The Los Angeles Times has November 10, 2014 article “No-fly zones over Disney parks face new scrutiny” on the private airspace that the U.S. Congress granted to Disney. My favorite quotes are
Richard W. Bloom, director of terrorism, intelligence and security studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz., said although the no-fly zones were “certainly not foolproof,” they “definitely have a deterring value” as one of many layers of security designed to protect American airspace.
“No building or wall protects bare flesh from the impact of even a small plane. No window or duct tape protects lungs from the invasion of airborne chemicals or germs,” wrote two federal attorneys, one from the Justice Department in Washington and the other an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida. Disney’s place in the American psyche, they argued, warranted the three-mile protective space.
A federal judge threw out the Family Policy Network’s arguments, writing that combating terrorism required “unquestioning adherence” to Congress’ action.
(I.e., all of these folks are asserting or assuming that a would-be terrorist is going to be deterred by a regulation on an FAA Web site. If so, maybe the FAA should also publish some regulations against ISIS taking over Syria and Iraq and against Iran putting nuclear weapons into aircraft or missiles.)