off things like VPN access, as VPN sessions can bypass filters. As a business traveler whose employer uses a VPN for all our remote access to the company's assets (email, intranet, shared drives and other network resources), if VPN access is blocked, then I have no use for the WiFi service.

Posted By Gary H on October 15, 2008, 10:01 PM

well.....sitting next to someone watching porn isn't all that
attractive, and i agree with some of the comments about not wanting children or prudish individuals or for that matter individuals who simply don't want to be subjected to someone elses taste, to be made to see it. but as happens with censorship, first its seemingly good intentioned chosen topics like x rated stuff then, after people become inured to filtering by airline censors, it becomes political topics, or video that the airline simply doesn't deem tasteful. where will it end? is the rhetorical question in this messy slippery slope.

Posted By m.j. chariton on October 25, 2008, 6:02 PM

I agree with Bill J.

Posted By JoJo on October 27, 2008, 12:31 PM

If you think people won't look at internet porn inches away from a stranger you're very wrong. In 1978 I flew from Miami to Martinique on Air France. I was in the window seat when an individual took the middle seat and once airborne, pulled out porno magazines and read them most of the trip. By porno magazines, I do not mean Playboy or even Penthouse but the real dredges of such magazines. Needless to say, neither the flight attendant nor the woman in the aisle seat were very impressed, giving him dirty looks constantly.

And best of all he was not uneducated. He was an MD; an ob-gyn, in fact.

Posted By Gary on October 27, 2008, 12:52 PM

I didn't read all the comments so someone may have mentioned this already but based on providing a secure, safe, non threatening work enviroment for airline personnel, and acceptable social venue for passengers adoption of a policy that those who wish to indulge in the viewing of porn or other socially questionable materials (extreme violence)on a laptop be required to have a privacy screen installed that would prevent those around them from being exposed to it. Passengers are already regulated as to what one can bring on board, and what is considered appropriate behavior. Failure to have proper privacy screen/complaint would be cause for suspension of service w/no refund. It would protect everyone's "rights" without infringing on those who don't want to be "accessed"

Posted By NW on October 27, 2008, 2:49 PM

Bring on the filters. If someone can't get to "their site" through the filter(s), then they can either read a book or take a nap or watch a movie or, even better, just shut up. And please leave the cell phone off and packed away, too!

Posted By John Frawley on October 28, 2008, 4:12 AM

I see that womans are against in-flight porn but mens are not, maybe putting all mens on one side and womans on the other will help keep democracy in-flight. I will definitely WON'T pay for luggage and also filtered internet...

The sky is the limmit but should not be limmited

Posted By Johnny be good on October 31, 2008, 12:56 PM

Computer screens viewing angle filters solve the right and left viewer problem. They do not solve the child or adult in the row behind problem. Nor do they solve the problem presented by the individual that is within the viewing cone where it intercepts the isle at some distance behind the computer.

Adults (by definition) carry the responsibility to perform in public in unobtrusive ways. Adults (by definition) carry the responsibility to respectfully inform anyone that is not performing in public in an unobtrusive way that they are misbehaving. This 'peer' pressure should need ratcheting up to the level of complaints to higher authority when the offender continues to misbehave. Each adult that does not 'behave' as they should from both sides of the issue are complicit in the continuance of the problem.

This form of social responsibility does not insure that all social encounters will be unobtrusive. Life involves many instances of obtrusive and objectionable social occurrences. They come in all forms. They are supported by some. They are objected to by others.

No one should offend by intent any other who by legal or physical boundaries cannot remove themselves from the presence of the offense. Once the offense (and it may be done without understanding) is made known, it should stop. This is the adult thing to do. Likewise the offended should never rise to the emotional level of becoming a second offender. This is not the adult thing to do. Nor is an adult thing done when open and free communication of ideas and concepts are blocked be these ideas and concepts transmitted by sound, page or visual media.

All adults should take the time to educate themselves in the intricacies of pornography and society. It goes far beyond personal tastes and opinions.

Posted By Rodalsa on February 1, 2009, 8:02 PM

I would think most people would be fairly conscious that they were in a crowded, public forum and sensor their own surfing so I'd vote no on the filtering. I've heard all sorts of problems with filtering software, especially how it can block legitimate sites just because of certain key words.

Since there's no pleasing everyone all of the time, even if Porn were blocked, someone would find something else to object to. What about someone sitting next to a fan of a rival team viewing their favorite team sites, or someone watching a movie that's age-rated above the comfort zone for the parent sitting next to them, or even someone reading a book filled with gay-friendly themes (non-explicit) sitting next to a rampant homophobe?

Basic decency laws cover what is acceptable in public, and the airlines already have a list of things that are not allowed in-flight which they can expand. I've seen some free 'public' Wi-fi servers requiring you to 'sign' a Conditions of Use policy before you can access it, so the airline can clearly spell out what is acceptable and the standards of behavior that are expected of each passenger.

If people are that worried, maybe just have Wi-fi available to only part of the plane, leaving a section for those who do not want to risk their seatmate viewing something objectionable. (The airlines would probably charge a few dollars more for the Wi-fi seats.)

Posted By Evelyn on April 2, 2009, 1:44 PM

Normally I wouldn't care, but when you're sitting close enough to watch the same movie, then, yes, of course. I don't want to see porn out of the corner of my eye, and what about kids?? How could you possibly think that is okay? It would be perverted and wrong to let them see that. It's just obscene (literally!).

Posted By Anna on April 3, 2009, 1:07 AM

Yes of course they should filter web sites - as long as they also inspect all magazines, books, DVDs, skirt lengths, amount of cleavage revealed, etc. to make sure my tender sensibilities aren't offeneded by any of those things either!!

If someone surfs to a porn site I would do exactly the same as I would if they started to read a porno magazine or flash their breasts or other parts of their anatomy in front of young passengers. I would politely ask them to stop and report them to the flight attendant if that did not get results.

We don't need yet one more body telling us what we can and cannot watch - even if the system worked - which it wouldn't.

Posted By Jon on April 3, 2009, 7:09 PM