[OldManMac]

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).

No, I wouldn't. I have two daughters, who I raised as a single through their teen years, and everything was open for discussion in my home, including sex. My daughters turned out fine, probably because I'm not hung up on "squeamish" subjects, like the vast majority appear to be. In America, people get excited when somebody breast feeds in public, yet when you go to Europe, one sees nude women on many beaches. When an entertainer's boob falls out, on TV, they throw a hissy fit, but they absorb gratuitous violence like sponges while watching TV. We have our priorites a little mixed up.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

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.

Some people don't realize that violence isn't restricted to physical action. Also, it's pretty uncivilized to wear a shirt with f*** on it. Take your own advice, quit being hostile and provoking actions which may be disagreeable to you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Where does the law prohibit not wearing clothing with a swear word on it?

Not a Bush supporter, but Freedom of Speech does not extend to private companies. MacNN can restrict what can and cannot be said here; a restaurant can have a dress code; airlines can have dress codes.

Seems to me this woman was booted off the plane for wearing a shirt that had profanity printed on it. If the shirt said "Meet the Fockers" rather than "Meet the F*ckers", she'd probably have made the flight.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by KarlG

No, I wouldn't. I have two daughters, who I raised as a single through their teen years, and everything was open for discussion in my home, including sex. My daughters turned out fine, probably because I'm not hung up on "squeamish" subjects, like the vast majority appear to be. In America, people get excited when somebody breast feeds in public, yet when you go to Europe, one sees nude women on many beaches. When an entertainer's boob falls out, on TV, they throw a hissy fit, but they absorb gratuitous violence like sponges while watching TV. We have our priorites a little mixed up.

Communication with parents is one thing, I wouldn't want my child's first exposure to a certain word to be at an airline terminal, from some angry woman committing an act of violence against everyone around her. 5 y/o isn't the right age to discuss such things, and parents should have the right to decide when that "right time" is. As for TV, don't let them watch it, my nephew doesn't and he's much wealthier for it. The kid is 8 years old and has a $50 /mo book habit (which I fund), not counting what he gets from the library. When/if we have a child I guarantee there will be no broadcast TV in the house, except maybe NG, Disc, and History channel.

At any rate, wear whatever you want at home, just leave your profane insecurities to yourself.

[Sky Captain]

This Captain of the plane posts at my gun forum.
She became unruly after being asked to change the shirt.
This is the REAL reason she was escorted form the plane.
She blew it out of proportion and twisted the story.
So I guess it's Bush's fault.

Just as the jackass that said he wasn't permitted to fly because he was a "green party" member.
Which was total ********. He was drunk and unruly. I witnessed his scene at the gate.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Idiots can resort to violence for all kinds of reasons. That's why they get arrested and get the crap sued out of them.

Not here they don't. Come check it out sometime.

For the clueless, here's a heads-up:

If you were to walk around the city centre after 9pm (where there are no kids) with that shirt on, nobody would bother you. You might not get served in certain establishments but you'd generally be OK.

If you were to walk around the local mall on a Saturday afternoon (where there are kids) with that shirt on, every male over the age of 30 within visual range would come over and make you take it off. Your choice would be simple: take the shirt off or have it taken off for you. The police would come down against you in this matter.

[Macrobat]

The word was obviously offensive to some passengers, since Southwest's statement clearly says they had received complaints. So, despite the posts to the contrary, this is actually an example of democracy in action, not a violation of the woman's rights, which means she has no grounds for any lawsuit.

[cpt kangarooski]

MacNStein--

Some people don't realize that violence isn't restricted to physical action.

Actually it is, or at least the threat of physical action.

Also, it's pretty uncivilized to wear a shirt with f*** on it.

Spoken like a Yankee.

Take your own advice, quit being hostile and provoking actions which may be disagreeable to you.

Wearing the shirt isn't a provocation, just because someone might take it the wrong way. Merely being offensive doesn't make speech into fighting words. It's actually very difficult to show that speech was in this was provocative of violence, because it would require inciting a reasonable person to respond physically. Your average bully as you describe isn't reasonable, and would just as likely respond to the drop of a hat.

I wouldn't want my child's first exposure to a certain word to be at an airline terminal, from some angry woman committing an act of violence against everyone around her.

Congratulations: This is the stupidest thing I've seen anyone post all week, because man, you wouldn't know violence if it bit you on the ass.

Wiskedjak--

airlines can have dress codes.

Maybe; so far no one here actually knows this for sure.

As I've said, laws can prevent private businesses from choosing their clientel with perfect freedom. Neither a restaurant nor an airline can have a race code, that prohibits service to blacks, because the law prevents them from doing so. Airlines are more heavily regulated than restaurants; they may be prohibited from denying service to people in the sort of scenario we're describing here.

Doofy--

Not here they don't. Check it out sometime.

And where do you live, that has no criminal laws or torts against battery?

Macrobat--

this is actually an example of democracy in action

Ooh. Keep that up and you're going to beat MacNStein. From a civil liberties point of view, you don't have a right to not be offended in public, and civil liberties are not subject to democracy; they're protected against the whims of the majority, in fact. From the point of view that's actually relevant here, this is largely a contractual issue, with the question being whether it was or was not lawful for the airline to refuse to fly a paying passenger due to the content on her shirt; whether people were actually offended or not doesn't matter.

[besson3c]

Politics aside, laws aside, rights aside, and simply my view: I think it's ridiculous that all of this trouble was created over a single word. I bet many of the same people that complained are happy to watch movies with swearing in them.

Why are swear words offensive to people in today's day and age when we encounter them almost everyday, and what was so compelling about this woman's shirt that caused people the inability to look the other way or tune it out? What the hell difference would it have made if she put her sweater over it if people had already read it?

Dumb.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by KarlG

No, I wouldn't. I have two daughters, who I raised as a single through their teen years, and everything was open for discussion in my home, including sex. My daughters turned out fine, probably because I'm not hung up on "squeamish" subjects, like the vast majority appear to be. In America, people get excited when somebody breast feeds in public, yet when you go to Europe, one sees nude women on many beaches. When an entertainer's boob falls out, on TV, they throw a hissy fit, but they absorb gratuitous violence like sponges while watching TV. We have our priorites a little mixed up.

[Dakar]

"Man, you wouldn't know violence if it bit you on the ass."

That's priceless.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

And where do you live?

England.

As you appear clueless, here's a heads-up:

If you were to walk around the city centre after 9pm (where there are no kids) with that shirt on, nobody would bother you. You might not get served in certain establishments but you'd generally be OK.

If you were to walk around the local mall on a Saturday afternoon (where there are kids) with that shirt on, every male over the age of 30 within visual range would come over and make you take it off. Your choice would be simple: take the shirt off or have it taken off for you. The police would come down against you in this matter.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Actually it is, or at least the threat of physical action.

No. There are way more levels of violence than merely the physical type.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Congratulations: This is the stupidest thing I've seen anyone post all week, because man, you wouldn't know violence if it bit you on the ass.

You are utterly clueless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you were to walk around the local mall on a Saturday afternoon (where there are kids) with that shirt on, every male over the age of 30 within visual range would come over and make you take it off. Your choice would be simple: take the shirt off or have it taken off for you. The police would come down against you in this matter.

Maybe so, but news to those people: the kids have either already heard the F-word, or are bound to discover it any day now (be careful what movies you watch), likely in the schoolyard. "Protecting our kids against profanity" is completely and utterly stupid and pointless. The words exist, they are used. They are just words. Kids should be encouraged not to use them, but pretending they don't exist is stupid.

Besides, were there any kids on the plane? Are there any adults who have not heard the F-word by now that ARE so offended by this that they can't even think about somebody having a shirt with the F-word on it in the same room?

Would the shirt be okay if it didn't demean the president?

[cpt kangarooski]

Doofy--
Guess it's a good thing we had that revolution then, huh? I'm still unconvinced, however. Even if it caused a riot, it would still be proper to arrest the rioters. And I'm pretty confident that the guy wearing the shirt could take them to the cleaners.

No. There are way more levels of violence than merely the physical type.

Such as? (Particularly in the US legal tradition)

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Maybe; so far no one here actually knows this for sure.

As I've said, laws can prevent private businesses from choosing their clientel with perfect freedom. Neither a restaurant nor an airline can have a race code, that prohibits service to blacks, because the law prevents them from doing so. Airlines are more heavily regulated than restaurants; they may be prohibited from denying service to people in the sort of scenario we're describing here.

Well, if you don't believe that the airlines can have their own dress code after looking at the policy someone previously posted about offensive clothing, then maybe this will help.

Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a)The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
...
Basically, it means whatever the pilot says, goes. If the passenger was doing something that was outside of their policy or could, in his opinion affect the safety of the flight in some way, he gives said passenger the boot. That's it.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Good for Southwest!

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Ooh. Keep that up and you're going to beat MacNStein. From a civil liberties point of view, you don't have a right to not be offended in public, and civil liberties are not subject to democracy; they're protected against the whims of the majority, in fact. From the point of view that's actually relevant here, this is largely a contractual issue, with the question being whether it was or was not lawful for the airline to refuse to fly a paying passenger due to the content on her shirt; whether people were actually offended or not doesn't matter.

Majority rules is a prime consideration in a democracy, by stating they had received "complaints" (please note the plural) it stands to reason there were more than one - since she is the only one on her side of the issue - the majority ruled.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Doofy--
Guess it's a good thing we had that revolution then, huh?

Depends on your viewpoint I guess.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I'm still unconvinced, however.

So come and try it out for yourself. Make sure you have adequate medical insurance beforehand, mind.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Even if it caused a riot, it would still be proper to arrest the rioters.

But it wouldn't happen. I can assure you of that.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

And I'm pretty confident that the guy wearing the shirt could take them to the cleaners.

No. There's no such mechanism in England.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Such as? (Particularly in the US legal tradition)

There's lower level violence such as verbal violence. Hence all your sexual harassment in the workplace legislation.

Then there's higher level violence. I'm not going to tell you what that is. Just hope you never encounter any.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Maybe so, but news to those people: the kids have either already heard the F-word, or are bound to discover it any day now (be careful what movies you watch), likely in the schoolyard. "Protecting our kids against profanity" is completely and utterly stupid and pointless. The words exist, they are used. They are just words. Kids should be encouraged not to use them, but pretending they don't exist is stupid.

Besides, were there any kids on the plane? Are there any adults who have not heard the F-word by now that ARE so offended by this that they can't even think about somebody having a shirt with the F-word on it in the same room?

It's about protecting standards. You know, similar to pooping in your new girlfriend's toilet rather than her kitchen sink.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Would the shirt be okay if it didn't demean the president?

No. The offence is in the language, not the message. It'd be OK - even if it were demeaning the President - if it didn't use vulgar language.

[Dakar]

Well as far as I'm concerned, the shirt is an open invitation to confrontation Instead of the confrontation coming from an individual, however, it came from the airline. While any shirt with a profanity is probably not in the best taste, one such as hers that includes a political message as well just compounds its 'aggresiveness.' This isn't just a "Let's F*ck" t-shirt some college kid is wearing. Its a direct attack on someone's beliefs.

Bottom line: I personally don't care, but I don't blame the airline for its actions.

[Macrobat]

Profanity is definitely not protected speech. Here in NC a law was passed banning the "Sh!t Happens" bumper stickers, for example.

[cpt kangarooski]

iLikebeer--

Well, if you don't believe that the airlines can have their own dress code after looking at the policy someone previously posted about offensive clothing, then maybe this will help.

What I am saying is that their policy might not be legal. Lots of houses still have restrictive covenants that say that the owner cannot sell the house to Jews or blacks or whatever. But they have no force of law behind them. The previously quoted material may be similar.

Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a)The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
...
Basically, it means whatever the pilot says, goes. If the passenger was doing something that was outside of their policy or could, in his opinion affect the safety of the flight in some way, he gives said passenger the boot. That's it.

Could be. Or not. As I've said, I'm not knowledgable about aviation law, and I don't care to be. Presumably, we'll find out from someone who is, or through the news as more develops in this matter.

Macrobat--

Majority rules is a prime consideration in a democracy

So what? Airplanes are not democracies, and civil liberties are not subject to democratic principles. Your post is as pointless as discussing the price of tea in China.

Profanity is definitely not protected speech.

Nope. Mere profanity is protected, again from the Cohen case:

It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.

Your law in NC is unconstitutional. (Of course who really expects NC to be a great champion of civil liberties?)

Doofy--

No. There's no such mechanism in England.

I absolutely do not believe that England has no tort of battery. Do you have a source for your outrageous claim?

There's lower level violence such as verbal violence. Hence all your sexual harassment in the workplace legislation.

Sexual harassment isn't violence. A threat of physical violence could be itself violence, but that's about as far as that goes.

Dakar--

Well as far as I'm concerned, the shirt is an open invitation to confrontation

And yet that's not how it works out from a legal standpoint. This is a significant part of the reason why I see this as a contract dispute, not a civil rights case; the civil rights question was answered decades ago, in favor of offensive shirts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I absolutely do not believe that England has no tort of battery. Do you have a source for your outrageous claim?

Yes. Me. I live there.

If you're real lucky in a completely unprovoked attack you might get $5,000 from the criminal compensation committee. But you'd not be able to sue the perp directly. And if you provoked the attack by wearing said shirt you'd get told to go copulate with yourself (<-- see how easy it is to get the message across without resorting to foul language?).

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Sexual harassment isn't violence. A threat of physical violence could be itself violence, but that's about as far as that goes.

Wrong. Words, speech and language can all be used as tools of violence.

[cpt kangarooski]

Doofy--

Yes. Me. I live there.

And you're a law lord, are you? I want a citation to a statute or a case that plainly says that there's no such thing. Have fun with your impossible task.

Wrong. Words, speech and language can all be used as tools of violence.

No, that would be sticks and stones.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

MacNStein--

Actually it is, or at least the threat of physical action.

Spoken like a Yankee.

Wearing the shirt isn't a provocation, just because someone might take it the wrong way. Merely being offensive doesn't make speech into fighting words. It's actually very difficult to show that speech was in this was provocative of violence, because it would require inciting a reasonable person to respond physically. Your average bully as you describe isn't reasonable, and would just as likely respond to the drop of a hat.

Congratulations: This is the stupidest thing I've seen anyone post all week, because man, you wouldn't know violence if it bit you on the ass.

No, it isn't:

6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

So, yes, you're wrong.

"Stupidest thing I've seen anyone post all week"? You mean until you just opened your mouth? I can see why you want to wear such things in public, you really don't know better. Can't really have a decent conversation without trying to cause some type of negative reaction, can you?

Tell me, why do you feel that way? Why is that you can't live without trying to incite others to attack you? It's amazing to see how your parents failed you as a child, and why you behave the way you do... living your life as if it were one big confrontation, and then getting upset that someone would consider to call you out on it. "Well, I'll SUE YOU!!" Good lord. Grow up, be a man for god's sake.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

And you're a law lord, are you?

No. I'm a copper's son.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I want a citation to a statute or a case that plainly says that there's no such thing. Have fun with your impossible task.

Can't prove a negative. I would have thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

No, that would be sticks and stones.

So women can't have their partners arrested for psychologically-damaging continual verbal abuse then?

[Macrobat]

Obviously, the law is not unconsitutional, considering it was passed more than a decade ago and has never been challenged. Sorry to break it to you, but there are definite limitations to what is protected speech, just ask Larry Flynt.

BTW, since you seem so under-educated, perhaps you should Google the Halifax Resolves and see just which colony was the first to declare for democracy before jamming your foot down your throat again.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

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.

Dude, it would take a whole bag -o- cat lives years before THOSE words find their way into polite conversation! LOL

[Doofy]

Oh, and here you are Kangarooski:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/compe...392/68779.html

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

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.

Ahhh, but you have to view it ONCE to know to avert your gaze. And in that one look you have been 'assaulted.'

BTW, I don't much care for the opinions of your stand-in. You, on the other hand, rate a...

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Dude, it would take a whole bag -o- cat lives years before THOSE words find their way into polite conversation! LOL

Not in polite conversation with very sheltered people, of course.
But most of the words have lost their shock value, except c---.
I hear every one of those words now in conversations that would have gotten gasps just a decade ago in mixed company. Just give it time.

There's a funny episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry calls a feminine married guy that at a card game with couples. Even funnier, imo, is when one mixes in the British slang and calls someone a bloody c---.

[cpt kangarooski]

MacNStein--

Congratulations: This is the stupidest thing I've seen anyone post all week, because man, you wouldn't know violence if it bit you on the ass.

No, it isn't:

You're right, but you hadn't made your most recent post when I made that post.

6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Yep, that's violence, alright. In it's more metaphorical sense.

If watching a movie inflames my passions, do you think that they're literally on fire? Do you think that if I'm torn between two courses of action that I am literally bisected? Or that when my emotions are in conflict that happiness attacks sadness with guns and bombs?

This kind of violence just means that your feelings are intense.

Seriously, you are really stupid. And I'm not being insulting here; you've made it a fact.

Doofy--

Can't prove a negative.

And I didn't ask for you to. England has had a tort of battery since the Middle Ages, and certainly equivalents even earlier. Legal actions for compensation against people who hurt you are ancient. The US has this tort because we, as a former English colony, got it from you. Much of your legal precedent is also ours. So in order for the tort to be abolished, there would have been a clear statement to that effect somewhere.

The truth though is that you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about, and are rivaling MacNStein and Macrobat for inanity at this point.

So women can't have their partners arrested for psychologically-damaging continual verbal abuse then?

Perhaps if it is harassment. But that has nothing to do with violence.

Macrobat--

Obviously, the law is not unconsitutional, considering it was passed more than a decade ago and has never been challenged.

That doesn't actually prove anything.

BTW, since you seem so under-educated, perhaps you should Google the Halifax Resolves and see just which colony was the first to declare for democracy before jamming your foot down your throat again.

Google for slavery. Google for Jim Crow.

You know, maybe you three guys should form a team.

[ThinkInsane]

I was once asked to leave a McDonald's by the manager for wearing a shirt that said "Simon Says Go **** Yourself" that I had bought at a George Carlin show. Instead of telling him to take the message to heart and swinging through the drive thru, I should have called a lawyer. But no, I have to go and realize that maybe not all things are fit for public display. What a chump I am.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

MacNStein--

You're right, but you hadn't made your most recent post when I made that post.

Yep, that's violence, alright. In it's more metaphorical sense.

If watching a movie inflames my passions, do you think that they're literally on fire? Do you think that if I'm torn between two courses of action that I am literally bisected? Or that when my emotions are in conflict that happiness attacks sadness with guns and bombs?

This kind of violence just means that your feelings are intense.

Seriously, you are really stupid. And I'm not being insulting here; you've made it a fact.

Metaphorical? It says nothing about it being a metaphorical violence, it just says that it's violent, quit manufacturing things just ot make your backpedal easier to swallow.

And, as has been evidenced in the past, you've wandered into insults, just to make up for the fact you have no grip on the subject at hand. But, I've come to expect that from liberals like you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the Democratic party has become so flacid and weak. It speaks volumes for the reason why they've lost 2 branches of the gov't and are about to resoundingly lose the 3rd, making them even more ineffectual than they already are. What an embarassment for your ideals and principles, that you don't have the stones to standup and debate them... though, I suppose you could sue for them, eh?

Heh.

[Macrobat]

And maybe, just maybe, you should stop trying to be an @ss?


Convenient how you left off the second half of that paragraph, you know, the one that proves the point?


These sorts of laws are Constitutional. There is the rather glaring and obvious precedent of the Movie/TV/music rating system to draw upon to prove the point.

No one said her shirt was inappropriate, or attempted to abridge her right to wear it. They simply said she couldn't wear it on the plane - which is within their rights.

The only inanity here is your inability to understand the law.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I was once asked to leave a McDonald's by the manager for wearing a shirt that said "Simon Says Go **** Yourself" that I had bought at a George Carlin show. Instead of telling him to take the message to heart and swinging through the drive thru, I should have called a lawyer. But no, I have to go and realize that maybe not all things are fit for public display. What a chump I am.

WTH?!?! What kind of a Liberal are you anyway? Sue the buggers, protect our 1st ammendment rights for our chilrens!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

And I didn't ask for you to. England has had a tort of battery since the Middle Ages, and certainly equivalents even earlier. Legal actions for compensation against people who hurt you are ancient. The US has this tort because we, as a former English colony, got it from you. Much of your legal precedent is also ours.

Do you not think that the laws may have changed since then?

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

The truth though is that you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about, and are rivaling MacNStein and Macrobat for inanity at this point.

A friend had the crap beaten out of him a while back in an unprovoked attack. Attackers were caught and convicted. My friend couldn't sue them because the system doesn't allow for it. In England, whatever punishment the system sees fit to dole out (prison, fine, whatever) is the only punishment for criminal offences. The powers that be don't like civilians then doling out even more punishment (in the form of law suits) as this is seen to undermine the authority of the judge handing out the sentence.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Dakar--


And yet that's not how it works out from a legal standpoint. This is a significant part of the reason why I see this as a contract dispute, not a civil rights case; the civil rights question was answered decades ago, in favor of offensive shirts.

I'm not sure. If there were such a thing as inciting to riot to a much lesser degree, i think that shirt might fall under that.

[medicineman]

Curious how this discussion has boiled down to what is legal and what isn't. I read it as a question of what is appropiate. Some say they talk about sex with their children. Is is appropiate for a stranger to talk about sex with your child? Some say they watch movies with worse language and images. Would you watch those movies with your parents or young children? It's all in the context. I see this as a matter of decorum. Something which is declining over the years. Private behavior and public behavior are two different things. It appears that many want to make public discourse more crude or base. I just view that as a lack of respect of self and of others.

[cpt kangarooski]

MacNStein--

Metaphorical? It says nothing about it being a metaphorical violence, it just says that it's violent

Heh. What you posted was: Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Do you know what these words even mean? It means that you have intense feelings or that you are expressing your feeling strongly. For example, if Rival Sports Team fouls against Local Sports Team, there will be a lot of booing. If Local Sports Team ends up winning anyway, people will be extremely happy. This is the sort of thing that definition refers to.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why the Democratic party has become so flacid and weak.

Is it? I wouldn't know, I'm not a Democrat.

Macrobat--

These sorts of laws are Constitutional. There is the rather glaring and obvious precedent of the Movie/TV/music rating system to draw upon to prove the point.

Nope. I've already cited a Supreme Court case indicating that mere profanity is protected speech.

Also, those rating systems are voluntary. There's no legal weight behind them. No one is obligated to use them or abide by them.

They simply said she couldn't wear it on the plane - which is within their rights.

Which brings us back to the question that no one here knows the answer to: Was it actually within their rights, in light of the regulations that an airline has to abide by, which are beyond those of many other businesses? There is probably some FAA ruling that is squarely on point.

Doofy--

Do you not think that the laws may have changed since then?

I don't think there will have been material changes to this specific law.

In England, whatever punishment the system sees fit to dole out (prison, fine, whatever) is the only punishment for criminal offences.

And that's the same here. I'm talking about the simultaneous civil offense. If A hits B, A has committed a civil and a criminal offense with a single blow. The criminal law is designed to protect society as a whole. The civil law is designed to help restore the victim. Both are designed to discourage people from doing bad acts. They work in tandem, and the one is not a substitute for the other.

At any rate, your claim remains incredible. Let's see some support for it.

Dakar--

If there were such a thing as inciting to riot to a much lesser degree, i think that shirt might fall under that.

No. For that to not be protected requires that the speaker intend for his words to produce imminent violent action and that the words are actually likely to do so. This is from the Brandenburg case.

That fails here because there's no evidence that the woman actually wanted people to become violent -- especially since she would be the target of it -- and no indication that people were likely to be violent imminently. They were just peeved.

Brandenburg dealt with a KKK rally, where the speaker discussed revenge against various minorities and their supporters. And he got off the hook. Like fighting words, which is probably what you're thinking of, it is actually pretty difficult to leave the protection of the First Amendment.

[jhogarty]

ILikeBeer -

Well, if you don't believe that the airlines can have their own dress code after looking at the policy someone previously posted about offensive clothing, then maybe this will help.

Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a)The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
...
Basically, it means whatever the pilot says, goes. If the passenger was doing something that was outside of their policy or could, in his opinion affect the safety of the flight in some way, he gives said passenger the boot. That's it.

Glad you posted this. Was going to grab my FAR book when I got home to look up the reg.

One might not agree with what Southwest did, or the laws/policies they were enforcing. That is fine. Go out and take the time, and expense, to try and change those laws/policies.

Assuming she goes thru with attacking/suing SW - this isn't as simple as some lady being mad about being asked to leave the plane due to her shirt. Now SW has to engage its' lawyers, and rack up expenses in attorney and court fees. Guess how SW will offset those stupid and frivilous costs? Yup, raise ticket prices.

It amazes me how selfish people can be. Cause and Effect baby.....

J.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

MacNStein--


Heh. What you posted was: Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Do you know what these words even mean? It means that you have intense feelings or that you are expressing your feeling strongly. For example, if Rival Sports Team fouls against Local Sports Team, there will be a lot of booing. If Local Sports Team ends up winning anyway, people will be extremely happy. This is the sort of thing that definition refers to.

No.

There's no metaphor implied, it says: Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Do you understand what a metaphor is?

Metaphor: 1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).

I suppose what you're trying to say is that there's no physical damage in verbal violence or abuse, but then, I have to ask the same question posed earlier...

"So women can't have their partners arrested for psychologically-damaging continual verbal abuse then?"

No such thing as damage from verbal violence or abuse? Really? It's apparently real enough to get someone jailed or slapped with a restraining order. This isn't to say this should happen to the lady, although, if she's smart it will affect her choice or attire next time she wants to use a private service.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No.

There's no metaphor implied, it says: Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Do you understand what a metaphor is?

Metaphor: 1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).

I suppose what you're trying to say is that there's no physical damage in verbal violence or abuse, but then, I have to ask the same question posed earlier...

"So women can't have their partners arrested for psychologically-damaging continual verbal abuse then?"

No such thing as damage from verbal violence or abuse? Really? It's apparently real enough to get someone jailed or slapped with a restraining order. This isn't to say this should happen to the lady, although, if she's smart it will affect her choice or attire next time she wants to use a private service.

Are you making a general statement in response to what somebody else posted about the definition of violence, or are you trying to assert that the swear word is an act of violence?

If so, comon, the F-word is not psychologically damaging. It has become a part of our daily conversation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh, and here you are Kangarooski:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/compe...392/68779.html

Doesn't "bollocks" have a positive and negative connotation? When I was in London a guy was at the local pub saying that a particular beer was the "dog's bollocks"... which turned out to mean it was very good. While, at the same time it can mean rubbish or BS. I suppose it comes down to context.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are you making a general statement in response to what somebody else posted about the definition of violence, or are you trying to assert that the swear word is an act of violence?

If so, comon, the F-word is not psychologically damaging. It has become a part of our daily conversation.

For some people it's not part of daily conversation, personally I hear it maybe once or twice a month in public. It's much more frequent on TV and movies, but then, I have the choice of turning the TV off or I know to expect it in a movie rated R.

In some places it's still not accepted as polite conversation, and I can say I'd be more than a little annoyed seeing that shirt in public if I had a young child in tow. If it were in a private establishment, I'd likely talk to the management.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Doesn't "bollocks" have a positive and negative connotation? When I was in London a guy was at the local pub saying that a particular beer was the "dog's bollocks"... which turned out to mean it was very good. While, at the same time it can mean rubbish or BS. I suppose it comes down to context.

Yep, you're right about its meaning depending on context - negative, neutral or positive.
Wiki.
However, it's always classed as "foul language" whatever the meaning intended. Hence the arrest of the girl wearing the T.

Used in the context of the T, it's equivalent to "f*** Blair". But again, the message wasn't the problem - just the wording. If it'd been "bollards to Blair", for example, she wouldn't have been arrested (but everyone would have known what she meant anyways).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

For some people it's not part of daily conversation, personally I hear it maybe once or twice a month in public. It's much more frequent on TV and movies, but then, I have the choice of turning the TV off or I know to expect it in a movie rated R.

In some places it's still not accepted as polite conversation, and I can say I'd be more than a little annoyed seeing that shirt in public if I had a young child in tow. If it were in a private establishment, I'd likely talk to the management.

Why not just not stare at the shirt? Oh, I know.. the "damage" has already been done. The horrible scarring. Our virgin ears and eyes. I wish we would just return to our puritanical roots... Ahh, those were the days. Women were even our property! Bonus!

This argument is beyond retarded. What about all of the suggestive profanity. Like #$*(&#$, or f___, or sh*t.. we see those all the time too. Believe it or not, I can tell just at a glance what they are suggesting. What is the difference in actually hearing the word and having it suggested? Both are equally scaring. I suppose you'd want to rid the world of suggestive swearing too? I guess we'll have to boycott Fcuk. The damage! I mean, I could see "f_uck" very easily the first time I saw "Fcuk". Pretty offensive ****.

Good luck in shielding your kid from this horrible godless profanity. I wish you the best. 10 bucks says your kid has already heard the word, if he has, I'm sure the mere presence of this written word in the same room won't scar him for life. I'm sure being able to avoid the lure of staring at this thing was worth the hassle involved to both the woman and the airline.

P.S. you might want to keep your kid out of the school yard.

P.P.S. I hope there is no graffiti where you live. That would also likely expose your kid to this heinous profanity.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why not just not stare at the shirt? Oh, I know.. the "damage" has already been done. The horrible scarring. Our virgin ears and eyes. I wish we would just return to our puritanical roots... Ahh, those were the days. Women were even our property! Bonus!

This argument is beyond retarded. What about all of the suggestive profanity. Like #$*(&#$, or f___, or sh*t.. we see those all the time too. Believe it or not, I can tell just at a glance what they are suggesting. What is the difference in actually hearing the word and having it suggested? Both are equally scaring. I suppose you'd want to rid the world of suggestive swearing too? I guess we'll have to boycott Fcuk. The damage! I mean, I could see "f_uck" very easily the first time I saw "Fcuk". Pretty offensive ****.

Good luck in shielding your kid from this horrible godless profanity. I wish you the best. 10 bucks says your kid has already heard the word, if he has, I'm sure the mere presence of this written word in the same room won't scar him for life. I'm sure being able to avoid the lure of staring at this thing was worth the hassle involved to both the woman and the airline.

P.S. you might want to keep your kid out of the school yard.

P.P.S. I hope there is no graffiti where you live. That would also likely expose your kid to this heinous profanity.

If it's no big deal, I challenge you to add the words "f**k yeah!" to the end of your web site catchphrase ("Helping musicians exploit new communication mediums") for the duration of the next month. Let's see if you have the trousers to back up your comments.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If it's no big deal, I challenge you to add the words "f**k yeah!" to the end of your web site catchphrase ("Helping musicians exploit new communication mediums") for the duration of the next month. Let's see if you have the trousers to back up your comments.

How does that equate? I'm not saying swearing is part of professional or civilized discourse, I'm just saying that it exists, and trying to aggressively censor it is pointless.