Grandmother arrested after refusing to delete JetBlue fight video

August 14, 2008

Marilyn Parver filmed an altercation between two passengers on a recent JetBlue flight. When she refused to delete the footage from her video camera, she says the airline threatened to blacklist her and accused her of interfering with a flight crew, which is a federal crime.

You can read the account of Parver’s flight and subsequent arrest here. And look for Parver on ABC’s Good Morning America, along with the incriminating footage.

Parver contacted me yesterday to, as she put it, “get the word out.”

I am a 56-year-old grandmother who has never had so much as a speeding ticket. But on July 26th, I was taken by armed officers, in handcuffs, off JetBlue flight 195 for refusing to delete a video I had taken of a minor altercation between passengers over a screaming kid.

The flight crew made up a charge of interfering with the crew. My recording proves I did nothing wrong. I never even stood up. I was left with the threat that I will never be able to fly on JetBlue, that I will go on the no-fly list, and have a report written about me filed with the FAA.

I only refused to delete a legal short video. This is a complete misuse of power and what happened to me could happen to anyone.

I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t find any rules that would prohibit a paying passenger from filming the interior of a JetBlue aircraft or of any commercial plane. Parver said she phoned JetBlue later, and that a representative told her she could tape whatever she wanted.

My reading of the law — and again, I’m no expert — suggests the JetBlue flight crew overstepped its boundaries. In a big way.

I asked Parver if she would consider posting her footage to the Web so that we could see what the fuss was about. She said the JetBlue crew specifically told her they didn’t want the material posted on YouTube, which is why they were so insistent that she delete the videotape.

Instead, Parver is taking her case to ABC News, where its legal department can fend off any attack from JetBlue. I think that’s probably a smart move. YouTube might delete the footage, anyway.

This case underscores the travel industry’s sensitivity to the growing influence of social media, and particularly to viral videos. Makes me wonder how many other passengers have been asked to delete images that were not flattering to an airline.

Update (12/2/10): Parver has sued JetBlue.

Bob

I think it’s an interesting question whether or not she interfered with the flight crew. On the one hand, she certainly did NOT follow crew member instructions, when they instructed her to delete the video. On the other hand, surely there is (or at least ought to be) some limit to the requirement to follow crew member instructions.

I mean, if a crew member instructed you to dance an Irish Jig on seat 31-C, and you respectfully declined, would you be in violation of federal law?
Victor

My first reaction was to think how ridiculous and PinkBerry-like JetBlue’s no-photography stance is.

But, as I started to write this comment, I realized that there’s a difference between filming the interior of an empty airplane, and filming private citizens.

I really don’t care if videos of the inside of a jet get posted on YouTube, but if someone was taping me and my child while on a flight, I wouldn’t like it one bit. Any parents out there agree with me? From that perspective, I would appreciate the flight crew protecting my right to privacy.

So, to me, it looks like this: she may well have the legal right to film – and certainly taking her off the airplane in cuffs sounds excessive – but I find it rather rude and intrusive that she would do so. What is the purpose of recording this incident? Sounds like a case of crass reality tv-informed voyeurism to me.

I’d be interested in getting the facts from a neutral party on this one. Remember how the media reflexively jumped on the side of those two young ladies who got kicked off a flight for being “too hot”? Maybe this “grandmother” has a nasty streak as well.
Jonathan Yarmis

The good news: at least they flew the flight to its destination before arresting her. I’m sure USAir would have landed en route, inconveniencing everyone.
Carrie C.

What’s being a grandmother have to do with anything?
Deborah

I think “being a grandmother” simply adds to the sympathetic tone of the story teller. One assumes, when hearing the “victim” is a grandmother, that she is harmless.

I agree with the previous post, why in the world was she taping? For her own enjoyment later? I doubt it. To be involved if it came to a legal matter later? Seems likely, she’s a bit of a busy body.

She shouldn’t have been filiming, it wasn’t her business to film. I mean come on! It wasn’t like we’re talking about a hijacking are we? But leading her away in cuffs is more than excessive.
Jennifer

Victor, you don’t have a right to privacy (for non-commercial purposes) when you’re out in public.
Dobernala

“What’s being a grandmother have to do with anything?”

Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.
Shri

I am with Victor here. I guess the flight attendants might have prevented a possible fight between the child’s parents and this lady. We should hear it from other passangers to confirm that.

If I found out that somebody is filming me and my daughter, I would certainly ask the person to delete it. Be it in public or not! And if they donot, then I will contact authorities. I donot know for what reason they are filming a child!

And I am not any legal expert either, but isn’t it necessary to get any person’s explicit permission to post their photos/videos by a third party?
BobH

Victor, Shri: If you’re out in public (and an airplane is public) anyone can film you any time they want. The only time they would need permission is if they were using it in a commercial enterprise.
Carver Clark Farrow

The basic rule is that anyone can be filmed unless they are in a circumstance in which they have a reasonable expectationof privacy, e.g. one’s own home, a bathroom, etc. (And thank God for that, remember Rodney King) Let’s not mix up the two issues. One is whether Granny had the legal right to film and whether she ought to do so.

Granny clearly had the right to film as confirmed by the Jetblue representative. The flight attendants could have ordered her to stop filming when it was time for electronics to be put away. The flight attendance had absolutely no right to order her to delete the tape/file. A creative prosecutor might go after them for attempting the destruction of evidence.

The larger issue here is whenever you give police or quasi-police powers to an individual, appropriate safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse. Consider, there are very few people who can give a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet a direct order and enforce it with threat of arrest. A flight attendant is one of the few folks who can.

Power currupts…
SirWired

I’m with the camera owner here.

1) Whether or not the woman deleted the video is certainly not a matter of flight safety for which the laws were written to cover, not embarrassment of the airline or those involved in the screaming match. I could understand if they ordered her to stop taking the video, and calling it in when she refused, but instead she simply refused to delete it.
2) The woman likely needs permission from nobody before doing almost whatever she wants with the film. It’s at least somewhat newsworthy, which means she doesn’t need permission to take it, or do anything she wants with it.
3) The folks on board the plane do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, which is what the laws regarding the use of your image usually cover. Basically, if you are in a public place, you can be filmed for almost any reason, especially news-type images. Selling t-shirts with your picture on them might be crossing the line, but just about anything short of that is not. You may not want your image used in somebody else’s video, but there is nothing you can do about it.

SirWired
Victor

Like I said, BobH, what she did is at the same time legal and obnoxious. Since it would be illegal to physically take her camera from her, I guess the next best reaction would be to whip out my own camera and start filming her filming me. Then I’d post it to http://www.busybodygrandma.com and let her worry about getting it down.
Daniel

On August 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am Dobernala said

“Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.”

The above is typical misandry. I can see how age might be a factor in how someone should be treated, but what has gender got to do with it?
Bob

@Shri

There is no requirement to obtain someone’s permission in order to photograph them. There is no requirement to obtain a parent’s permission to photograph a child. There is no requirement to obtain permission to publish a photo of someone for editorial purposes.

The only time permission is automatically required to publish a photo is if the photo is for commercial purposes. For example, if I took a picture of you, and used it without permission in an advertisement for my company with a caption that says, “Look at Shri. Shri likes Bob’s Widgets. You should buy Bob’s Widgets, too,” that would be misappropriation of your likeness, and you could sue me for damages.
Joe

“And I am not any legal expert either, but isn’t it necessary to get any person’s explicit permission to post their photos/videos by a third party?”

Apparently not because as has already been stated, you don’t have a right to privacy (for non-commercial purposes) when you’re out in public.
Christopher Elliott

I used the word “grandmother” to describe Parver because that’s how she described herself.
http://www.plantworld.org/ Eric in SF

You do not have a right to not be photographed in the United States in a public area. Only in places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (your home, a public shower/bathroom, etc) can photography be prohibited.

The only entity that can compel the destruction of a privately created piece of intellectual property (video, photo, book, drawing, etc) is a court of law. And a US court has over 100 years of precedent and law they refer to when deciding whether to issue such an order.

Even if the photo/video were taken on private property, once it’s created, the owner of the private property from which the photo/video was taken can only ask you to leave. If they touch you or your gear in any way, they’ve broken the law themselves.

You *do* have a right to sue for economic damages if your likeness is used publicly under certain circumstances. Things like implied commercial endorsement, etc.

You *do not* have the right to stop your likeness from being used for the purposes of news gathering/reporting.

My take on this, with the limited information provided, is that the grandmother felt an injustice was being done and she wanted to record it for the purposes of newsgathering/reporting. You do not have to have special blessings from the government to be a news gatherer/reporter.
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/ Douglas Muth

This part of the article bothers me the most:

“After sitting in a dark room on a wooden bench, the officer told her the flight crew told the law enforcement officials that she had taken pictures of the cockpit, the galley and other suspicious things on board, Parver said.”

The fact that JetBlue employees would lie like this is simply unconscionable. Not only are they a bunch of bullies, but they’re the kind of people who will stoop to whatever slimy tactics are necessary to push around others.

Not the sort of people I want to do business with.
Ron

Yeah Shri, unfortunately even the authorities cannot make someone delete pics or footage from a camera as long as the recording is done in public. When you leave your property, you relinquish any reasonable right to privacy – unless you are in rented accommodations (hotels, etc) or a bathroom/dressing room. Even in your car – someone can videotape you driving down the street. In most cases, if you leave your curtains open, you have also given up your expected privacy and I can videotape in your window as long as I am not on your property – because then it becomes peeping.
But pretty much, as long as I am on public property or private property open to the public, I can film or take pictures of whatever I want to.
Shri

Like I said, I am not a legal expert, but when ABC shows it on their channel, isn’t it for commercial purpose?

Anyways, my point is somebody taping someone’s child without proper permission. I mean would you say the same thing if someone goes in the park and starts taping children because it is a public area? Unfortunately we live in a society these days where I would be damn suspicious about anybody’s motives in filming a child.
Tim

Folks, the inside of a commercial airplane is not a public place. The sidewalk is a public place. If the airline wanted to require everyone to wear a pink tutu to board I believe they could as long as they didn’t discriminate in some prohibited manner (age, race, sex, ect.)
Will

@Victor – Where do you get this idea you have a right to privacy in public? If you don’t want someone to take you or your child’s picture in public, STAY HOME.

Would you demand someone delete a picture of their child if you or your child happened to be in it?

@Shri – What do you think the authorities are going to do? Make them delete it so you will feel better? Well, I take that back…after reading the news, they may try.

I wish people would stop invoking the “for the children” argument whenever something happens they don’t like. Can’t they come up with a reasonable, well thought-out response instead of an emotional one?
http://www.plantworld.org/ Eric in SF

Shri – please read everyone’s responses above. Once you or your children are in public, you cannot prevent photos and video of them from being taken, absent a restraining order, which is granted for reasons other than “He’s photographing me, make him stop!”

Now that doesn’t mean your local cop won’t do everything he/she can from making your life miserable if you are shooting children and the parents call the cops. We all know Police in the USA have unlimited powers to harass people illegally with no recourse, including arresting you and holding you for 72 hours and then releasing you (a common tactic used against icky people who aren’t technically breaking the law.)

But the basic facts remain: if you or your children are in public in the United States, you can be photographed and videotaped with no recourse.
Bob

@Shri

No, when ABC shows it on their channel it is the exact opposite of commercial purposes. It is for editorial purposes (news reporting) and it is 100% protected by the United States Constitution.

Also, there is no such thing as “proper permission” to photograph a child, because no permission is in fact required. Going to a public park and photographing children is protected by the United States Constitution.
Ron

Tim
An airplane is a privately owned vehicle, but for public use. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy, which is why they can arrest you for masturbating in 26A. The only place you can expect privacy is in the head or the cockpit (and that’s limited).
Liz

“Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.”

Yes. I would treat both individuals courteously and reasonably. If you are implying a younger male is less deserving of consideration and respect, then you are the one who should be ashamed.

Whether the flght attendants were right or wrong, how they treated this indidual would have been right or wrong regardless of age or gender.

As a caveat, the one differentiating factors for me would be physical ability. I would offer to help someone elderly and visibly feeble with a heavy item, and I would assume a younger, more robust individual would not need my offer of help.
http://www.jetbluestinks.com -dan

i’m guessing jet blue didn’t want their name attached to a video of people arguing on one of their planes on the very slim chance it was uploaded anywhere.

congrats jet blue, you’ve just made your problem 10,000,000,000x worse.

-dan
marilyn parver

I AM THAT GRANDMA and I just want to clear some things up. I did not attempt to show any identifiable people in the video. I taped the argument to send to my daughter so we could discuss what happens when you fly (or dine)with a small child who is out of control. My first grandchild will be flying across country soon and I have strong opinions on this topic.
I could not believe I was being DEMANDED to delete or suffer consequences.
If I had been ASKED and given any logical reason to delete it, I WOULD HAVE>
The threats were unreal…over a video that really is more about the audio than the visuals.
I never was a threat nor did I argue with anyone. I just told them to arrest me because I did not feel they have the right to tell a passenger to do something against their will THAT WAS LEGAL and not affecting the crew or passengers.
This is still America..right?
By the way, My pride in being called a grandmother stems from my ist grandchild having 2 heart surgeries in her first 2 weeks of life , just weeks before this flight. I was on my way home from my first visit with her since she came home from the hospital when all of this took place.
marilyn parver

NO CHILD nor any bad behavior by the child is is my video. The tape is really NOTHING but verbal anger about a mother not controlling their child.
The issue is whether Federal Marshall’s can be used to intimidate a passenger..this is misuse of the power the airlines have been granted. The video shows NOTHING in terms of action…just WORDS!!!
Vadim

JetBlue, as a private company, has the right to regulate the conduct of its passengers so long as they (JetBlue) do not violate existing law. It is not particularly important whether these regulations are consistent from airplane to airplane, although consumers might object otherwise. Whereas photography is normally permitted by law in public, this was in a private airplane and these protections do not arise.

As Bob points out, airline personnel have enormous power over their passengers, with very little recourse. Disobey them at your own peril.
Craig

Liz, as a addendum to your proviso, I’d also be happy to help certain younger, more robusty individuals (oops, should have read robust…)
http://anonymous Anonymous

Dear Marilyn Parver,

Thank you for braving the black bag to stand up for our rights. If I had attempted to do it myself, as a male under the age of 25, I’d be automatically treated like a terrorist. Please do your best to expose JetBlue for being a tool to accustom the United States to being an authoritarian state.

Thank you,

A grateful citizen
Diamond Head

All I have to say, after reading all the accounts, including the ABC write-up is that we have entered a phase in air transportation in which the mentality by attendants are: “we are the boss, you are the passenger, so sit your butt down and dont do anything to tick us off…otherwise we’ll just call the federalies and have you hauled out of the airplane like a terrorist”
A good lawyer, for the grandmother, could really take JetBlue to the woodshed and beat the heck out of the airline over this. Furthermore, the Federal Marshalls should stop being like keystone kops and actually assess a situation before you haul off someone in handcuffs.
It should also give pause to the fact that air travel is transportation of people who are law abiding, not a bunch of convicts on “Con Air.”
MikeL

Go Granny Go Granny Go Go Go!

The only things a flight crew can order is something to do with actually safety. Don’t the the paid astroturfers posting here tell you different.
http://www.plantworld.org/ Eric in SF

Vadim – your comment is unclear as to whether you recognize that while filming/photography can be prohibited on private property, the only entity that can compel the involuntary destruction of the film or video is a court of law.

IE – JetBlue can ask her to stop filming and even call the cops if she doesn’t, but only a court of law can compel the destruction of the video and/or photos. JetBlue can’t compel her to delete it, nor can the arresting officer.
300baud

Victor, others, we *are* recorded whenever we are in public. How many cameras do you suppose an air traveler gets recorded on before they get to their destination? Dozens? Hundreds?

It’s too late to do anything about that. The only “defense” we have is to make sure we all make our own recordings, too. We have to hold on to that right.
Nelson

When you go out in public, 90% of the time your on a camera somewhere, whether it be private citizen or public official. Everyone has a right to film out in public if they want to. As long as she broke no laws she is fine. Cameras also STOP a lot of crimes from being committed. If someone gets disordorly, when they see they’re on film, they tend to calm down.
motulist

To those of you saying that the airline employees can do whatever they want because the airplane is their private property, you’re misunderstanding a few very important ideas.

1) Private property does not automatically mean not-public.

When you have private property that is open to the general public, that space is now semi-public space. You have a right to refuse certain people entry, you have a right to make a specific person leave your property, but you don’t have a right to violate their rights just because they’re on your property.

For instance, if you own an amusement park you can tell people that they can’t come in if they aren’t wearing mickey mouse ears, and you can tell someone that they need to leave your park because they’re emitting a bad body odor, but if you don’t like that someone is in your park but not spending any money you are not allowed to stick your hand in their bag and take a $10 bill out. You can make them get off your property, but you don’t a right to violate their personal rights and freedoms just because they’re standing on land that you own. You own the land they’re standing on, you don’t own them.

2) Entering private property means you agree to the property owner’s rules.

If Jet Blue had a stated rule printed on the ticket and posted on signs that said passengers were not allowed to make any recordings while in the airplane due to safety concerns, then by entering the plane you’re agreeing to their terms of conduct. If you then start video recording after agreeing to their boarding terms then the airline could bring certain charges against you for breaking their safety rules. But if there wasn’t a posted rule against it when the person boarded the plane, and the person stopped filming when the crew said they needed to stop it, then the person has done absolutely nothing illegal and even more importantly…

3) Your property is your property.

Whether there was a rule against recording inside the plane or not, your property is your property. The airline has absolutely zero right to touch your camera. The right to be in control of your private property is the single most fundamental right that our country was founded on. The airline absolutely has the right to tell you that you aren’t allowed on their plane, and as long as what you recoded is not illegal subject material then you absolutely have the right to not have to give away your film under any circumstances.

I could continue explaining several other aspects that demonstrate why the airline has a right to make you stop filming, but do not have the right to confiscate your film, but I think my point is already well made. You have certain inalienable rights. Just because you are standing on someone else’s property does not mean you lose those rights.
SirWired

Shri, ABC airing the video on a news program is considered journalism, and highly-protected speech. The fact that they make money on the journalism does not cross it into the less-protected category of commercial speech.

SirWired
Carrie C.

What’s being a grandmother have to do with it? Absolutely nothing! Males and females of any age should be treated with respect and should treat others with respect. Just because I’m a grandma doesn’t mean I should evoke special sympathy or privileges. This woman had the right to film what she wanted, as would anybody, and there was no reason for her to be treated the way she was either legally or ethically. I hope she goes after jet blue successfully and enjoys an extra vacation or two or three with her family as the outcome.
MikeL

Just because I’m a grandma doesn’t mean I should evoke special sympathy or privileges.

Yes it does. Where I come from we honor our Elders.
Kevin

This is bs. It’s her camera and she can do what she wants with it. She wasn’t endangering anyone on the flight and with prisons overcrowded in the US as it is, does a 56 year old grandmother who never broke a law in her life belong in jail over something this stupid.
ej00807

I’m standing with granny. Jet Blue is a public company. So being on the aircraft is not quite the same thing as being in someones home. So Motulist let’s consider this as though it were a public place and not a private chartered aircraft.

I think, philosophically more about what the laws should-be and give less credence to the element here ‘taking sides’. Most of us would agree it’s GOOD and OKAY to let people film and photograph events, buildings and people in public places.

In fact, it may be one of the best things to happen in mass this decade for improving the social order and poor social behaviors exhibited by the growing element of thugs, bullies and criminals.

The new prevalence of digital photography most certainly has already had a tremendous benefit to ‘policing’ the police. More than a few bad cops have lost there badges this way and I personally never would expect a REAL AMERICAN to deny me of the rights of photographing an event of the public record, especially something related to a possible criminal behaviors..

It is just common sense that most law enforcement agents would prefer to have a record of criminal behavior in progress. In fact, if JetBlue had intelligent ownership, they would be equipping hosts and stewards with MORE cameras.

Knuckleheads. Incidentally, I know of a few more successful corporations that agree with me on that point and have done exactly that.
calvin

Is that the same Marilyn Parver, Mrs Georgia 1981, who posed for playboy?
I think I saw her at a Christina Aguilera concert in Vegas with her husband, Michael.
http://no.. Leo

just so you all know the real reason they dont want it on YOUTUBE is because then they cannot control it. If she goes to ABC, no matter what she is filmed saying and what not …they can and WILL edit the footage because all the BIG CORPs in US are friendly. If you dont believe me, nothing will come of this if she goes to ABC, nor FOX, nor whatever the heck channel you go to. There are numerous stories out on the net where people have gone to local news, and big city news stations and their interviews were so skewed on the actual broadcast that people didnt even get the right message, they turned the show around. And noone will answer your calls after, noone will care because they have the rights to it now and its in their best interest to bury it, and you.

So Lady i would get a good lawyer and a strategy. And not put this in the hands of “friends of” JetBlue, LOL.

Im not paranoid, its the way the world works.
Joe Farrell

I like to simplify, simplify, simplify. Human nature always reveals the reasons for over the top behavior.

The airline employees simply wanted to get their way. They had the ability to force the issue. The police, instead of discovering what was going on, SIMPLY TOOK THE AIRLINE EMPLOYEES WORD FOR IT and arrested the woman.

THIS is the problem. NOT the fact that Jetblue employees when over the top.

Jetblue is going to have a very serious issue here with a false arrest charge. If the local FEDERAL prosecutor has any balls whatsoever he will view the video tape, interview witnesses and then make a serious consideration of possibly charging the pilot who made the call and the flight attendant who pressed the issue with filing a false criminal complaint. This is a serious issue. Interfering with a flight crew is a serious FELONY offense and should not be used because a passenger refuses to turn off an electronic device at the WHIM of the flight crew. Refusing to comply with a lawful instruction, by all means, throw the book at them – this was a refusal to listen to the flight attendant who was probably pretty pissed off that this woman refused to obey her over a trivial issue.

Thats my take. If we did not have this overbearing over controlling safety at all costs stfu and sit down mentality, this NEVER would have happened. . .
http://www.hdrkid.com hdrkid

I believe in freedom of speech. The airline tries to stifle our ability to report the truth of what goes on. They should face a boycott of their service.
John C. Randolph

“Would you treat your grandmother the same way you would treat a younger male? I doubt it. If you do, then shame on you.”

Why are you assuming that this person treats younger males badly?

-jcr
marilyn parver

I was DEMANDED to delete a short video.
I put my camera away long before the flight attendant asked to see what I had shot.
They did not want that video seen by the public…I have no idea why!
GG

To Grandma:

You are lucky to be in the US when this happened. In many parts of the world what you did would result in jail time. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy (and more importantly security) when in an Airplane. (I have seen some Asian carriers specify this ). Does that mean that nobody can film anything ? There exist a breed called accredited journalists. They certainly have more rights and privileges than Joe Public. Now if one of them was filming something and the crew told him / her to delete it, that would be a different problem.

As far as the educational value of the video goes… I have been flying since I was 3 (I am 35 now) and here is rule No:1

The captain is the king inside the flight. The crew carry out the commands of the captain. If they tell you to do something, try to obey as far as possible.

To others supporting Grandma:

Would you show the same support to someone with an Arabic name and a Middle Eastern passport who was filming the interior of the cabin ?

Share: