Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nilsen on October 08, 2005, 02:48:43 AM
-
For wearing a t-shirt that they didnt like.. :rofl
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-10-06-swa-tshirt_x.htm?csp=34
Wonder how much cash she will get
-
If it's about getting money then it's fraud on her part. In that case she will need money to get out of jail or pay lawyers.
I feel the airlines acted well within their rights and responsibilities, except the only issue is they should have not allowed her on board in the first place wearing that shirt.
Les
-
Huh?
You can't wear what you want on their planes? Is there a PC dress code for their passengers?
-
I don't know Nilsen, just sayin if I was pilot of that plane and saw that before taking off, I wouldn't take off. Something like that might start trouble later during the flight. Someone who does know about these matters is Toad. What say Toad?
Les
-
I don't see anything wrong with the T-shirt as described.
Those who complained of it needs to get a grip..
Then again how did more than couple of passengers and a stuert in plane know of the T-shirt while seated?
Guess they might as well boot all ugly and fat people off the flights because other people just doesn't like them that much.
-
Don't see what ugly and fat has to do with it. Just make them pay more. It's the rabble rouser potential T-shirts have that's an issue..:D
Les
-
See rule #7
-
ROFL Nilsen!
"Land of the Free" :rofl
-
USS Freedom
Keel has been laid :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/LittoralCombatShip-ArtistsRendering.jpg/800px-LittoralCombatShip-ArtistsRendering.jpg)
-
At least we all know who mp5 is now. Beet1e!!!:D I told ya he is a James Bond type.
Les
-
Yes, when Skuzzy asked me which MPx I wanted to be, I chose MP5 so as to be named after the Heckler and Koch machine gun.
-
Actually, SouthWest has a policy against offensive language, profanity, and such, and as I read the description of the shirt, it fit the policy for LANGUAGE, regardless of who the subject was. Their policy forbids the wearing of clothing with swearing or cursing and such on it. I'd say if the profanity filter here would catch it, they can forbid it from their planes. Don't like it? Don't fly SouthWest.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, when Skuzzy asked me which MPx I wanted to be, I chose MP5 so as to be named after the Heckler and Koch machine gun.
*drool* MP5 is teh kickass gun!
actually they suck bigtime.... no reference to the honorable Mr. MP5 Sir Mr. gentleman dude!
-
Nilsen! :)
In the early 1990s, I used to spend 2 weeks around Christmas in Tenerife. It was nice and warm down there - T-shirt, shorts and sandals weather! There was a promenade which ran behind the hotels, and we used to walk along there every day. It was nice, but the timeshare touts were everywhere. I got so fed up with being pestered by them that I had a T-shirt made up for the purposes of warding off the touts. I'm not going to model it (!) but here's a picture of it.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bollocks2ts.jpg)
I never got into any trouble for wearing this shirt - LOL! - but needless to say, I did not wear it in the hotel dining room.
Guess it just goes to show what we knew all along - we have more freedom here in Europe than they do in America.
:aok
-
really if you have more freedom why didnt you wear it to the dining room then? and if the hostess said anything about it, you coulda knocked her down?
-
Lol Beet :D
-
Originally posted by Leslie
What say Toad?
Les
Everyone boards at the Captain's discretion.
That said, the Captain has to have a good reason for booting someone off the plane. As the years have gone by, the Flight Ops Manual went from being a "short story" to being "War and Peace". I suspect the SW FOM has a paragraph in there about potentially troubling passengers/offensive language/etc. and that paragraph probably would be enough to stand upon.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Something like that might start trouble later during the flight.
Les
Thats correct, thats why if I own a bar and most of my customers are skinhead rednecks I am within my rights to keep black folks out...er, or somting like that.
shamus
-
FAA spokesman Donn Walker said no federal rules exist on the subject.
"It's up to the airlines who they want to take and by what rules," he said. "The government just doesn't get into the business of what people wear on an aircraft."
-
After several conversations with flight attendants, Heasley agreed to cover the words by cuddling up with a sweatshirt. When the sweatshirt slipped while she was trying to sleep, she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave. The couple chose to leave.
How is this not freedom? She was given a choice.......she CHOSE to get off the plane.
-
lol the pilot must have be a Bush Fan otherwise this Passenger
would get a free Ticket, at least from me! :D
what a BS this is about a T-Shirt.
-
lol :D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
How is this not freedom? She was given a choice.......she CHOSE to get off the plane.
What if the attendants or capt. went to MSU and that trouble maker was donned in a U of M shirt ? turn that inside out lady or get off the plane it offends me.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
What if the attendants or capt. went to MSU and that trouble maker was donned in a U of M shirt ? turn that inside out lady or get off the plane it offends me.
shamus
Irrelevent considering it wasn't the capt. or the attendents complaining. It was the other passengers. They were given a choice, change the shirt or get off the plane. They CHOSE to get off.
-
Southwest is a private company and the planes are their private property. They should be able to decide who they let on for any damn reason they want.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Thats correct, thats why if I own a bar and most of my customers are skinhead rednecks I am within my rights to keep black folks out...er, or somting like that.
shamus
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Southwest is a private company and the planes are their private property. They should be able to decide who they let on for any damn reason they want.
They DID let her on.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Thats correct, thats why if I own a bar and most of my customers are skinhead rednecks I am within my rights to keep black folks out...er, or somting like that.
shamus
most bars reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE for any reason.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
lol the pilot must have be a Bush Fan otherwise this Passenger
would get a free Ticket, at least from me! :D
what a BS this is about a T-Shirt.
I wonder how far I would get with a Swastika t-shirt on a Lufthansa flight.
-
Originally posted by Monk
I wonder how far I would get with a Swastika t-shirt on a Lufthansa flight.
Is a swastika t-shirt on a Lufthansa the same as a Bush t-shirt on a Southwest Airlines? :D
-
Nilsen, now you have me thinking.
Can you show up at the plane with a parachute as your carry on? Is there a rule against that? Something I always wondered.
-
Don't think that would be a problem. Unless there was a danger of it opening somehow so that it would create a mess, or that it would take up more space than allowed.
-
and if I have it on my back?
-
Wasn't the movie title it was mocking advetised on broadcast national TV ... FCC seemed to allow it and all that?
I'd just like to know the reason....
Doesn't seem like "Meet the twittlers" qualifies as curseing.
It seems like it was politicaly motivated.
After seeing advertisments for this movie on Broadcast TV.... I find the curseing argument pretty hollow
So politiocaly motivated.... does that mean you can be asked to leave the plane for a "Kerry/Edwards" shirt... seems like that line of thinking to me.
(http://www.bjsmusic.com/Meet_The_twittlers_CD_cover_front_small.jpg)
So is that obscene?
IF southwest had a dress code I could understand ... but they don't .. you can wear a sleeveless top, shorts and flip-flops
This is politically motivated. That's the point I think.
-
Originally posted by Monk
and if I have it on my back?
I don't see the problem. I guess some would laugh at you, and those scared of flying would look at you like this :confused: or like this :huh
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Wasn't the movie title it was mocking advetised on broadcast national TV ... FCC seemed to allow it and all that?
I'd just like to know the reason....
Doesn't seem like "Meet the twittlers" qualifies as curseing.
It seems like it was politicaly motivated.
After seeing advertisments for this movie on Broadcast TV.... I find the curseing argument pretty hollow
So politiocaly motivated.... does that mean you can be asked to leave the plane for a "Kerry/Edwards" shirt... seems like that line of thinking to me.
So is that obscene?
IF southwest had a dress code I could understand ... but they don't .. you can wear a sleeveless top, shorts and flip-flops
This is politically motivated. That's the point I think.
The shirt didn't say "meet the twittlers" subsitute O for a U and that's what it said.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
most bars reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE for any reason.
And some reasons are against the law.
shamus
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Wasn't the movie title it was mocking advetised on broadcast national TV ... FCC seemed to allow it and all that?
I'd just like to know the reason....
Doesn't seem like "Meet the twittlers" qualifies as curseing.
It seems like it was politicaly motivated.
After seeing advertisments for this movie on Broadcast TV.... I find the curseing argument pretty hollow
So politiocaly motivated.... does that mean you can be asked to leave the plane for a "Kerry/Edwards" shirt... seems like that line of thinking to me.
(http://www.bjsmusic.com/Meet_The_twittlers_CD_cover_front_small.jpg)
So is that obscene?
IF southwest had a dress code I could understand ... but they don't .. you can wear a sleeveless top, shorts and flip-flops
This is politically motivated. That's the point I think.
The shirt did'nt have "Meet The twittlers" With a pic of Bush etc.
Replace the "o" in twittlers with a "u" and you'll understand the vulgarity of the shirt. Would you want your 7 or 8 year old kid to see that ?
Thats reason enough for me.
-
Ok lets take this to where you all want it to go. Evil Boosh heard about this woman through the CIA when she got on the flight, and called southwests corporate fatcat owner up. Then the military industrial complex, trying to supress free speech and kill minority babys, because boosh doesnt care for black people threw this poor innocent woman of the plane in an unscheduled layover to show there is no more free speech in america.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Irrelevent considering it wasn't the capt. or the attendents complaining. It was the other passengers. They were given a choice, change the shirt or get off the plane. They CHOSE to get off.
Even better, now I can whine where ever I am if I dont like the clothing that someone has on and expect the powers that be to pick me up pat my butt, wipe my nose and comfort me..PC at its best.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
And some reasons are against the law.
shamus
depends on who is stating the reason. People can find racism in anything, as long as the owner has a valid reason he doesnt have to worry about it.
But that's irrelevent, in this case the airline had a policy and that T-shirt broke that policy and OTHER PASSENGERS complained.
The people were given a choice change the shirt or get off the plane. They chose to leave.
It's no different than dress code in First class. Try and fly first class of a major airline wearing cut off jean shorts and sandles.
If the shirt didn't have a picture of Bush on it this would barely make the news. But, you guys keep thinking this is politically motivated and that this persons civil rights were violated. When you're done thinking that you can re-join the rest of us in the real world.
-
Originally posted by Flit
The shirt did'nt have "Meet The twittlers" With a pic of Bush etc.
Replace the "o" in twittlers with a "u" and you'll understand the vulgarity of the shirt. Would you want your 7 or 8 year old kid to see that ?
Thats reason enough for me.
I guess we should remove it from all the papers and the fronts of all the movie houses too :furious
shamus
-
Another example of 'PC' crap.
The shirt was 'PC' enough for her to board the aircraft without comment from the crew. Only when some pinhead passengers started in about being 'offended' did the crew react... pure PC bullcrap.
The airline HAD to react, the broad with the shirt HAD to react. But without the PC bullcrap from the other passengers, there would have been no argument, no escalation, no forced debarking.
Land of the Prudes, Home of PC.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I guess we should remove it from all the papers and the fronts of all the movie houses too :furious
shamus
ya forgot to replace the o with a u:D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The shirt didn't say "meet the twittlers" subsitute O for a U and that's what it said.
OK missed that, if thats what it said I concure.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Even better, now I can whine where ever I am if I dont like the clothing that someone has on and expect the powers that be to pick me up pat my butt, wipe my nose and comfort me..PC at its best.
shamus
sure if you are in an establishment that has a policy/dress code and said "offense" violates that and offends you.
Weather the "powers that be" that OWN the establishment care is up to them. If I own a family orented business and somone came in with a shirt that said that I'd think about making them change. It's surly not a shirt that can be worn to most schools.
-
I'd luv to see a pix of that "twittlers" shirt..Lol!..Imagine the possibilities!
-
Reminds me of a story my Dad once told me..about a passenger who took offense to the Captain telling the passengers over the intercom that they were in a "Fokker" turbo prop plane....
The word "Fokker" is no longer allowed to be said over the intercom to passengers.
lol
-
Is this kind of political discrimination legal in US? Of course if the flight would be for Rebublicans only invitation, things would be different.
If somebody finds black people or republican for that matter offensive, can he complain and force the crew to react? The _complainers_ should've been given choice to leave or bear with the fact that there are people who dont share the same political viewpoints and who are allowed to point it out. If you are allowed to point out how much you love Bush, then by all means same should apply to how much you hate him. There is no difference, except the point is inverted.
-
Tuomio, after 49 replies, it is frightening that you haven't understood that what political bias the shirt had is irrelevant.
She had a shirt on that contained a Curse Word. This is against SW Air's policy. But, they allowed her on anyway.
Then passengers started to complain. Not that it bad mouth a politician, but because it had a blatantly obvious curse word on the front.
She was told to hide it from sight, or leave. She chose to leave.
-
:D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
She was told to hide it from sight, or leave. She chose to leave.
Ya..That would be a natural reaction to being severley pizzed off.
I've already placed an order for the shirt..:rofl
-
I guess she had nice titties to attract so much attention.. I'm guessing the wifeys reacted to the starring of their male counterparts.
-
Hmm, so she was allowed to board the aircraft and made it almost to her destination when someone finally mentioned that the shirt offended them.
I'm sorry, but...WTF? Of course Southwest has a policy on things like this and they are well within the law to bar someone from getting on the aircraft. But to let a passenger on, allow her transit most of the way, then ask her to leave because someone else said something? That seems, just as Hangtime said, far too PC for even this country.
When you look at it from the position of the airline, they were forced to act. Most of the time, flight crews don't care about what a passenger does in the cabin as long as it does not harm or offend other passengers. "Offend" is such a general term, because there are some really thin skinned people out there that are offended by anything and everything. While we are given the right to free speech, we're not allowed to do so if what we say offends someone else. In a sense, free speech no longer exists because something offends everyone nowadays.
This case brings about a situation of "mind your own damn business." You see a shirt that offends you while you're flying to LA? Grab a magazine and don't look at it. You ain't forced to see it unless you're looking at the woman all the time. In that case, perhaps they should throw YOU off for sexual harrassment, hmm? You're going to whine to the airline and inconvinience someone else because you didn't like what they were wearing? Fashion police, anyone? She covered it halfway into the flight but the sweater slipped and it was visible again...
"Excuse me, stewardess? That lady over there is wearing a shirt that really offends me and if you don't eject her from this plane this very instant I'm going to call my lawyer and we're going to have some words with your boss and the rest of this airline for allowing such blatent and disgusting profanity to cross my line of sight!"
Yeah, ok...whatever works.
While Southwest does have a policy against language, if she was allowed to board the aircraft then there should no longer be anything they can do about it. Yes, I know that's not how it works but if you ain't going to be observant enough to see the shirt as she boards then why the hell would you take the time to ask her to leave somewhere over Middle America?
Backpeddling, anyone?
-
Originally posted by texace
Hmm, so she was allowed to board the aircraft and made it almost to her destination when someone finally mentioned that the shirt offended them.
I'm sorry, but...WTF? Of course Southwest has a policy on things like this and they are well within the law to bar someone from getting on the aircraft. But to let a passenger on, allow her transit most of the way, then ask her to leave because someone else said something? That seems, just as Hangtime said, far too PC for even this country.
When you look at it from the position of the airline, they were forced to act. Most of the time, flight crews don't care about what a passenger does in the cabin as long as it does not harm or offend other passengers. "Offend" is such a general term, because there are some really thin skinned people out there that are offended by anything and everything. While we are given the right to free speech, we're not allowed to do so if what we say offends someone else. In a sense, free speech no longer exists because something offends everyone nowadays.
This case brings about a situation of "mind your own damn business." You see a shirt that offends you while you're flying to LA? Grab a magazine and don't look at it. You ain't forced to see it unless you're looking at the woman all the time. In that case, perhaps they should throw YOU off for sexual harrassment, hmm? You're going to whine to the airline and inconvinience someone else because you didn't like what they were wearing? Fashion police, anyone? She covered it halfway into the flight but the sweater slipped and it was visible again...
"Excuse me, stewardess? That lady over there is wearing a shirt that really offends me and if you don't eject her from this plane this very instant I'm going to call my lawyer and we're going to have some words with your boss and the rest of this airline for allowing such blatent and disgusting profanity to cross my line of sight!"
Yeah, ok...whatever works.
While Southwest does have a policy against language, if she was allowed to board the aircraft then there should no longer be anything they can do about it. Yes, I know that's not how it works but if you ain't going to be observant enough to see the shirt as she boards then why the hell would you take the time to ask her to leave somewhere over Middle America?
Backpeddling, anyone?
I think you need to check your facts. Other CUSTOMERS started to complain. Then they were given a CHOICE, change shirts or get off the plane. They CHOSE to get off. WAAAAHHH!! BFD
-
unless you are a commie!
-
Comrad...!!!:noid
-
real commies (not like Boroda) are really entertaining... not that Boroda isnt entertaining, I just think he is putting on an act.
REAL commies are really great debating :cool:
-
Nilsen you miss the point Bud and I think you did intentially...Let me try to fly into yer nearest airport wearing a Thong an a AH T Shirt that sez "Turf DweeB and you Butt up in a LaLa" That's all I wear... would yer Mom like seeing this?
:huh
-
yes, but big titties are great!
or? yes they are :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
yes, but big titties are great!
or? yes they are :)
Your Mom has big titties?
Pics please....
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
She had a shirt on that contained a Curse Word. This is against SW Air's policy. But, they allowed her on anyway.
Then passengers started to complain. Not that it bad mouth a politician, but because it had a blatantly obvious curse word on the front.
She was told to hide it from sight, or leave. She chose to leave.
Yeah that probably was the case. Altough it didnt contain curse word, but movie title, quite popular one even. I still think, that the only people who should've been given the choice is the complainers.
-
Can this be worn in Germany? Serious question.
(http://www.jiggy.com/cat-images-lg/wc0002t-lg.jpg)
-
Was she literally booted ?
-
See Rule #7
-
SW Air is like.. the wal-mart of airlines... so she *was* dressed appropriately enough. probably just upset some republicans who were sharing the flight. for a definition of republican, see my sig.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Yeah that probably was the case. Altough it didnt contain curse word, but movie title, quite popular one even. I still think, that the only people who should've been given the choice is the complainers.
GEESH don't you people read. It did not say "Meet the twittlers" it said "meet the Fu**ers"
Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was halfway home on a flight Tuesday that began in Los Angeles, wearing a T-shirt with the pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film, Meet the twittlers.
MiloMorai
I don't think that shirt would be offensive in Germany. That cross wasn't really a symbol of Nazism and probably goes back way before the third reich.
-
Anyone have a link to a picture of the shirt? Everything I've heard or read states it was a case of profanity, not vieled profanity, but actual profanity.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Can this be worn in Germany? Serious question.
(http://www.jiggy.com/cat-images-lg/wc0002t-lg.jpg)
Pretty sure you could.
-
Deleted.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Thought so. Thanks.
-
Gunslinger, ( & Monk)
yes is the symbol found on WW1 a/c but is also the shape of the WW2 medal > Iron Cross.
Is not the shape called the Maltese Cross?
-
When I was kid, 18-19 yrs, I worked at disneyland and they reserved the right and enforced the right to boot anyone from the park that did not conform to their dress code. Such as, profanity on shirts, walking around without a shirt, and I hear in the 60's... any man with long hair (ask my dad about getting thrown out) lol. They called it "attracting attention from the show".
:D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Can this be worn in Germany? Serious question.
(http://www.jiggy.com/cat-images-lg/wc0002t-lg.jpg)
Hi Milo
As far as I'm aware the Maltese Cross insignia was in use by West Germany up thru the 1970's. Certainly it's not considered offensive by any Germans I know. The Swatsika annoys some folks of jewish descent, and last time I checked was 'illegal' to display even on scale model airplanes in Germany.
(http://www.guenter-schuetze.de/new_pics/ace%202003/43+55.jpg)
-
sheesh.... I can't take my pistol onto the plane but this cow can wear that t shirt?
lazs
-
Right Hangtime, I had forgotten about West German AF.
-
I miss the "old" Southwest of the 70's. It was a party at 30,000 ft. Reminded me of riding a casino party bus.
-
why is it that when someone gets in trouble like this they change the rules or punish the rule makers. Seems to me that she was breaking the obscene clothing rule if people where complaining about her shirt.
-
Unfortunately, there are a lot of clabber-brained people in our country who see nothing wrong with saying or displaying the "f" word in mixed company and in front of children.
The title of the movie "The twittlers" was a thinly veiled slap by hollywood at conventional mores. We can expect more of the same from a branch of the media that is increasingly dominated by overgrown junior high students.
The first amendment was never meant to protect the public use of pornographic speech.
-
yes it was, especially political commentary.
sieg, sieg hoohray!!
:aok
-
Oh, that poor repressed woman. I'll bet they left jackboot prints all over her pretty little face.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
And some reasons are against the law.
shamus
And thats just one big problem with our country...A business owner should be able to refuse to provide a service to anyone they choose not to service..that includes bars and airlines, after all doesn't the owner "own" the business? The government shouldn't tell you that you HAVE to be nice to people you don't like or agree with even if it is morally wrong. The owner will have to pay for his lack of morals in the afterlife.
Kinda like these "right to work" states, where you actually have to have a good reason to fire someone, you can't just axe someone because you don't like them. idiotic and UN-AMERICAN
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Southwest is a private company and the planes are their private property. They should be able to decide who they let on for any damn reason they want.
I'm must be dreaming!!
Tumor
-
First this:
After the plane stopped in Reno at noon Tuesday, she and her husband, Ron, moved to the front of the plane. Passengers began complaining about the T-shirt as they boarded.
After several conversations with flight attendants, Heasley agreed to cover the words by cuddling up with a sweatshirt. When the sweatshirt slipped while she was trying to sleep, she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave. The couple chose to leave.
It showed that the airline staff tried to accomidate her in the beginning. She could not fulfill her end so it was her choice.
Then this:
FAA spokesman Donn Walker said no federal rules exist on the subject.
"It's up to the airlines who they want to take and by what rules," he said. "The government just doesn't get into the business of what people wear on an aircraft."
"At any point when a passenger has a complaint against another and it becomes an issue that could disrupt the flight, our attendants have the discretion to take the appropriate action," said Phil Gee, spokesman for US Airways.
Clearly the airline acted within their rights, provided there was a 'U' in place of the 'O' as it clearly falls into their guidelines.
McInnis said the rules filed with the FAA say the airline will deny boarding to any customer whose conduct is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive."
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Southwest is a private company and the planes are their private property. They should be able to decide who they let on for any damn reason they want.
Well, kind of.
I don't believe they have a right to deny flights based on sex, race, religious orientation, etc.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Well, kind of.
I don't believe they have a right to deny flights based on sex, race, religious orientation, etc.
Why not? It's supposed to be a free market..and a free country...no where does our constitution say that the govt can tell you who MUST do business with Would it be right to be that way? Of course not. But there really is no right to be treated fair by your peers.
-
If private property really meant anything then people could smoke in resteraunts and bars that the owner allowed... sadly... the governement has decieded that your property is theirs to govern.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shane
yes it was, especially political commentary.
sieg, sieg hoohray!!
:aok
You are wrong. The First Amendment does not provide for the protection of the display of profane language in public. So sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court. You cannot say or display whatever you so desire, and claim protection of free speach by invoking the First Amendment. There are common sense limitations. Public display of profane printed words just isn't protected.
What we have here is a prime example of a stupid attention potato. That's exactly the sort of people who wear that sort of thing in public. It's the general public version of the Internet BBS troll. She was so stupid she thought she could wear the shirt and piss people off with profane language and then scream about First Amendment free speech protection.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Why not? It's supposed to be a free market..and a free country...no where does our constitution say that the govt can tell you who MUST do business with Would it be right to be that way? Of course not. But there really is no right to be treated fair by your peers.
....and show me where it says you can discriminate and exclude people based on color/creed/sex/religious practice?
But then it no longer becomes free for those you exclude for reasons really out of their control (what sex they're born to, what religeon they practice, etc.). Remember everyone pays taxes and if a company is going to be practicing business, they pretty much have to follow Federal and State laws. They are benefitting from the priviledge for being allowed to do business where they're at.
No free ride, not even for businesses.
This of course does not mean they have to allow stupidity/rudeness/obsenity/etc conduct from their customers.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The first amendment was never meant to protect the public use of pornographic speech.
You are correct. It was meant to protect all speech.
All:
the whole amount or quantity of
any, whatever
as much as possible
EVERY
to a full extent or degree
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
You are correct. It was meant to protect all speech.
All:
the whole amount or quantity of
any, whatever
as much as possible
EVERY
to a full extent or degree
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Since this was in an airplane owned by a public corporation, the woman has no case. Congress shall make no law, privately owned corporations can restrict freedom's in their establishment however much they want as long as it does it within legal limits. (No nude dancers if there is a law prohibiting it) Wearing a shirt that says Meet the ****ers is obviously something done just to get a rise out of people. She got her wish, and got kicked off the plane when she was asked politely to turn it inside out. If having to wear a shirt inside out in an airplane makes you angry, you should visit a local highschool. Some of them even have to *GASP* wear a uniform to stop violence and keep control of the troublemakers.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Since this was in an airplane owned by a public corporation, the woman has no case. Congress shall make no law, privately owned corporations can restrict freedom's in their establishment however much they want as long as it does it within legal limits. (No nude dancers if there is a law prohibiting it) Wearing a shirt that says Meet the ****ers is obviously something done just to get a rise out of people. She got her wish, and got kicked off the plane when she was asked politely to turn it inside out. If having to wear a shirt inside out in an airplane makes you angry, you should visit a local highschool. Some of them even have to *GASP* wear a uniform to stop violence and keep control of the troublemakers.
I was refering to Freedom of Speech as it applies to the "public use of pornographic speech". Not in how it applies to privately owned corporations, airline passengers, fat chicks, school uniforms, or the F word on T-Shirts. I find the F word offensive... but not "pornographic" in the sense that it was used. As soon as you start deciding what I can say, and where I can say it then we are slipping down a slope that's as dangerous as gun control or any other Government control issue. I comes down to who decides "for" me what is "bad" for me and what is "good"for me and why. So a little is a good thing... but how much is too much and who decides? Everyone should agree that a T shirt like that is wrong in public and where children are present. But what about an actual "Meet the Fokkers" T shirt? My cousin freaked out and boycotted the movie, thinking it should be banned. I sure don't want her deciding anything for me. I hated trying to explain to my neighbor's kid why a friend of mine has a truck with testicles hanging from the trailer hitch. Should I insist it be banned? I think we need more common sense and fanny kickings and less people deciding what I can say.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You are wrong. The First Amendment does not provide for the protection of the display of profane language in public. So sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court. You cannot say or display whatever you so desire, and claim protection of free speach by invoking the First Amendment. There are common sense limitations. Public display of profane printed words just isn't protected.
The Supreme Court got that one wrong imho. It clearly says "all" speech... Not just the speech the thought police deem socially acceptable. That type of PC crap gives me gas. That's like the gun-control nuts making the arguement "the people" in the 2nd ammendment means the police and civil servants. Just doesn't fly. Poeple do not have the right to not be offended (except on a college campus..).
What we have here is a prime example of a stupid attention potato. That's exactly the sort of people who wear that sort of thing in public. It's the general public version of the Internet BBS troll. She was so stupid she thought she could wear the shirt and piss people off with profane language and then scream about First Amendment free speech protection.
She should be protected in public walking down the street, and she is thankfully. However, when it's a private business, codes of conduct are appropriate so that you don't offend other customers.
-
I would have no problem with that T shirt being allowed on the street if.... it offended someone they could knock the teeth out of the offender or pistol whip em.
you want to offend people and then be protected.... very cowardly.
It isa perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded building.... especially if there is a fire or you can prove you thought there was (intent).. If you did it to cause harm to others then you are responsible for intent or actual damage.
lazs
-
So for you it's okay for somebody to offend you, as long as you can pistol whip them for it? That's a hell of a way to debate.
Isn't the point of the 1st to say what you want to say, without the threat of violence or penalties from the government or other citizens? No you say? I'm sure the FCC would agree with you.
Comparing yelling fire in a crowded place where you can cause phsyical harm, to a t-shirt with a slogan you can agree or disagree with is not a good arguement.
Now, no insult intended here, but you've got me confused Lazs. It's a given your all for the 2nd ammendment and as citizens we should have no restrictions on quantity and type of firearms. I'm all for that myself (Santa Claus is putting a Beowulf .50 under my tree this year...). How can you be all for the strict interpretation of the 2nd as letting the people be free of restrictions, but turn around and call people that look to the 1st for protection of what they say cowards. Just doesn't make sense to me.
-
I don't bear arms to offend anyone. I am minding my own business and not in anyones face about it. Maybe pistol whipping is too harsh but pounding their teeth down their throat is about right..
They meant to offend. In a polite society all those offended would verbally attack the offender... they would ridicule and abuse her/him... if the offender (hopefully) had the guts to get physical then it would be our pleasure to beat the living crap out of them. No interferance at all.
the next time they wished to be rude and offensive in public they might think about it first. I consider the shirt an attack on children.
simply humiliating them in public should be enough.... they most definitly deserve it... It is my free speach to call her a disease ridden scumbag.
lazs
-
All those shirts are VERBOTEN from now on!!!!!!! ;) lol
-
The issue of this story is simple... one, contitutional rights have nothing to do with it..
second the problem for South West is allowing her to board the plane wearing the T shirt in the first place..(read her lawyers comments he's no dummy hes going after the selective policy enforcement)
the shirt was a parody of "meet the twittlers.."
instead saying "meet the f***kers" then having our fearless leaders faces on the shirt.. the shirt violates SW's policy / customer contract.. its profanity ridden..
now what is known..:
she got her ticket and boarded the plane while wearing the shirt.. Now whether it be act of god.. crapstorm.. lax enforcement etc.. the airlines people did not stop her from boarding the aircraft and hence by accepting the contract of her paying money for goods and services and then letting her board the aircraft to reach her destination..
now depending on state law that would fall under false advertisement... having a policy in place, and using such policy for selective enforcement to dictate a form of discrimination or to mislead the customer..
IMO SW is liable for any duress or damages the couple may incur.. as for the argument that they got off the plane.. well they can easily claim the Airlines actions of singling them out left them in a state of duress or unsafe flying enviroment/fear.. (double edged sword, laws and policy always cut both ways..dot your I's and cross your T's)
My opinion on what will happen is SW will settle the damages for hotel.. air travel and possible unknown damages etc..
If the couple refuse the settlement, then it goes to court.. and the court in their right mind should not award a stupid sum of money( no pattern of selective enforcement, no past cases of similiar consequence) (i'd say not more than 10-20k on the max(crazy jury / judge) (5k on minimum) for the hassle or inconvenience of missing a flight, hotel and new travel arrangements.. the cash to get back yes... hotel yes.. duress and punitive yes.. huge money ... NO
DoctorYo
-
If they have a clear policy against profanity it doesn't matter if they catch it before she boards or anytime thereafter... they would be within their ritghts to boot her ... that would be fair. It is quite possible that she broke several state and local laws at the same time and.... possible that the airline would be responsible for transporting her.
My opinion stands... you should be allowed to wear it but people who are offended should be able to goad you into a fight.... if you have to fight a dozen or more people every time you wear it you might realize that it isn't worth the attention..
She wanted the attention... she got it... and now she is complaining?
lazs
-
She's clearly a terrorist, an air marshall should have taken her down.
-SW
-
why bother? let the passengers take her out.
lazs
-
Because the passengers don't have tasers. And its not really funnay unless tasers are involved.
Like the episode of cops with people getting tasered and soiling themselves. FUNNAY!
-SW
-
If they have a clear policy against profanity it doesn't matter if they catch it before she boards or anytime thereafter...
Many cases have been won for the plaintiff in which the court brief says the exact opposite what you just said..
Again the issue is not the policy or her constitutional protections of free speech.. Its the selective enforcement.. if you did some more research you would see she flew a leg of her flight unmolested.. then selective enforcement was engaged and by law thats a problem..
see when the customer bought the ticket was she given Sw's policy in full.. I know many times when i have flown i have received no such information.. Note the Feds response, they dont have one.. thats up to the individual lines.. now if a line has policy then the customer should know about it.. and considering in this case they did not notify nor enforce such.. they are liable for violating her original contract for her initial ticket puchase, and whatever else she incurred in expense to reach the destination on her original ticket..
Cut and dry she should win... low amount most likely not worth the trouble but then again.. thats up to the plaintiff
your entitled your opinion the court is entitled its opinion also.. and the past cases have said what im saying..
DoctorYo
PS: how does someones shirt provoke someone else... point you eyes somewhere else.. now if the nuisance then starts giving you verbal barage and sticking their chest in your face where by geometry you can look nowhere else then the court may be on your side Lazs.. untill that happens the simple solution would be to sigh at "what a idiot" and point your eyes elsewhere.. the she provoked me into assault defense doesn't have a very good win / loss record FYI...
She wanted the attention... she got it... and now she is complaining?
actually she is suing ... the news is trying to make a big deal out of it.. It seems to me they want their money back and the airline has reneged on a verbal agreement to do just that... hence her suit.. small potatoes..
-
I don't agree with the idea of the offending passenger's ticket being paid in full. It should be rated for distance traveled and the unused part refunded. No reason to go to court for that. The airlines probably do that anyway.
No way of knowing which side the court will be on. Any time a suit goes to court it largely depends on the judge's mood that day how things turn out. I wonder how he would react to the tshirt being shown in court?
But you're probably right Doctor Yo. In a case like this it is likely the woman's ticket and expenses will be paid in the spirit of fairness and to get it off the docket. Larger amounts of money might be viewed seriously, and possibly a mistrial called if it was suspected the whole episode was done to defraud the airlines.
Les
-
Point my eyes somewhere else? what about the kids that are there? The point is that if everyone were able to somehow be able to not see her shirt if they were offended... some sort of magic filter... then..
She probly wouldn't wear it... she only wore it to offend...
how bout I take a swing in the free space and if she doesn't want to get hit then all she has to do is move out of the way?
or.. since I don't hit or hit at women... I just tell her for the whole flight about what a fat useless slut she is and if she doesn't like it... she can not listen?
lazs
-
Link to T-Shirt in Question (http://www.dontpanic.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=67)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
She probly wouldn't wear it... she only wore it to offend...
I'm not sure that's true. She may have been expressing her political views and/or frustration with what she considers a "bad" administration.
If she was actually trying to anger "people", then I think the only people she was trying to anger were Conservative Bush supporters.
-
well... it matters not what group she meant to offend... she meant to offend...
You will admit that people with children might be offended tho right? It is reasonable to assume that religious people would be offended too right?
It is reasonable to assume that she does not exist in a vacumn and that she knows all this right?
lazs
-
Just making a fist is assault Lazs, but I know what you mean. It's a pisser for sure. The way I feel about it is anyone who asks for trouble usually gets it. I agree with you 100% on that. Another way to look at it is...is it worth the trouble someone or anyone could cause you for that? Swinging and missing is unforgivable except maybe if intoxicated.
Les
-
That shirt is offensive...I thought it said "Meet The twittlers"..in which case it woulda been funny/satirical.
"Meet The $%#@ers" is offensive and the passengers had every right to complain.
-
I know that some of you may find this hard to believe....
But I have been known to get people angry enough to take a swing at me!
I am sure others posses this talent as well.
I get her or her boyfriend angry enough to take a swing at me and then I can pound thier wimpy butt gratis.
lazs
-
the neocronie shrill on such a benign matter, not a hard draw.
-
oops.. wrong thread
lazs
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Link to T-Shirt in Question (http://www.dontpanic.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=67)
Holey crap you realize that's a Gehy Site? And I don't me gehy like intardnet gehy I mean like Gay as in S.O.B. uber-gay.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Link to T-Shirt in Question (http://www.dontpanic.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=67)
thx for the link!
i think i will buy 5 shirts or so, for me and some friends! :D