[UNTeMac]

From the Contract of Carriage:

...F. Comfort and Safety - Carrier may refuse to transport or remove from the aircraft at any point any passenger in the following categories as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such passenger or other passengers:

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Southwest's action appears to have been taken for the comfort of the passengers, especially children I would guess. The fact that the woman refused to remove or change her shirt means she was more concerned with the reaction that shirt would get than actually getting to her destination. She wanted attention. She got it. Case closed.

(This is only a post. If this were a conservative post, you would have been instructed what to think about all people on the "left" based on this woman's actions. This concludes this post.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Well then, everyone has they're/their/thier excuses. I find nothing more low minded then someone who derails a thread just to point out that someone made a boo-boo. Later, bitch.

hehehe... that would be you doing that in this thread. Whoops?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by El Gato

Give me a break, I'm not a Bush-supporter but I think this woman is waaaay off base. Wearing a shirt with the F-word on it, no matter the context, is completely inappropriate and classless in a public setting such as this.

I would wager that those liberal activist judges are going to laugh this out of court if she does sue.

I AM a Bush supporter and I think her civil liberties WERE violated and she deserves to be able to express her opinion.

Listen folks, either you are down with this Democracy and Constitution thing we enjoy and are fighting for, or we are NOT.

You can't have it both ways.

The woman DOES seem to have the wrong idea about the two executives and she did seem to find a poor way to express herself, unless she WANTED to 'troll' SWA and earn herself the proverbial 15 minutes and possibly a financial windfall.

But just because her expression may be harmful and misguided, she does deserve the right to be able to live her life and express her views as long as she wasn't interfering with anyone else.

SWA's actions are EXACTLY what we would expect of a Islamic nation or a dictatorship.

I am appalled.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I AM a Bush supporter and I think her civil liberties WERE violated and she deserves to be able to express her opinion.

Listen folks, either you are down with this Democracy and Constitution thing we enjoy and are fighting for, or we are NOT.

You can't have it both ways.

The woman DOES seem to have the wrong idea about the two executives and she did seem to find a poor way to express herself, unless she WANTED to 'troll' SWA and earn herself the proverbial 15 minutes and possibly a financial windfall.

But just because her expression may be harmful and misguided, she does deserve the right to be able to live her life and express her views as long as she wasn't interfering with anyone else.

SWA's actions are EXACTLY what we would expect of a Islamic nation or a dictatorship.

I am appalled.

Doesn't that contradict what you just wrote in my thread?

(this is in defense of basing decisions around religious dogma)

And you are like the African bushman who found the bottle in the film, "The Gods Must Be Crazy." The Coke bottle IS a marvel when you avail yourself of it's marvels. When you don't understand what it is, what it does or how to use it, then you decide it is best to throw the bottle over the edge of the Earth. (HINT HINT! The same person/people concluding the Gods must be crazy also believe the Earth is flat.)

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by mojo2

SWA's actions are EXACTLY what we would expect of a Islamic nation or a dictatorship.

... or certain american federal installations, military bases, public schools, and on and on. she has the "right" to be obscene. they have the "right" to refuse service. it would be far more disturbing if a court said that swa *had* to let her board although she was wearing something with a word that is commonly regarded as offensive.

really, the television station reporting the incident is regulated against broadcasting the word yet you think she should be able to wear the word anywhere in public she desires?

got drama?

be well.

laeth

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The airline should have offered the woman a t-shirt to pull over hers. Throwing her out of the plane was a gross overreaction.

Agreed.

I was going to posit the theory that maybe they were acting against this woman's 'offense' not ONLY because they are right wingers over the edge, but because their airline might have some reason to want to kiss up to the Bush administration.

Government help would sure be welcomed by a bunch of airlines right about now. And, to whatever degree this action might be appreciated by the Pres. he possibly might drop a word to someone with the decision making power to help SWA when the time comes, that he should do so.

But I really doubt the people at the gate or the flight attendants aboard the flight are thinking at THAT level.

They were doing their version of what liberals usually do, acting without first using their brain.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by besson3c

hehehe... that would be you doing that in this thread. Whoops?

You need to resist such a public display of your own lamentable and incorrigible ignorance.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by UNTiMac

(This is only a post. If this were a conservative post, you would have been instructed what to think about all people on the "left" based on this woman's actions. This concludes this post.)

Originally Posted by mojo2

But I really doubt the people at the gate or the flight attendants aboard the flight are thinking at THAT level.

They were doing their version of what liberals usually do, acting without first using their brain.

Oooooooo so close UNTiMac. So close.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by isao bered

... or certain american federal installations, military bases, public schools, and on and on. she has the "right" to be obscene. they have the "right" to refuse service. it would be far more disturbing if a court said that swa *had* to let her board although she was wearing something with a word that is commonly regarded as offensive.

really, the television station reporting the incident is regulated against broadcasting the word yet you think she should be able to wear the word anywhere in public she desires?

got drama?

be well.

laeth

I predict she wins money. The FCC has regulations that apply to electronic communications which don't necessarily apply in public.

If we are so cool and so laid back and so far removed from recognizing the reality of the dangers that assail us and our society, government, culture, way of life and etc. sometimes stating the ultimate fear is helpful to get a sense of what we are witnessing.

If we lose our right of expression (and where do I recall having seen your impassioned concern displayed for the right of free speech, which so many abuse or enjoy but aren't conscious of how important it is to safeguard and if necessary defend?) tell me what would the difference be between what we'd have and an Islamic nation or a dictatorship?

This is a trick question. Be careful you aren't shown to be the 'trick.'

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Doesn't that contradict what you just wrote in my thread?

(this is in defense of basing decisions around religious dogma)

No.

[jhogarty]

She was wrong. The airline did the right thing and this will be a classic example of why we need "Loser Pays all court fees/awards". She obviously wants the attention, and is loving the free press and legal fees.

Besides, if I can't read my Playboy mag on the plane, then why the heck should she be able to wear this type of shirt.

Lets all buy airline tickets and wear t-shirts: "Bomb on Board" or "Bomb Tester" or "Suck It" or "Show Us Your Tits".

People think the constitution gives them all sorts of rights. Go read it again and you might learn something.

J.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No.

Shortest post from you ever!


I'm still unclear as to whether I caught you realizing a flaw in your reasoning, or whether I should understand where you stand on the separation of church and state based on what you have provided me with.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I predict she wins money. The FCC has regulations that apply to electronic communications which don't necessarily apply in public.

If we are so cool and so laid back and so far removed from recognizing the reality of the dangers that assail us and our society, government, culture, way of life and etc. sometimes stating the ultimate fear is helpful to get a sense of what we are witnessing.

If we lose our right of expression (and where do I recall having seen your impassioned concern displayed for the right of free speech, which so many abuse or enjoy but aren't conscious of how important it is to safeguard and if necessary defend?) tell me what would the difference be between what we'd have and an Islamic nation or a dictatorship?

This is a trick question. Be careful you aren't shown to be the 'trick.'

i don't see where she lost her right of expression. i contend that the airline corporately has the right to not be used as a forum if it so chooses. further, i contend that the public has the right to be free from her expression - they should be able to choose not to listen or view. in the conflict of freedoms who should win?

personally i think the public freedom should be honored and in the enclosed space of an airliner you acknowledge the freedom from expression. the other passengers just can't turn and walk away.

i'm hoping your parenthetical question is rhetorical because i honestly don't recall posting on this sort of subject here before (not saying i *haven't* just that i couldn't tell you where if i had).

i don't see where wearing such a shirt is a specific danger to society. nor do i see where swa's actions are a danger to society or a threat to civil liberties or freedoms. if anything, the woman has far more freedom to wear such a shirt in *more* places than she would have a generation or two ago.

be well.

laeth

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

“Fascinating, how some people think that freedom of speech only applies to their views…”

The hypocrisy from the ‘manufacture your own crisis so you can whine about it and pretend you're being oppressed’ crowd never ceases to crack me up!

And it’s an extra laugh in the pretense that this has anything to do with Bush, and nothing to do with violating the airline's obscenity policy! Comedy gold!

Doesn’t it just figure that the usual suspects can’t grasp (or just love pretending they don’t) that the airline ALSO has freedoms, such as the freedom to say: “You’re not setting foot on our plane wearing that, it violates the rules you agreed to when you purchased a ticket.”

She can exercise her freedom to be a complete moron- just NOT onboard someone else’s property against their stated rules.

End of story.

It would be fun to see the ACLU and other crisis manufacturers glom onto this and further embarrass themselves.

Yup. Fascinating indeed how the usual suspects just can’t get with the idea that freedom of speech is a two-way street, and isn’t just their personal little shield to hide behind whenever they feel like shoving their assholiness in everyone else's face and acting as if no one else has rights of their own.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

“Fascinating, how some people think that freedom of speech only applies to their views…”

The hypocrisy from the ‘manufacture your own crisis so you can whine about it and pretend you're being oppressed’ crowd never ceases to crack me up!

And it’s an extra laugh in the pretense that this has anything to do with Bush, and nothing to do with violating the airline's obscenity policy! Comedy gold!

Doesn’t it just figure that the usual suspects can’t grasp (or just love pretending they don’t) that the airline ALSO has freedoms, such as the freedom to say: “You’re not setting foot on our plane wearing that, it violates the rules you agreed to when you purchased a ticket.”

She can exercise her freedom to be a complete moron- just NOT onboard someone else’s property against their stated rules.

End of story.

It would be fun to see the ACLU and other crisis manufacturers glom onto this and further embarrass themselves.

Yup. Fascinating indeed how the usual suspects just can’t get with the idea that freedom of speech is a two-way street, and isn’t just their personal little shield to hide behind whenever they feel like shoving their assholiness in everyone else's face and acting as if no one else has rights of their own.

Mr. High and Mighty, if I may have the distinct honor of responding to you, pretty please...

If you have been reading, the argument centers around whether airlines can exercise the same decisions that a regular private business can, or whether they have regulations and restrictions which prevents them from this.

In other words, if I own a restaurant, I could probably choose to not serve people wearing green shirts. The green shirt crowd may not like this, but they are free to go to another restaurant. Can an airline exercise the same privileges, or are they more of a common carrier that needs to legally provide fair and equal access to all? This is what we're uncertain of.

I'm definitely unclear as to the law here, but I think this is definitely not a black and white issue like you were ranting about. So please, pay attention.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Shortest post from you ever!


I'm still unclear as to whether I caught you realizing a flaw in your reasoning, or whether I should understand where you stand on the separation of church and state based on what you have provided me with.

Would have been shorter but for the three letter minimum. Hence, "No." and not, "no"

I fail to see how anyone might think the two expressions are mutually exclusive.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yes Virginia, an airline can enforce its rules that anyone buying a ticket with them agrees to. You know, that whole two-way street thing? Whereas you may have been deluded into thinking freedom was your own private one-way red carpet.

The rule she was clearly unwilling to comply with was quoted at the top of this page. And indeed, it’s END OF STORY.

Or are we going to try and pretend that flying on a private carrier is now a “right” just to milk some more ‘manufactured crisis’ mileage out of this idiocy?

As I said, I hope the usual crisis manufactures try it! It’ll be good for some laughs, and hopefully end up costing them a bundle to boot.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by jhogarty

She was wrong.

NO.

The airline did the right thing and this will be a classic example of why we need "Loser Pays all court fees/awards".

NO.

She obviously wants the attention, and is loving the free press and legal fees.

QUITE POSSIBLY TRUE.

Besides, if I can't read my Playboy mag on the plane, then why the heck should she be able to wear this type of shirt.

YOU BOTH SHOULD BE FREE. In your case, to read the *ahem* articles. And in her case, to make her statement. Just because YOU are denied your freedom doesn't mean you must turn traitor and join the forces that unjustly deny you BOTH what should be yours...the right to make a statement and the right to get aroused a mile above earth, strapped into a seat in a metal tube with hundreds of strangers hurtling through space at hundreds of miles an hour while being served cocktail peanuts and dry martinis by attractive, smiling men and women in uniform.

Lets all buy airline tickets and wear t-shirts: "Bomb on Board" or "Bomb Tester"

NO AND NO.

or "Suck It" or "Show Us Your Tits".

OK AND OK.

People think the constitution gives them all sorts of rights.

SOMETIMES THEY ARE RIGHT.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Yes Virginia, an airline can enforce its rules that anyone buying a ticket with them agrees to. You know, that whole two-way street thing? Whereas you may have been deluded into thinking freedom was your own private one-way red carpet.

The rule she was clearly unwilling to comply with was quoted at the top of this page. And indeed, it’s END OF STORY.

Or are we going to try and pretend that flying on a private carrier is now a “right” just to milk some more ‘manufactured crisis’ mileage out of this idiocy?

As I said, I hope the usual crisis manufactures try it! It’ll be good for some laughs, and hopefully end up costing them a bundle to boot.

I actually side with the airlines here based on my personal beliefs of how things ought to be, but I don't know what the law states. What *you* think about this is interesting, but I think most of us are focused on what the law states. Do you have any idea?

[goMac]

Wait... The Conservatives are defending the Liberal woman with the anti Bush t-shirt and the Liberals are...


Uhhhhhhhhh... My head hurts.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Yes Virginia, an airline can enforce its rules that anyone buying a ticket with them agrees to. You know, that whole two-way street thing? Whereas you may have been deluded into thinking freedom was your own private one-way red carpet.

The rule she was clearly unwilling to comply with was quoted at the top of this page. And indeed, it’s END OF STORY.

Or are we going to try and pretend that flying on a private carrier is now a “right” just to milk some more ‘manufactured crisis’ mileage out of this idiocy?

As I said, I hope the usual crisis manufactures try it! It’ll be good for some laughs, and hopefully end up costing them a bundle to boot.

IF it goes further in the courts, I wonder WHICH point(s) of law will be contested? Obscenity? Civil rights infringement? There are people in Government who I trust and agree with and who I think have this country's very BEST interests in mind and in their hearts, who would ALSO be ok with reigning in our rights because it might help them (in this time of War) better protect us.

My hat is tipped to them.

But they can not guarantee they can control the subsequent flow of events and decisions that might come about if they were successful in taking away (however temporary they might intend it to be) our rights...they couldn't stop the stampede that would result from letting just one cow out of the pen.

So, if the laws that cover this event dictate her protest was dead in the water all along, then so be it. I just don't wish to side with the President, the federal government, the GOP, the conservatives, the patriots, law enforcement or SWA if they are misguidedly and mistakenly equating Constitutionally protected freedom of expression with anti-American-ism.

Big difference between this and Cindy Sheehan. But same principle in a way.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Wait... The Conservatives are defending the Liberal woman with the anti Bush t-shirt and the Liberals are...


Uhhhhhhhhh... My head hurts.

Anyone and everyone on either or any side of this issue who ALSO bows and yields to the law and ULTIMATELY to the Constitution is on safe ground, IMO.

Discovering how we reached our conflicting points of view will be more interesting and less contentious to me than debating some of the other issues we may have seen on these pages, I'd think.

[iLikebeer]

Please, Freedom of Speech issue?
Last time I checked, Southwest wasn't the US gov't. The US gov't can't take away your freedom of speech, but private business can say some things are unacceptable if you're going to use their services.

I have a "Sushi Not Bushi" T-shirt with a picture of W. and a shrimp sushi roll on it. Before I flew back from Salt Lake City last weekend, I changed shirts so I wouldn't have any problems going through security. Sorry, but this woman was stupid. She should have changed shirts like they asked or asked for a refund and booked a flight on a different airline.

A captain can boot anyone from the plane; I think we've covered this here before with a captain kicking off an Arab simply because he was an Arab. Anyone ever hear about the Hawaiian Airlines Captain that kicked off one of the board members of the airline? The board had just taken away their retirement fund, so he kicked the guy off his plane.

She should have made some jokes about a bombardier when they were taking her off the plane, that would have been classic.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Mr. High and Mighty, if I may have the distinct honor of responding to you, pretty please...

If you have been reading, the argument centers around whether airlines can exercise the same decisions that a regular private business can, or whether they have regulations and restrictions which prevents them from this.

In other words, if I own a restaurant, I could probably choose to not serve people wearing green shirts. The green shirt crowd may not like this, but they are free to go to another restaurant. Can an airline exercise the same privileges, or are they more of a common carrier that needs to legally provide fair and equal access to all? This is what we're uncertain of.

I'm definitely unclear as to the law here, but I think this is definitely not a black and white issue like you were ranting about. So please, pay attention.

Did you miss this cited passage from the Contract of Carriage posted above?

Quote:
From the Contract of Carriage:

...F. Comfort and Safety - Carrier may refuse to transport or remove from the aircraft at any point any passenger in the following categories as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such passenger or other passengers:

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;

AFAIK this would govern the event. However, if the woman wanted to challenge the interpretation of the terms: "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive" then I'd be right there to support her. I believe there should be no words or expressions considered inherently or patently offensive.

I think freedom of speech may be my favorite right. But I want em all protected.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I actually side with the airlines here based on my personal beliefs of how things ought to be, but I don't know what the law states. What *you* think about this is interesting, but I think most of us are focused on what the law states. Do you have any idea?

I’m pretty sure there’s no law that disallows a private business from reserving the right to refuse service to someone who has disregarded its posted rules that she agreed to comply with when she purchased the ticket.

So unless someone can produce a law that shows otherwise…

Two way street.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Please, Freedom of Speech issue?
Last time I checked, Southwest wasn't the US gov't. The US gov't can't take away your freedom of speech, but private business can say some things are unacceptable if you're going to use their services.

I have a "Sushi Not Bushi" T-shirt with a picture of W. and a shrimp sushi roll on it. Before I flew back from Salt Lake City last weekend, I changed shirts so I wouldn't have any problems going through security. Sorry, but this woman was stupid. She should have changed shirts like they asked or asked for a refund and booked a flight on a different airline.

A captain can boot anyone from the plane; I think we've covered this here before with a captain kicking off an Arab simply because he was an Arab. Anyone ever hear about the Hawaiian Airlines Captain that kicked off one of the board members of the airline? The board had just taken away their retirement fund, so he kicked the guy off his plane.

She should have made some jokes about a bombardier when they were taking her off the plane, that would have been classic.

I'd say she wanted the attention. Was she backed by Michael Moore? Who knows? We'll find out.

The story about the Hawaiian Air Capt. is LOL funny!

I've always wondered is the Canadian company that makes aircraft pronounced (as in French)
BOM BAR DEE YAY?

Or as in Twelve O'Clock High, Bom-Ber-Deer?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by mojo2

IF it goes further in the courts, I wonder WHICH point(s) of law will be contested? Obscenity?

It’s a private carrier that has the right to define obscenity as it applies to their rules as they see fit. They aren’t turning a hose on anyone, clubbing or jailing them; they are reserving the right to refuse service based on a set of posted guidelines which they have every right to expect compliance with before someone uses their service. Don’t like it? Then you have the freedom to f**k off, take your f**king t-shirt with you, and fly the f**k-friendly skies ELSEWHERE. Maybe JetBlue lives up to its name. Or perhaps you could get lucky on Virgin.

Civil rights infringement?

I would absolutely LOVE witnessing the sheer the spectacle of someone trying to manufacture a ‘civil rights’ issue out of this! Other than the fact that it absolutely spits on, tramples, and takes a steaming dump all over ACTUAL civil rights issues that people have had to battle to even try and pretend this nonsense is anything even remotely similar.

[lngtones]

I think the airline should ban all shirts with symbols or logos on them because some people might not like those symobls or logos and have strong feelings. You know, I think they should ban all nike shoes as well because I don't like sweatshops and think they're offensive. Maybe they should also ban Martha Stewart products because she's a criminal and I think supporting her is offensive. You know, I think men wearing earings is offensive too.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by lngtones

I think the airline should ban all shirts with symbols or logos on them because some people might not like those symobls or logos and have strong feelings. You know, I think they should ban all nike shoes as well because I don't like sweatshops and think they're offensive. Maybe they should also ban Martha Stewart products because she's a criminal and I think supporting her is offensive. You know, I think men wearing earings is offensive too.

Well, I'm glad you don't run Southwest then. I fly with them occasionally and haven't ever seen anyone have a problem. But since the original argument has been refuted, I guess you can try to change it.

Would it be ok if I went to a party at your house and wore a shirt that said "I fuct Ingtones wife"? Freedom of speech, right?
What? You don't like it and can kick me out of your house? But you invited me...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

We need a legal expert to tell us if public profanity is free speech. Personally, I would think this is covered under present decency laws.

If the shirt had said, "Meet the F*ckers", this would have never been an issue (plus, it would have been classier and shown a more witty play on the movie title).

Obscenity generally is not protected by the first amendment. However, public profanity can be protected free speech if it is political. The case is Cohen v. California. Cohen was wearing a T shirt in California state court. The shirt said "F uck the Draft." So the first amendment part is clear enough -- IF, but only if the actor who supresses the free speech is the government. The distinction is that Cohen was held in contempt of court for his first amendment activities. That's not only government action, its a penal sanction.

But that doesn't matter when the government isn't involved and there is no penal sanction. The skeptics here are almost certainly right. This is a meritless claim. I'd be amazed if it got beyond a 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It may even bounce on a 12(b)(1).

[Mark Larr]

I for one would want my child to read a clearly visible shirt with the word **** on it.


See, I can't even use it here, so why should it be allowed on a PRIVATELY owned airplane.


Hey I tried to express my first amendment RIGHT and macnn oppressed me!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

I for one would want my child to read a clearly visible shirt with the word **** on it.


See, I can't even use it here, so why should it be allowed on a PRIVATELY owned airplane.


Hey I tried to express my first amendment RIGHT and macnn oppressed me!

You appear to be so worked up over the issue that you left out a significant part of your intended message.

[Sven G]

"I didn't feel that I should have to change my shirt, because we live in the United States, and it's freedom of speech and it was based on the movie 'The Fockers,' and I didn't think it should have offended anyone": sadly, only in theory - the ordinary, day-to-day practice is quite different, apparently!

When will the US regain their best original ideals (such as an effective, shared freedom, etc.)? Same question also to the European (and other) "states", of course: but in the US, it all seems to be more dramatically controversial, to say the least.

When will "you" - and "we", also - get rid of religious fanatism and pseudo-political retrogradism, in all of its strange "flavours"?

The US of America don't really deserve what they are getting, today (and even yesterday, for that matter)...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by El Gato

Give me a break, I'm not a Bush-supporter but I think this woman is waaaay off base. Wearing a shirt with the F-word on it, no matter the context, is completely inappropriate and classless in a public setting such as this.

I would wager that those liberal activist judges are going to laugh this out of court if she does sue.

Welcome to the land of the free eh

[Athens]

i want one of those shirts

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You appear to be so worked up over the issue that you left out a significant part of your intended message.

Please recalibrate your sarcasmatron.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Athens

Welcome to the land of the free eh

Actually, yeah.
She is free to wear the shirt, and the company is free to tell her take her business elsewhere if she doesn't like their policies. Everyone's freedoms are taken care of.
This is another of those stupid cases of an ignorant person not wanting to compromise and use some sense.
"Hey lady, I'm sorry but that shirt is offending some of our customers and staff with the obscenity. Would you mind changing shirts or covering it up?"
"OK, I'm sorry, I didn't think of that."
Lady changes shirts and gets home. End of story.
Instead she gets indignant and thinks she is defending our freedoms, when she is really just being an ass. Same thing would have happened if the shirt had Bill and Hillary on it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

One, an airplane is not 90% or more full of young children as a rule. Two, yes, I'd have no problems wearing the shirt in front of little kids.

I suppose that that level of disregard for others bothers me more than anything else in this situation. You honestly wouldn't feel uncomfortable fielding questions from your 5 y/o regarding what that word means?

I shudder to think at what kind of parents some of you are (or would be).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Please, Freedom of Speech issue?
Last time I checked, Southwest wasn't the US gov't. The US gov't can't take away your freedom of speech, but private business can say some things are unacceptable if you're going to use their services.

I have a "Sushi Not Bushi" T-shirt with a picture of W. and a shrimp sushi roll on it.

I don't see anything wrong with that, and I doubt you would have had a problem.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

One, an airplane is not 90% or more full of young children as a rule. Two, yes, I'd have no problems wearing the shirt in front of little kids.

Yes, you would have problems wearing the shirt in front of little kids. A 225 Lbs angry bloke punching you in the face until you took the shirt off kind of problem.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Well, this brings up an interesting question... are airlines merely private businesses that call the shots and can make decisions like this soley based on what benefits their public image, or are they more a part of a piece of infrastructure thats access is a right to all Americans?

I guess it is more of the former, but who owns the Airports? Is there any aspect of the airline infrsastructure that is not privatized? I guess I'm not clear on that...

Same goes with Amtrak, do they own the tracks? Can they hypothetically deny me access because I'm Canadian, and they just feel like imposing a policy that prohibits Canadians from using their services and products?

How does it work? Really, I'm not sure...

Can we not think a little more when we dress ourselves in public? I fail to believe this woman didn't know this was questionable. She made the decision to wear it anyway. She got what she wanted, a reaction. Didn't work out well for her and maybe she'll use a different tactic for attention next time. BTW; can we disagree with someone without saying "FXXX"? Why is it necessary? Do we have the right to use these words on MacNN? Is this an attempt of MacNN to squelch freedom of speech or are they simply facilitating an environment that accomplishes more than senseless, elementary school rhetoric?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I don't see anything wrong with that, and I doubt you would have had a problem.

Most likely, you're right. But I've found the shirt attracts a lot of attention, good and bad. That isn't something I try to do when dealing with large crowds and sometimes overzealous security agents.
I figured better safe than sorry and no problems getting home.

Some people think it's funny, some people get offended, others come up and start telling me long, boring stories about why they hate Bush. I'd rather listen to my iPod and read a book.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Most likely, you're right. But I've found the shirt attracts a lot of attention, good and bad. That isn't something I try to do when dealing with large crowds and sometimes overzealous security agents.
I figured better safe than sorry and no problems getting home.

Some people think it's funny, some people get offended, others come up and start telling me long, boring stories about why they hate Bush. I'd rather listen to my iPod and read a book.

There are boundaries. This clearly crosses them. Anyone with half a sense can see this. If you want attention bad enough, you can get it relatively easily. May not be the attention you wanted, but then you willingly took the risk anyhow. You are aware of the boundaries iLikeBeer, but many are not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I suppose that that level of disregard for others bothers me more than anything else in this situation. You honestly wouldn't feel uncomfortable fielding questions from your 5 y/o regarding what that word means?

I shudder to think at what kind of parents some of you are (or would be).

Funny that. If the story involved someone kicked from an airplane for a "FXXX LIBERALS!" T-shirt, many of the same would be saying this is shameful behavior. Though ironically, I don't know of any such accounts. There seems to be an increasing lack of civility coming from folks and it's apparent to me who propogates this environment.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I suppose that that level of disregard for others bothers me more than anything else in this situation. You honestly wouldn't feel uncomfortable fielding questions from your 5 y/o regarding what that word means?

I shudder to think at what kind of parents some of you are (or would be).

It would probably just move that conversation up a few months until he/she went to public school.

Can't say what private schools are like. Are rich spoiled jaded kids still being produced by rich spoiled jaded parents? Yeah? Well, then they probably say bad words, too.

But what about this as a rehearsal for that conversation.

"Dear, there are some words that are potty words and we don't say them because they aren't nice. That woman is wearing a shirt that has a potty mouth word on it because she is VERY angry. And when people say things like that in public SOMETIMES they have to have a time out, like that lady is going to have."

OR...

"Dear, there are certain words everyone agrees should not be used in polite company. Don't ask me why. It's JUST a word. But silly as human beings can be, that's just the way it is. Now, If you want to discuss this we can always talk about anything you want but if I hear you say that word in front of anyone besides in a discussion like this you'll be punished. Understand? Oh, and by the way, don't smoke, don't drink, don't drink and drive or do drugs or do drugs and drive and remain a virgin til your wedding night."

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

It would probably just move that conversation up a few months until he/she went to public school.

Can't say what private schools are like. Are rich spoiled jaded kids still being produced by rich spoiled jaded parents? Yeah? Well, then they probably say bad words, too.

But what about this as a rehearsal for that conversation.

"Dear, there are some words that are potty words and we don't say them because they aren't nice. That woman is wearing a shirt that has a potty mouth word on it because she is VERY angry. And when people say things like that in public SOMETIMES they have to have a time out, like that lady is going to have."

OR...

"Dear, there are certain words everyone agrees should not be used in polite company. Don't ask me why. It's JUST a word. But silly as human beings can be, that's just the way it is. Now, If you want to discuss this we can always talk about anything you want but if I hear you say that word in front of anyone besides in a discussion like this you'll be punished. Understand? Oh, and by the way, don't smoke, don't drink, don't drink and drive or do drugs or do drugs and drive and remain a virgin til your wedding night."

Right, it IS just a word. But where do you draw the line? If it were in public, there would be no line as it would be free speech. When you are dealing with a private business, they get to decide where to draw the line. They told her she crossed it, and instead of compromising or walking away; she got mad that she can't trample the companies rights to have its own policies.

I'll defend her right to wear that shirt anywhere in public. It IS just a word and some people might be offended by it or its message, but she has the right to wear it. But I'll defend the company/citizen on own property as arduously when she tries to override the freedom of other private entities to not have to be subjected to it.

Your freedom of speech is protected in PUBLIC.
McDonald's, your neighbor's house, an airline's aircraft, wal~mart....none of these places are public. You agree to their rules when you are in their place of business or residence. They now have the right to say no to you. You then have the freedom to do business elsewhere or associate with other people.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Can we not think a little more when we dress ourselves in public? I fail to believe this woman didn't know this was questionable. She made the decision to wear it anyway. She got what she wanted, a reaction. Didn't work out well for her and maybe she'll use a different tactic for attention next time. BTW; can we disagree with someone without saying "FXXX"? Why is it necessary? Do we have the right to use these words on MacNN? Is this an attempt of MacNN to squelch freedom of speech or are they simply facilitating an environment that accomplishes more than senseless, elementary school rhetoric?

I'm VERY clear on what the prohibitions are on words and why. Basically, we all just agree on certain conventions and these we agree on. There's not much reason for them being that way but most everyone buys into the convention.

George Carlins's 7 words are very clear to be to be the ones that are just BAD words. Yet, they all describe actions or functions or bits & pieces that have NICE or acceptable synonyms.

SO, if the thing it describes isn't bad enough to have NO suitable alternate name, then the problem must be in the word, NOT what it describes.

Bottom line, we all agree on these words being excluded from polite conversation.

Agreed.

Some of us have invested these words with a GREAT DEAL OF EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE.

Understood.

But, let's be clear. It's just a word. No different than any of these "acceptable" words except that we have all made this unofficial pact to keep these words in the outhouse!

Now that I've gotten it off my chest.

Yes. Fxxx is a bad word and shouldn't be used in public, especially around children or in polite company or on TV/Radio.

Agreed.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Right, it IS just a word. But where do you draw the line? If it were in public, there would be no line as it would be free speech. When you are dealing with a private business, they get to decide where to draw the line. They told her she crossed it, and instead of compromising or walking away; she got mad that she can't trample the companies rights to have its own policies.

I'll defend her right to wear that shirt anywhere in public. It IS just a word and some people might be offended by it or its message, but she has the right to wear it. But I'll defend the company/citizen on own property as arduously when she tries to override the freedom of other private entities to not have to be subjected to it.

Your freedom of speech is protected in PUBLIC.
McDonald's, your neighbor's house, an airline's aircraft, wal~mart....none of these places are public. You agree to their rules when you are in their place of business or residence. They now have the right to say no to you. You then have the freedom to do business elsewhere or associate with other people.

Quote:
Quote:
From the Contract of Carriage:

...F. Comfort and Safety - Carrier may refuse to transport or remove from the aircraft at any point any passenger in the following categories as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such passenger or other passengers:

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;


AFAIK this would govern the event. However, if the woman wanted to challenge the interpretation of the terms: "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive" then I'd be right there to support her. I believe there should be no words or expressions considered inherently or patently offensive.

I made my peace with the idea of her being out of line in my above post, the essence of which you see here. If the law says she's wrong then that's it. She shouldn't squawk. If she wanted to challenge the definition of obscene words, then I'd be interested in following that case!

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I made my peace with the idea of her being out of line in my above post, the essence of which you see here. If the law says she's wrong then that's it. She shouldn't squawk. If she wanted to challenge the definition of obscene words, then I'd be interested in following that case!

The rest, imo, will be decided by society at large. You can't effectively legislate what people will find offensive. In time, those 7 words won't be that bad and maybe something will replace them. Who knows.

Although the C--- bomb still has a lot of impact. I don't see that word being "just a word" for quite some time. Some of the most foul mouthed people I know are still taken aback when you drop that one.

[cpt kangarooski]

isao bered--

further, i contend that the public has the right to be free from her expression - they should be able to choose not to listen or view. in the conflict of freedoms who should win?

The shirt wearer wins against the public. This is from the Cohen case, mentioned earlier (emphasis mine):

Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, we have at the same time consistently stressed that "we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech." The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.

In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in a quite different posture than, say, those subjected to the raucous emissions of sound trucks blaring outside their residences. Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes. And, while it may be that one has a more
substantial claim to a recognizable privacy interest when walking
through a courthouse corridor than, for example, strolling through
Central Park, surely it is nothing like the interest in being
free from unwanted expression in the confinesof one's own home.

personally i think the public freedom should be honored and in the enclosed space of an airliner you acknowledge the freedom from expression. the other passengers just can't turn and walk away.

Actually, just from a logistical point of view, I don't see how it would be easy to see the front of her shirt at all. You might see it during boarding, if you sat down before her, close enough to see her in the aisle, or if your positions were exchanged. You can't see it when you're both seated, unless you're next to each other, and even then you'd have to crane around to look, since you're both facing the same way and are next to one another.And you might catch a glimpse of it whilst disembarking, but usually people remain seated or are walking up the aisle looking at each other's backs, not fronts.

At any rate, it's irrelevant. If you don't like it, you can turn away, go to sleep, read a book, or whatever. You don't have to look at her chest the whole time. In fact, some would consider that to be offensive.

Crash, iLikeBeer, mojo2, Simey--
Again, it's not a cut-and-dried issue of a private forum getting to ban what it likes. Airlines do get hit with a lot of regulation, and some of it might be applicable here, in what is actually more of a contractual dispute than anything else. Until someone has a good answer on this, you can't fairly say that this is a meritless claim; you don't actually know.

Personally, I don't feel like getting into all the statutes and rules and so on that govern Southwest and deterine whether the clause in their contract is valid in this situation, but at least I recognize that the possibility is open.

Simey--

Obscenity generally is not protected by the first amendment. However, public profanity can be protected free speech if it is political.

You know full well that obscenity in the first amendment context requires that the content be prurient. This is not, unless the shirt is quite different than has been described here. It's profane, but it's certainly not obscene. Profanity, meanwhile, needn't be political in order to be protected. The government cannot ban dirty words in public settings.

MacNStein--

I suppose that that level of disregard for others bothers me more than anything else in this situation. You honestly wouldn't feel uncomfortable fielding questions from your 5 y/o regarding what that word means?

Nope. It's just a word. It's not magic. Especially since most uses of the word that the kid will hear will have nothing to do with sex, per se, but are merely expletives. (E.g. '**** you' usually indicates anger at the subject, not sexual desire)

Given that I live in a city, take public transit a lot, and that there's plenty of cursing in my family (my mother curses like a sailor, and always has as long as I've known her; she's also a wonderful mother and did a great job raising me and my siblings) there is no way that the kid is going to manage to not be exposed to curse words early on. Nevertheless, I think that it won't matter one bit.

Also, I live in Boston. If I have a kid, that kid is going to be wearing a '**** the Yankees' shirt pretty rapidly.

Doofy--

Yes, you would have problems wearing the shirt in front of little kids. A 225 Lbs angry bloke punching you in the face until you took the shirt off kind of problem.

Idiots can resort to violence for all kinds of reasons. That's why they get arrested and get the crap sued out of them. Then they stop being so thin-skinned, or at least manage to control their violent, uncivilized impulses.