Second Sunday at Torrey - August 2019

Bill Cummings · **Posted:** Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:40 pm

Terminiello v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance"

Bob Kuczewski · **Posted:** Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:52 pm

Bill Cummings wrote:

Terminiello v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

Excellent post Bill!!!

The most protected form of speech is unpopular speech.

Why? Let's give that some thought.

Unpopular speech is - by definition - a minority opinion. It's an opinion that goes against the majority. That's what makes it "unpopular" in the first place. So why would a minority opinion have any value in a society officially ruled by a vote of the majority? Maybe the best way to answer that is to reflect on a few previously held majority opinions:

The world is flat.
Slavery is justified.
The Titanic is unsinkable.
Human flight is impossible.

In other words, it's the unpopular speech that keeps the herd from running off the cliff.

One of the biggest problems in the sport of hang gliding is that unpopular speech is routinely shouted down and banned by those in power at USHPA, and at hanggliding.org, and at ozreport.com.

Of course, that's not saying that unpopular speech is easy to deal with. It isn't. It stirs up passion and debate and sometimes even anger. We've certainly seen that here on the U.S. Hawks. But that's the process of finding the RIGHT solution rather than the easy or popular solution.

And all of that brings me to Bill's article on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, reversed Terminiello's conviction
...
Douglas explained that the purpose of free speech was to invite dispute even where it incites people to anger; in fact, the provocative and inflammatory content of speech could potentially be seen as positive. Although Douglas acknowledged that freedom of speech was not limitless and did not apply to "fighting words" (citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire), he held that such limitations were inapplicable here:

Quote:

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262, 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373, 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

Justice Douglas put his finger on the central problem in the sport of hang gliding.

Excellent post Bill!!!

:salute:

wingspan33 · **Joined:** Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:24 pm **Posts:** 1150

What's interesting here is the definition of "fighting words". A vigorous, even angry, debate or argument is allowable. I like the vigorous type myself! But what happened to Bob at Torrey and what happened to me at my local Mt. Washington flying site is nowhere near justifiable. In my case, the words "punch", "fight" and "knock you to the ground" were actually used. Unmistakable fighting words. They were also intimidating, threatening and coercive, like those words shouted at Bob while at Torrey.

The U$hPa and paragliding has caused typically good people to become threatening criminals. WHY?

Bob Kuczewski · **Posted:** Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:44 pm

wingspan33 wrote:

The U$hPa and paragliding has caused typically good people to become threatening criminals. WHY?

This is a very good point. Gary Fogel once compared flying to cocaine. I think various "organizations" have tried to create gang-like loyalty to the sport(s) so they can use that gang-like behavior against anyone they see as a threat to themselves or their gravy train. Humans are easily turned into mobs by people who know how to push the right buttons.

majiemae · **Joined:** Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:14 am **Posts:** 187

This is from August 7, 2019

Bob Kuczewski · **Posted:** Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:22 am

Thanks for posting that video!! :thumbup:

That video was taken with my cell phone, and it shows what happened from the moment that I turned it on. What's not seen in the video is what happened before I turned it on and why I did turn it on.

About 10 of us had gathered for a meeting with City Councilmember Barbara Bry. We went downtown in about 3 vehicles, so several people left their cars in the lot outside the Gliderport leasehold area. We had returned after the meeting to get the cars and make plans for dinner.

During that discussion, the Torrey Pines Gliderport / Air California Adventure employee ("Giuseppe") showed up with his camera quietly recording us from his pocket. None of us noticed it at first and we had several minutes of discussion that was being surreptitiously recorded by Giuseppe. At one point I noticed the camera in his pocket and I asked if it was running. The answer was obviously "yes", and that's when I took out my camera and began recording in response. That's where this video begins.

So I asked Giuseppe why he came out to secretly video tape our conversation. Giuseppe lied in his response. Did you catch it in the video? Here it is in text:

Bob: "But you came down here with your camera on ... in your pocket ... to do what?"

Giuseppe: "I thought maybe that you would maybe see that it doesn't feel too good. Does it?"

Giuseppe: "So I thought I'd go film him and let him see what it feels like."

Did you catch the lie yet?

Here it is. If he was recording us to let us "maybe see that it doesn't feel too good" or "see what it feels like", then why would he have his camera unobtrusively tucked into his pocket? Why wouldn't he be holding it up so we would obviously know that he was recording us? No, he was hoping to capture our conversation without us knowing it. Five "Pinocchios" for Giuseppe.

Then Giuseppe demonstrates and states what he claims that I do to them:

Attachment:

HoldsItInYourFace.png [ 180.06 KiB | Viewed 8555 times ]

Giuseppe: "he [Bob] comes and holds it [camera] in your face".

That's lie number 2 in less than 5 minutes, and I call him on it because it's simply not true. Five more "Pinocchios" for Giuseppe. When I press him on the false "holds the camera in your face" claim, he has no response and eventually backs down and retracts his lie. We can take back two of his "Pinocchios" for at least coming clean with the truth when proven wrong. By the way, the "Bob puts the camera in your face" lie is also debunked in the earlier video in this topic.

Attachment:

FaceInCamera.png [ 93.24 KiB | Viewed 8545 times ]

I hadn't moved from my original location when two of the ACA "groupies" violated my personal space coming within inches of my camera. Giuseppe himself appears in that video yet he propagates the lie that "Bob holds the camera in your face".

Three things are obvious from just these few snippets:

      1. Giuseppe came into our group to secretly record our conversation
      2. Giuseppe lied about it when he was caught
      3. Giuseppe has been brainwashed into repeating false statements

That's enough ... for now.

Bob Kuczewski · **Posted:** Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:27 am

Ben Reese posted on the Oz Forum:

Ben Reese wrote:

This video was recorded in the afternoon of Aug 7th about 5pm.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0VJNYhjm ... ntinue=675

Please read before watching.

I was present, and only to drop Joe Faust off at the glider port parking lot. There were several in this company of well known HG personalities. These pilots represented approximately half those who were in attendance in a private meeting with a San Diego City Council Woman running for Mayor.

I and others were invited by several key people who invited several more. I was asked to attend this 45 min meeting at 3pm on the 7th.

For me it was a difficult task to get down there after attending Airventure OSH, WI and driving back from there towing an airplane. A few days rest and on the road again. The previous day 6th I had to deliver an Open Class Sailplane to Coalinga, CA many miles north of San Diego. Coming from Carson City, NV over the Sierras towing a large glider in CA traffic is tiring.. I wrote about this road trip in a previous post.

I tell you all this because I had to drive back to Bakersfield, CA that night for a 9am meeting in Bakersfield, CA. From there I drove to Monterey, Petaluma, Sonoma, Sacramento and back to Carson City, NV on the same day stopping for meetings at each city.. A three day driving and working marathon.. I did not need this meeting…

It was grueling… But this meeting in San Diego was important for the future of Torrey Pines.. What happened in that meeting is not what this post is about. That info will be disclosed after all follow ups with City Council are completed. This meeting was well represented by City Council Woman, Barbra Bry (Bree). She had 3 staff members there with specific duties assigned, all very professional..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0VJNYhjm ... ntinue=675

Video Details:

I want you to be the judge of the contents in this video..

However I need to set the environment and location specifics. All present were meeting for efficiency after carpooling at City meeting down town. I drove back on my way north with Joe Faust as passenger, otherwise I would not have been present at the flight park. We had just arrived within mins an employee of ACA came up to us with a camera recording us.

We were in the North East part away from any flight ops at the far East fence line. Available parking… We were discussing the Sailplane history of Torrey and how they must have felt as HG’s crowded their ridge in the 80’s. How the Sailplanes were no more at Torrey. We commented that on such a great soaring day there were no HG’s flying and none present except for a lone tandem glider set up next to ACA ops. Para Gliders only we’re flying, reminding us HG pilots how the Sailplane pilots must have felt watching us…

That is a sobering feeling and I wondered, could it really be this uncomfortable for HG pilots to fly here now? I just did not believe it was so.

Then the camera toting ACA employee showed up with camera rolling in his breast pocket. This went on for several mins before we actually noticed he was recording.

That is when one of us starts recording him several min into this confrontation. This is when you see the video begin. It would be great to get his early recording. You would see how innocent we were just talking before our departure from Torrey.

I told you my road trip schedule so you would know I had no desire to stay there or get involved in a confrontation.. I had meetings scheduled that if missed costs me $thousands…

In the vid you hear my voice allot and even disagreeing with the un-named one. This is a fascinating video and we started filming several mins after Jesseppie (ACA) arrived.

Why was he there when none of use were even close and most had our backs to ACA. This is a fascinating reveal of what life is like at Torrey Pines. If you’re a HG pilot, you should be very very worried about your local site.

Do not let it go this far..

USHPA has the power to fix this and so far it has refused to act.

Will the city of San Diego act?

The meeting with Council Woman Bry was civil and professional, we talked about how to save lives and preserving this flying site for all, not just SOME!

This parking lot confrontation changed my focus from getting along to ending this now! No matter what you think about personalities and the whys of it? This has got to end!

If we as pilots don’t handle this, the city will because they have to. USHPA is failing us once again and not just HG pilots either! All of us, PG’s included..

You pilots should be very very worried, why isn’t USHPA? Will Torrey have to close?

No one wants that, not even the un-named one…

Ben Reese

Free · **Joined:** Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:47 pm **Posts:** 1084

Jim Gaar says this is blather. He says you are beating a dead horse.
I've taken screen shots but I can't get my copy/paste to work.
I think the cool one should come here to post his comments, where Grendel's mother can't protect his sorry :evil:

a**.

Moderator's Note:

Attachment:

Jims_Post.png [ 135.73 KiB | Viewed 8535 times ]

Bob Kuczewski · **Posted:** Fri May 29, 2020 11:49 pm

Blindrodie (with bold added) wrote:

The ACA issue is well known, as well as the consequences surrounding those that are unnamed and involved. It's a serious issue - but mostly for those local pilots. We never seem to hear from any of them.

      "We never seem to hear from any of them"?
      "We never seem to hear from any of them"?
      "We never seem to hear from any of them"?

Gee Jim, did you ever consider that ...

"Any of them" who would speak up ... are banned!!

Second Sunday at Torrey - August 2019

Who is online