Author Topic: Southwest Airlines boots passenger.. (Read 2148 times)

Munkii · « **Reply #90 on:** October 10, 2005, 01:54:27 PM »

Quote

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.

SkyWolf · « **Reply #91 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:56:02 PM »

Quote

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.

indy007 · « **Reply #92 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:59:06 PM »

Quote

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..).

Quote

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #93 on:** October 11, 2005, 08:45:31 AM »

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

indy007 · « **Reply #94 on:** October 11, 2005, 01:25:19 PM »

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #95 on:** October 11, 2005, 02:18:00 PM »

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

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #96 on:** October 11, 2005, 03:07:30 PM »

All those shirts are VERBOTEN from now on!!!!!!!

lol

DoctorYO · « **Reply #97 on:** October 11, 2005, 03:17:36 PM »

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

lazs2 · « **Reply #98 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:33:22 AM »

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

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #99 on:** October 12, 2005, 08:54:53 AM »

She's clearly a terrorist, an air marshall should have taken her down.
-SW

lazs2 · « **Reply #100 on:** October 12, 2005, 09:21:14 AM »

why bother? let the passengers take her out.

lazs

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #101 on:** October 12, 2005, 09:45:50 AM »

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

DoctorYO · « **Reply #102 on:** October 12, 2005, 12:43:01 PM »

Quote

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...

Quote

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..

Leslie · « **Reply #103 on:** October 13, 2005, 02:24:09 AM »

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

lazs2 · « **Reply #104 on:** October 13, 2005, 08:19:56 AM »

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