[OldManMac]

Hope she sues the hell out of them!

http://www.clickondetroit.com/irresi...35/detail.html

RENO -- A Washington state woman was bounced from a Southwest Airlines flight in Reno for wearing a T-shirt with the pictures of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and the F-word.
The shirt was a play on words taken from the movie "Meet the Fockers." It had the title of the movie, with the last word changed to a curse word, according to KRNV-TV in Reno.
Lorrie Heasley said she plans to press a civil-rights complaint against the airline over Tuesday's action at Reno-Tahoe International Airport. Heasley said the airline offered to let her continue her flight if she were to change her shirt, which she refused to do.
"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," Heasley told KRNV.
Southwest officials said other passengers complained about her shirt, and that rules prohibit offensive clothing.
But the American Civil Liberties Union said Heasley's T-shirt is "protected" free speech under the Constitution.

[notloc_D]

Good for Southwest!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Good for Southwest!

A opinion fragment! Cool... nicely done.

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Hope she sues the hell out of them!

http://www.clickondetroit.com/irresi...35/detail.html

[snip] I didn't think it should have offended anyone," Heasley told KRNV.[/snip]

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.

[besson3c]

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.

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

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by besson3c

A opinion fragment! Cool... nicely done.

do you mean an opinion fragment, or does your grammar fetish only apply when you disagree with someone?

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by besson3c

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

Are you saying a private company doesn't have the right as to what her patrons are exposed to. Are you implying that a private company has to allow people to wear and say whatever it is they want?

[El Gato]

Originally Posted by besson3c

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

Where does the law prohibit Southwest from establishing their own guidelines as to what is appropriate to wear on their flights?

[cpt kangarooski]

I would expect that they're a common carrier. They don't have discretion to not take customers that can pay, just because they feel like it.

The degree of regulation an airline is subject to, I don't know, but they are not merely a private company.

[Shaddim]

Wow, now THIS is a misleading thread title.

Couldn't have had anything to do with having profanity on her shirt, no, never. A friend of mine was made to change his shirt (at a Greyhound bus terminal) for having the same word boldly printed on it. No news here, move along.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I would expect that they're a common carrier. They don't have discretion to not take customers that can pay, just because they feel like it.

The degree of regulation an airline is subject to, I don't know, but they are not merely a private company.

A captain can kick anyone off his craft he feels necessary.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Are you saying a private company doesn't have the right as to what her patrons are exposed to. Are you implying that a private company has to allow people to wear and say whatever it is they want?

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...

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Only in America.

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

A captain can kick anyone off his craft he feels necessary.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

do you mean an opinion fragment, or does your grammar fetish only apply when you disagree with someone?

My grammar festish only applies to chronic misuses and misunderstandings, not occasional lapses or typos.

Besides, I do get annoyed when people just post like that without justifying their opinion.

[notloc_D]

Airports are owned by the municipalities who rent space to the carriers. While there are common decency laws, I don't believe many have been challenged in the past decade. Nonetheless, an Airline has the right to refuse service to anyone who is disruptive or is creating an inhospitablr environment.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My grammar festish only applies to chronic misuses and misunderstandings, not occasional lapses or typos.

Besides, I do get annoyed when people just post like that without justifying their opinion.

yuo nede hepl

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

yuo nede hepl

why is that?

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by besson3c

why is that?

this is a discussion forum, not an academic setting. I don't feel the need to edit and proofread anything I type...it is a waste of time. I am not being graded on my grammar, nor do I give two shits how you or anyone elese judges me because I would rather type my opinion and move on versus spending any extra time hitting that delete buttin. You understood what I wrote, so I pat myself on the back and say job well done.
If you want to be anal about grammar and spelling, perhaps you shouldn't be here.

[OldManMac]

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 agree that it's classless and inappropriate, but the question remains; is it free speech? I think it should be. Did she hurt me by her crass demonstration; no.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I agree that it's classless and inappropriate, but the question remains; is it free speech? I think it should be. Did she hurt me by her crass demonstration; no.

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).

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

A captain can kick anyone off his craft he feels necessary.

I bet you're wrong. And if you're right, what's to prevent there from being KKKAir, where only whites can fly (unless they're Jewish or Catholic or have long hair or whatnot)? Lots of businesses are subject to regulation of all kinds. Airlines and other forms of transportation, more than most.

Perhaps if there were a security risk, you'd have a point, but the shirt is at most offensive, not dangerous.

While there are common decency laws

Which are basically irrelevant after Cohen v. California (better known as the '**** the Draft' case). The shirt is not illegal to wear.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Which are basically irrelevant after Cohen v. California (better known as the '**** the Draft' case). The shirt is not illegal to wear.

Yes, but businesses can still refuse to serve you for wearing it.

[Ice33]

It is called a Contract of Carriage. You agree to enter into it when you buy your ticket.
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf

read page 10

[cpt kangarooski]

Although this still brings us to whether or not they can lawfully not take her. As I said, they're subject to more regulation than most businesses. I'd be interested to know the result, but I don't feel like doing the research.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Airports are owned by the municipalities who rent space to the carriers. While there are common decency laws, I don't believe many have been challenged in the past decade. Nonetheless, an Airline has the right to refuse service to anyone who is disruptive or is creating an inhospitablr environment.

There are airline regulations for that. Pilots or airlines cannot refuse transportation simply because they don't like the `face' of the customer. You are forgetting that the customer paid for a service and that he has paid for certain right to which the airline has agreed to by accepting payment and issuing a ticket.

I doubt the lady was starting a riot in the cabin (which would have been a reason to kick her off the plane).

[Artful Dodger]

Why would you wear a t-shirt like that on an airplane in today's climate?? That's stupid and shows a total lack of common sense. You are just begging for trouble. I bet she reserves her "I hate niggers" t-shirt for her promenades through Compton.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Although this still brings us to whether or not they can lawfully not take her. As I said, they're subject to more regulation than most businesses. I'd be interested to know the result, but I don't feel like doing the research.

Plus they have a lot of leeway according to their rules, as the famous definition of `obscenity'. I agree with you here, as also in Germany, this kind of own contract regulations are often subject to legal disputes. Just because the airline says so, doesn't mean it's legal.

[costello_thanet]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

hopefully before the plane takes off!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Why would you were a t-shirt like that on an airplane in today's climate?? That's stupid and shows a total lack of common sense. You are just begging for trouble. I bet she reserves her "I hate niggers" t-shirt for her promenades through Compton.

Unless she were black herself

[goMac]

The airline had rules. If she can't follow the rules, sucks to be her.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Unless she were black herself

HaHa!! Fine, It's like wearing a t-shirt that says "I hate botox and sour-apple martinis while stolling through the Bel Air Country Club" Actually ----that's rather enticing!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Why would you wear a t-shirt like that on an airplane in today's climate?? That's stupid and shows a total lack of common sense. You are just begging for trouble. I bet she reserves her "I hate niggers" t-shirt for her promenades through Compton.

Yes, it is TRUELY, TRUELY, TRUELY sad when images critisizing our president invokes as much disdain as "I hate niggers".

At this rate, we'll be living outside of a democracy in no time!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yes, it is TRUELY, TRUELY, TRUELY sad when images critisizing our president invokes as much disdain as "I hate niggers".

At this rate, we'll be living outside of a democracy in no time!

Yes, I second that.

[cpt kangarooski]

Artful Dodger--

Why would you wear a t-shirt like that on an airplane in today's climate?? That's stupid and shows a total lack of common sense.

Not in the least: a T-shirt with the pictures of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and the F-word.

Is there anything on there relating to planes in any way, shape, or form? No. It's a political message, and a pretty benign one; Bush has pretty low popularity right now.

This is hardly the I ✈ NY shirt. (And that is a damn funny shirt)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Artful Dodger--


Not in the least: a T-shirt with the pictures of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and the F-word.

Is there anything on there relating to planes in any way, shape, or form? No. It's a political message, and a pretty benign one; Bush has pretty low popularity right now.

This is hardly the I ✈ NY shirt. (And that is a damn funny shirt)

Is it a T-Shirt you'd wear to a Pre-School or Elementary School?

If the answer is no you shouldn't be wearing it on an airplane.

[Artful Dodger]

ignore

[Artful Dodger]

Go Mac: I said it was stupid and a lack of common sense. I did not say there was a rational connection between this and 9-11.
I think it's funny too, it just wasn't in her best interest.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yes, it is TRUELY, TRUELY, TRUELY sad when images critisizing our president invokes as much disdain as "I hate niggers".

At this rate, we'll be living outside of a democracy in no time!

Oh Besson, you again. What? did I mispell something? You are being like Michael Moore (your closet hero) and connecting the dots and providing a skewed misrepresentation of what I wrote. I expect nothing more from you. The messages were not being equated in indecency or how much disdain each can generate. They are equated in that both show a lack of common sense. Both are asking for trouble. Both are stupid. I wouldn't do either.

It's criticize and truly, btw. Practice what you preach, bitch.

[cpt kangarooski]

Is it a T-Shirt you'd wear to a Pre-School or Elementary School?

If the answer is no you shouldn't be wearing it on an airplane.

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.

Interestingly, this brings us back to the Cohen case and also, I think, Reno. The world is not someplace to be sanitized for the sake of children.

[besson3c]

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.

Interestingly, this brings us back to the Cohen case and also, I think, Reno. The world is not someplace to be sanitized for the sake of children.

Yes, but for whatever reason, the swearing might unfortunately offend some people... This is undesirable for the interests of a business.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Oh Besson, you again. What? did I mispell something? You are being like Michael Moore (your closet hero) and connecting the dots and providing a skewed misrepresentation of what I wrote. I expect nothing more from you. The messages were not being equated in indecency or how much disdain each can generate. They are equated in that both show a lack of common sense. Both are asking for trouble. Both are stupid. I wouldn't do either.

Who said I was asserting that you were making this connection? Perhaps I was just using your words to make a seperate point of my own? It's true, to some people, it seems like Bush being criticized would parallel usage of "nigger".

It's criticize and truly, btw. Practice what you preach, bitch.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand that I only take issue with chronic, misusage of grammar - very fundamental mistakes such as their/there/they're, etc. that should be corrected if one wishes to come across as being an intellectual person. Whatever, I suppose this was just intended to pick a fight with me.

*sigh* I knew there was a reason why I've been posting here far less.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yes, but for whatever reason, the swearing might unfortunately offend some people... This is undesirable for the interests of a business.

You will always offend someone. You offend some by two gay guys walking hand in hand in public. You offend others for objecting to those two gays showing their sexual orientation in public.

So this is hardly an argument against that. I doubt she was the first (or last) person to wear such a shirt on a flight and only those gross over-reactions are making the news and not the cases when hordes of other passengers were objecting to such offensive shirts. And this is exactly what regulations by airlines are supposed to do: make sure people get safely from A to B.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't know why it's so hard to understand that I only take issue with chronic, misusage of grammar - very fundamental mistakes such as their/there/they're, etc. that should be corrected if one wishes to come across as being an intellectual person. Whatever, I suppose this was just intended to pick a fight with me.

*sigh* I knew there was a reason why I've been posting here far less.

"Truely" was written three times in a row in caps. That's chronic, just like my inability to realize that dialogue with you is completely useless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You will always offend someone. You offend some by two gay guys walking hand in hand in public. You offend others for objecting to those two gays showing their sexual orientation in public.

So this is hardly an argument against that. I doubt she was the first (or last) person to wear such a shirt on a flight and only those gross over-reactions are making the news and not the cases when hordes of other passengers were objecting to such offensive shirts. And this is exactly what regulations by airlines are supposed to do: make sure people get safely from A to B.

I agree, it's not as if I'm supporting the idea that this is offensive and should be unwarranted. I hate the idea that whatever is "mainstream" dominates and dictates what is offensive and what isn't. I actually hate this.

However, if airlines are truely private businesses, aren't they free to decide for themselves what is offensive and what isn't?

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, because I'm not exactly sure what the differences are between an airline and a privatized business. I haven't read the links posted here yet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

"Truely" was written three times in a row in caps. That's chronic, just like my inability to realize that dialogue with you is completely useless.

My "check spelling as you go" was accidently disabled, or else that would have been caught. Still, a misspelling is different than a fundamental misunderstanding between their/they're/there. The spell-checker will accept any of these variants.

As far as the last little pot-shot, wake me up when you are ready for more high-minded discourse. Thanks.

[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.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My "check spelling as you go" was accidently disabled, or else that would have been caught. Still, a misspelling is different than a fundamental misunderstanding between their/they're/there. The spell-checker will accept any of these variants.

As far as the last little pot-shot, wake me up when you are ready for more high-minded discourse. Thanks.

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.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Wow, now THIS is a misleading thread title.

Couldn't have had anything to do with having profanity on her shirt, no, never. A friend of mine was made to change his shirt (at a Greyhound bus terminal) for having the same word boldly printed on it. No news here, move along.

Yeah it's the fcuk word but hardly anything to get anyones shorts in a knot.

And certainly not booted off a plane.

Fcuk is is just fcuk.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

However, if airlines are truely private businesses, aren't they free to decide for themselves what is offensive and what isn't?

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, because I'm not exactly sure what the differences are between an airline and a privatized business. I haven't read the links posted here yet.

People think just because it's a private business, they are basically free to do anything they'd like, although this is not the case.

When customers purchase a ticket, they agree to do business with each other. The airline has an official set of rules, but even though it does, it neither implies all of these provisions are legal nor that they have been applied correctly. A customer doesn't give up all his rights and is at the mercy of the airline to take him with them. Also there are government regulations for an airliner which are a prerequisite for obtaining a licence to do business in the first place.

As I see it, the woman in the example here could (and probably will) argue both ways: (i) her apparel and clothing was indeed `decent' (in the sense of the regulations, a misapplication of the rule) and (ii) that such a rule inhibits her right of freedom of expression.

Other cases you might think of (such as non-admission to a club or so) are different: here, there is no deal, no contract, between the two parties in the first place. A business doesn't have to enter a contract, and the same is true for the other side, but once a contract has been agreed upon, both are bound by it.