PDA

View Full Version : Wash. Woman Booted Off Plane Over T-Shirt


Infiniti2001
Oct 7th, 2005, 02:56 AM
.c The Associated Press

RENO, Nev. (AP) - A woman was booted off a Southwest Airlines flight for
wearing a T-shirt that bore an expletive and images of President Bush, Vice
President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Lorrie Heasley of Woodland, Wash., said she plans to press a civil-rights
complaint against the airline over Tuesday's action at Reno-Tahoe International
Airport, halfway through Heasley's scheduled trip from Los Angeles to Portland,
Ore.

``I have cousins in Iraq and other relatives going to war,'' Heasley told the
Reno Gazette-Journal. ``Here we are trying to free another country and I have
to get off an airplane ... over a T-shirt. That's not freedom.''

Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Marilee McInnis said several passengers
complained about the shirt.

Heasley, a 32-year-old lumber saleswoman, said passengers began complaining
after she and her husband, Ron, moved to the front of the cabin in Reno.

She agreed to cover the words with a sweatshirt, but when the sweatshirt
slipped while she was trying to sleep, she was ordered to wear her T-shirt
inside-out or leave.

She and her husband left. They arrived home in a rental car Wednesday
afternoon.

McInnis said Southwest rules allow the airline to deny boarding to any
passenger whose clothing is ``lewd, obscene or patently offensive.''

But Allen Lichtenstein, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in Las
Vegas, said it ``might be problematic'' that the airline ``changed rules in
the middle of a flight.''

Heasley said she has been in touch with ACLU lawyers in Seattle, and wants
Southwest to reimburse her for the last leg of the trip.


UGH! SouthWest just recently started flying in Fort Myers-- looks like I'll be avoiding it like the plague :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2005, 03:21 AM
just the last leg?, i would be sueing for millions.

SelesFan70
Oct 7th, 2005, 03:54 AM
Fuck her. I'm booking a flight on Southwest to anywhere :D

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2005, 04:02 AM
Fuck her. I'm booking a flight on Southwest to anywhere :D
how can gay republican be the first to want to derail someone else's freedom of expression?

go hingis
Oct 7th, 2005, 04:10 AM
No Freedom of Anything, Anymore! Sad N True

Rtael
Oct 7th, 2005, 04:11 AM
how can gay republican be the first to want to derail someone else's freedom of expression?


Functional retardation.

DutchieGirl
Oct 7th, 2005, 05:06 AM
OMG... it's a t-shirt...those people who complained should get over it...what would they do if they saw her wearing it walking down the street? Go to the police and make them get her to take it off or?

PaulieM
Oct 7th, 2005, 05:36 AM
ahh welcome to the free world :rolleyes:

controlfreak
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:34 AM
I hope all the future plane bombers on this site are taking note of this woman's fatal error...

marmite1
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:36 AM
I bet if someone wore a vote for bush tshirt they wouldnt have been kicked off. Think of the democrats.

Paneru
Oct 7th, 2005, 12:44 PM
how can gay republican be the first to want to derail someone else's freedom of expression?

Gay & republican?
How does that one work? :tape:


Spreading freedom and democracy around the
world and yet boot a woman off a plane
for simply expressing herself?

What's wrong with this picture. :o

marmite1
Oct 7th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Gay & republican?
How does that one work? :tape:


Spreading freedom and democracy around the
world and yet boot a woman off a plane
for simply expressing herself?

What's wrong with this picture. :o

Plenty ;)

SelesFan70
Oct 7th, 2005, 01:53 PM
how can gay republican be the first to want to derail someone else's freedom of expression?

For the 152nd time, I'm NOT a Republican. :ras:

Natarajasana
Oct 7th, 2005, 02:38 PM
Her sweatshirt slipped? What? Was her husband fondling her on the flight? :confused:
Was her boob hanging out as well? :unsure:
I somewhat have mixed feelings about what happened. If the woman didn't want to draw attention to herself, well then perhaps she shouldn't have worn the t-shirt. Perhaps the people who complained had children and didn't want them to see such vulgar language.
Or perhaps this woman was down-right butt ugly and the passengers wanted her to cover up as much as possible?!?!? :p

kabuki
Oct 7th, 2005, 02:44 PM
The shirt said "Meet the Fuckers" as a play on "Meet the Fockers."

Why a grown woman would want to wear that is beyond me, but besides that it is innapropriate to wear that in public where there are children. I can't stand Bush and his cronies, but this woman was just plain wrong.

alfonsojose
Oct 7th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Gay & republican?
How does that one work? :tape:

Maybe he's into S&M :lol:

hablo
Oct 7th, 2005, 03:09 PM
oh puhleeeeeeeeeease!!

I can't believe what happened to that woman!!!

maybe they should go after who made that t-shirt too :rolleyes:

SelesFan70
Oct 7th, 2005, 03:37 PM
Maybe he's into S&M :lol:

Candle wax and rope... :hearts:

DutchieGirl
Oct 7th, 2005, 03:49 PM
The shirt said "Meet the Fuckers" as a play on "Meet the Fockers."

Why a grown woman would want to wear that is beyond me, but besides that it is innapropriate to wear that in public where there are children. I can't stand Bush and his cronies, but this woman was just plain wrong.

Why is she wrong? If that's what she wants to wear, then it's up to her...there is a thing called "freedom of speech" she was using her right to that to "voice" her opinion via the t-shirt. OK, it might not be the most tasteful shirt, but she is allowed to wear it.

Lord Nelson
Oct 7th, 2005, 07:23 PM
how can gay republican be the first to want to derail someone else's freedom of expression?
So will you support freedom of expression for a person who had fu*k Martin Luther King?

Berlin_Calling
Oct 7th, 2005, 08:56 PM
glad she got kicked off. trashy tshirt for trashy people i guess :rolleyes::lol:

Berlin_Calling
Oct 7th, 2005, 08:59 PM
So will you support freedom of expression for a person who had fu*k Martin Luther King?

good point.

harloo
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:05 PM
So will you support freedom of expression for a person who had fu*k Martin Luther King?

The problem is that a shirt like this would never be created. Do you know what Dr. King even stood for, or is your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't see straight?:lol: :tape:

Helen Lawson
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Why are people so sensitive today, all of them in this case. Boo Hoo, airline passengers didn't like my t-shirt and I got tossed. Boo hoo, lady wears a t-shirt with profanity. Toughen up, you wimps! Does anyone live in the real world today? Sometimes I wonder.

Anyway, Helen does NOT wear t-shirts with profanity. That is just rude.

Berlin_Calling
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:08 PM
The problem is that a shirt like this would never be created. Do you know what Dr. King even stood for, or is your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't see straight?:lol: :tape:

are you dumb? there are plenty of americans stupid and racist enough to create a shirt like this.

Paneru
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:13 PM
So will you support freedom of expression for a person who had fu*k Martin Luther King?

YES!

I wouldn't agree with or like it but who in the hell
am I to tell someone to take off their shirt!

harloo
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:15 PM
are you dumb? there are plenty of americans stupid and racist enough to create a shirt like this.

Go ahead Chrispy create your shirt.:tape:

BUBI
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:19 PM
So stupid :banghead:
This is freedom? :rolleyes:

BUBI
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:21 PM
So will you support freedom of expression for a person who had fu*k Martin Luther King?
Of course. Everyone should have the right to wear whatever they want.

harloo
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:23 PM
YES!

I wouldn't agree with or like it but who in he hell
am I to tell someone to take off their shirt!

agreed. :worship:

tennisbum79
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:34 PM
So will you support freedom of expression for a person who had fu*k Martin Luther King?

I know the question was not addressed to me, I will give you my opinion anyway.
I think the KKK did worst than that during their cross burning cermonies.

And my short answer is yes.

tennisbum79
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Gay & republican?
How does that one work? :tape: .:o

Those are usually northeast republicans, staunchly capitalist and sometime bigoted against non-white minorities.


Three years out of four they are usually ok because they keep a low profile.
But comes election time and especially convention time, that is when reality hits them.

The Christian right takes over the debate and the gay republicans are relegated to apologist and damage control roles.

Lord Nelson
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:50 PM
If that is the case then you would be in the minority. How many people would appreciate one having a t-shirt that said fuck gays or fuck him or her. I'm quite sceptical when some of you here say that you support freedom of speech to that extent and that people like that woman should be allowed to to do things like this.
As for Harloo did I say I hated Martin Luther King? I was showing people i.e Jiggly what freedom of speech like in this case would really mean. You agree with what Paneru says but would you really act passive for the Martin Luther t-shirt example?

BUBI
Oct 7th, 2005, 09:53 PM
If that is the case then you would be in the minority. How many people would appreciate one having a t-shirt that said fuck gays or fuck him or her. I'm quite sceptical when some of you here say that you support freedom of speech to that extent and that people like that woman should be allowed to to do things like this.
As for Harloo did I say I hated Martin Luther King? I was showing people i.e Jiggly what freedom of speech like in this case would really mean. You agree with what Paneru says but would you really act passive for the Martin Luther t-shirt example?
Yes.

tennisbum79
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:03 PM
If that is the case then you would be in the minority. How many people would appreciate one having a t-shirt that said fuck gays or fuck him or her. I'm quite sceptical when some of you here say that you support freedom of speech to that extent and that people like that woman should be allowed to to do things like this.
As for Harloo did I say I hated Martin Luther King? I was showing people i.e Jiggly what freedom of speech like in this case would really mean. You agree with what Paneru says but would you really act passive for the Martin Luther t-shirt example?

I am kind of first amendment absolutist, of course within the limit of community decency.

As for acting passive, not necessarily. For I extend freedom of speech to the right to challenge speech by speech.

That happen all the time.
KKK demonstrator vs civil right workers or demonstrators
Pro-life people vs. abortion right people.

Bill O'Reilly vs ACLU, or Bill O'Reilly vs Ludicris or any other rapper
Bill O'Reilly vs "secular" judges.
Ok the O'Reilly thing is a joke!!

Paneru
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Those are usually northeast republicans, staunchly capitalist and sometime bigoted against non-white minorities.


Three years of out four they are usually ok because they keep a low profile.
But come election and especially convention time, that is when reality hit them.

The Christian right takes over the debate the gay republicans are relegated to apologist and damage control roles.
Thanks for the insight! :cool:

Denise4925
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:22 PM
The problem is that a shirt like this would never be created. Do you know what Dr. King even stood for, or is your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't see straight?:lol: :tape:
:lol:

Denise4925
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:25 PM
YES!

I wouldn't agree with or like it but who in the hell
am I to tell someone to take off their shirt!
Yes, I may not like what you say, but I'll fight to my death for you to say it. By the same token, I don't like Bush, but I think it was immature and disrespectful for her to wear something like that in public with minors around. However, that airline is a private company and they can do whatever they want on their plane.

tennisbum79
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:28 PM
Yes, I may not like what you say, but I'll fight to my death for you to say it. By the same token, I don't like Bush, but I think it was immature and disrespectful for her to wear something like that in public with minors around. However, that airline is a private company and they can do whatever they want on their plane.

Good insight.

harloo
Oct 7th, 2005, 10:53 PM
IfAs for Harloo did I say I hated Martin Luther King? I was showing people i.e Jiggly what freedom of speech like in this case would really mean. You agree with what Paneru says but would you really act passive for the Martin Luther t-shirt example?

Why oh why did you bring a respected racial uniter into the conversation? MLK's legacy as a great leader has no relevancy to this subject. He should not even be mentioned in the same breathe as Bush.

To answer your question:

While I may despise a shirt disrespecting MLK I do believe in Freedom Of Speech. If we allow the government to censor everything in our lives we are not free. I often listen to talk radio and the things that are said are sometimes crass, covertly racist, and downright hateful but speech is protected under the first amendment.

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2005, 11:45 PM
For the 152nd time, I'm NOT a Republican. :ras:
thats not what you said before but whatever :shrug:

how come a gay guy is the only one to question the womans right to express herself.

kabuki
Oct 8th, 2005, 12:13 AM
Why is she wrong? If that's what she wants to wear, then it's up to her...there is a thing called "freedom of speech" she was using her right to that to "voice" her opinion via the t-shirt. OK, it might not be the most tasteful shirt, but she is allowed to wear it.

It's vulgar and innapropiate for wear around children. If she wanted to wear it at home or at a bar with adults, that is her business. This is an airplane with who knows who on board. Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't (and shouldn't) wear clothing with profane writing on it, no matter whether it's fuck Bush, or fuck Kerry, or fuck Mickey Mouse for that matter.

harloo
Oct 8th, 2005, 12:23 AM
It's vulgar and innapropiate for wear around children. If she wanted to wear it at home or at a bar with adults, that is her business. This is an airplane with who knows who on board. Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't (and shouldn't) wear clothing with profane writing on it, no matter whether it's fuck Bush, or fuck Kerry, or fuck Mickey Mouse for that matter.

What amazes me sometimes is how people are so puritanical about what they expose their children too. I don't feel it's good to shield a child from the realities of the real world. Their are lessons to be learned in every situation because you do have people who are unethical and vulgar in everyday life.

Maybe my opinion will change once I become a parent, but my hope is to expose my child to all that is good and bad in the world. I notice that when you supress a child from the reality of the world they fall by the wayside or get curious about the wrong things.

Actually I don't think the complainers were upset with the vulgarity of the tshirt, but moreso with who the attack was directed at. ;)

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2005, 01:02 AM
It's vulgar and innapropiate for wear around children. If she wanted to wear it at home or at a bar with adults, that is her business. This is an airplane with who knows who on board. Freedom of speech has limitations. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't (and shouldn't) wear clothing with profane writing on it, no matter whether it's fuck Bush, or fuck Kerry, or fuck Mickey Mouse for that matter.
:bs:

the limits on freedom of speech are for things like yelling "fire" in a movie theather.

not to force people to pacify idiots who have babies they dont know how to raise. because if they have raised the child to go crazy over whats on someone elses t-shirt, they clearly have not one once of parenting skills. :wavey:

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 8th, 2005, 03:30 AM
Yes, I may not like what you say, but I'll fight to my death for you to say it. By the same token, I don't like Bush, but I think it was immature and disrespectful for her to wear something like that in public with minors around. However, that airline is a private company and they can do whatever they want on their plane.

I agree with this most of this post and I really can't get worked up about this issue either way. I don't mind her wearing it in public as in on the street, but wearing it in the relatively intimate space of an airline cabin is different. If I owned an airline I'd probably reserve the right to turn back passengers wanting to wear clothes with highly provocative slogans using words like "fuck".

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 8th, 2005, 03:32 AM
Actually I don't think the complainers were upset with the vulgarity of the tshirt, but moreso with who the attack was directed at. ;)

I actually doubt this. I'm sure there would have been just as much backlash if the T-shirt had said exactly the same thing with a pic of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

Berlin_Calling
Oct 8th, 2005, 03:35 AM
all this complaining that come from people who would bitch all day if someone used the word gay as a condescending adjective. how would you feel if someone on the plane that had a shirt that said "i hate fags" sit on the plane. youd really respect that and let them get away with it?

Justeenium
Oct 8th, 2005, 04:48 AM
A. Southwest airlines is a private company
B. The Bill of Rights are not absolute.
C. The courts have ruled obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment.

Erika_Angel
Oct 8th, 2005, 05:24 AM
Some of you are so blind to what the real issue is. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with where the woman was (on a plane with other people, adults aswell as children) and that the shirt was obviously an offensive shirt because it bore profane language on it. It is not an issue who the shirt was about. If someone walked onto the plane with a shirt that just said "F*CK" and nothing else on it, I would fully expect if I was a passanger on that plane that that person would be told to go change their shirt.
It is one thing to have an opinion on politics, but when you go into public and completely disconsider those around you by wearing a tshirt that YOU KNOW will be offensive to almost all people because of the language, then that is just rude.
The airlines did the right thing, it was against their polocy, and they kicked her off.
And to all those people rambling on about free speech, take the suggestion of someone else in this thread and see what you would think of someone walking onto a plane with "FUCK GAYS!" or some other immature slogan which would offend you and others. Is freedom of speech ok then?

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2005, 06:12 AM
A. Southwest airlines is a private company
B. The Bill of Rights are not absolute.
C. The courts have ruled obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment.
:bs:

the supreme court has defended peoples right to wear whatever kind of tee-shirts they want.

and if (a) makes them exempt from laws, why do they have to hire blacks or hell, be regulated in anyway? :confused: :wavey:

Denise4925
Oct 8th, 2005, 06:23 AM
:bs:

the supreme court has defended peoples right to wear whatever kind of tee-shirts they want.

and if (a) makes them exempt from laws, why do they have to hire blacks or hell, be regulated in anyway? :confused: :wavey:
They can do what they want, but they can't do it because someone is black, Jewish, etc. In other words they can't discriminate against a protected class.

I would assume their argument would be that in this case, this woman caused a disruption on their plane by wearing the tee shirt. If someone is acting disorderly, i.e. not really hurting anyone but cursing on the plane loud enough to disturb the other passengers, they have a right to deplane that person because they are being disorderly. It's not about free speech, but about their own company policies to keep their passengers safe, undisturbed and happy.

Denise4925
Oct 8th, 2005, 06:24 AM
A. Southwest airlines is a private company
B. The Bill of Rights are not absolute.
C. The courts have ruled obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment.
But, they have yet to define what obscenity is.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2005, 06:28 AM
Some of you are so blind to what the real issue is. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with where the woman was (on a plane with other people, adults aswell as children) and that the shirt was obviously an offensive shirt because it bore profane language on it. It is not an issue who the shirt was about. If someone walked onto the plane with a shirt that just said "F*CK" and nothing else on it, I would fully expect if I was a passanger on that plane that that person would be told to go change their shirt.
It is one thing to have an opinion on politics, but when you go into public and completely disconsider those around you by wearing a tshirt that YOU KNOW will be offensive to almost all people because of the language, then that is just rude.
The airlines did the right thing, it was against their polocy, and they kicked her off.
And to all those people rambling on about free speech, take the suggestion of someone else in this thread and see what you would think of someone walking onto a plane with "FUCK GAYS!" or some other immature slogan which would offend you and others. Is freedom of speech ok then?

:retard:

the policy has NOTHING to do with maintaining order or even being polite. NOTHING. Not one damn thing. because it is rude to wear green when you KNOW there are people out there who would be offended by it :smash: and no someone wearing green who was offending others by the choice of that color would not get kicked off. this is about censorship and a violation of freedom of speech. because if she has a tee that said fuck terrorists those same dick wards who are going on about how the word "fuck" makes them cry at night, would not have said a damn thing to her. :wavey:

its not about keeping order & its not about polite language.

and about this almost all people, its not true, most believe dont give fuck what kind of foul words you use, only the sort of bad people who have suck donkey cock, who make a big deal about what is written on some elses tee shirt.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 8th, 2005, 07:10 AM
A. Southwest airlines is a private company
B. The Bill of Rights are not absolute.
C. The courts have ruled obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment.

A. Yes.
B. Irrelevant. This is not a Bill of Rights issue. The Bill of Rights says that the government can't make a law infringing freedom of speech. This was not about the government making a law. It was about someone being booted off private property by an agent of the owner. That has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
C. True but irrelevant. If this had been a Bill of Rights case, the T-shirt would not have been obscene. Indecent, maybe. Provocative, yes. But not obscene. Obscene means something a lot stronger than that (e.g. a close-up picture of naked genitals on a T-shirt would probably qualify). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot stop you wearing a shirt that says "FUCK THE DRAFT". Same would apply here. However, someone can throw you off their private property for wearing a shirt that they don't like, or offends their other guests, or whatever.

This is nothing to with the Bill of Rights or goverment censorship. It is simply about whether a private company acted reasonably in the dress code it applied in the circumstances to who it would allow to stay on its private property. The woman had every right to wear it. It looks to me as if the airline also had a right to say, "If you're going to wear it, you can't stay on my plane."

Again, nothing to get worked up about either way.

Erika_Angel
Oct 8th, 2005, 07:11 AM
:retard:

the policy has NOTHING to do with maintaining order or even being polite. NOTHING. Not one damn thing. because it is rude to wear green when you KNOW there are people out there who would be offended by it :smash: and no someone wearing green who was offending others by the choice of that color would not get kicked off. this is about censorship and a violation of freedom of speech. because if she has a tee that said fuck terrorists those same dick wards who are going on about how the word "fuck" makes them cry at night, would not have said a damn thing to her. :wavey:

its not about keeping order & its not about polite language.

and about this almost all people, its not true, most believe dont give fuck what kind of foul words you use, only the sort of bad people who have suck donkey cock, who make a big deal about what is written on some elses tee shirt.

having a green tshirt and having a tshirt with profane language on it is TOTALLY different.
Stop trying to bring in stupid arguments like that.
Wearing a tshirt with language like that in public is not accepted especially when there are children around.
I know that you might not understand, but most believe (believe it or not) actually do mind when people use foul language in public especially when their children are present and they don't want their children listening to such words.
If this shirt just said "F*CK" and no mention of Bush, trust me, the woman would be forced to change it or get kicked off the plane.

drake3781
Oct 8th, 2005, 08:04 AM
I actually doubt this. I'm sure there would have been just as much backlash if the T-shirt had said exactly the same thing with a pic of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

Leopard, I have to disagree with you on this one.

My observation is that those leaning democratic/liberal have their point of view and accept that others have a different point of view, and the challenge is to make it work together.

Those leaning republican/conservative have their point of view and belive that other points of view are wrong and must be stamped out. (see evangelical christian... they are the only ones who will be saved; see gay marriage... they are not gay and it's not ok for others to be gay either; see abortion... they would not have an abortion but insist that everyone else cannot either, and so on.)

drake3781
Oct 8th, 2005, 08:21 AM
A. Yes.
B. Irrelevant. This is not a Bill of Rights issue. The Bill of Rights says that the government can't make a law infringing freedom of speech. This was not about the government making a law. It was about someone being booted off private property by an agent of the owner. That has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
C. True but irrelevant. If this had been a Bill of Rights case, the T-shirt would not have been obscene. Indecent, maybe. Provocative, yes. But not obscene. Obscene means something a lot stronger than that (e.g. a close-up picture of naked genitals on a T-shirt would probably qualify). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot stop you wearing a shirt that says "FUCK THE DRAFT". Same would apply here. However, someone can throw you off their private property for wearing a shirt that they don't like, or offends their other guests, or whatever.

This is nothing to with the Bill of Rights or goverment censorship. It is simply about whether a private company acted reasonably in the dress code it applied in the circumstances to who it would allow to stay on its private property. The woman had every right to wear it. It looks to me as if the airline also had a right to say, "If you're going to wear it, you can't stay on my plane."

Again, nothing to get worked up about either way.



Consider that the woman got past security and Southwest's gate agent. Consider that the airline doesn't have a written policy on this matter to which they adhered. IF this is indeed an airine rule, then don't they need to systematicallly and consistently check each passenger for violation of the rule before boarding. It looks like the rule was made up "on the fly" based on other customers' reactions. That is a large part of the problem.

Example: You have three carry-ons in your possession. There is a posted rule, which all customers are made aware of prior to boarding, that no passenger may have more than two carry-ons. Each passenger is checked systematically and consistently at the gate for number of carryons. You see this check being applied to all the other passengers. You are told that you must check one of your carry-ons. This is not being done by reason of passenger complaints which may be directed at you for some reason (you smell bad, you were rude to somebody earlier, you are a racial minority, you wear an anti-Bush tshirt) pass over other passengers who also have more than two carry-ons. You have no grounds for complaint of a violation of your rights.

Three carry-ons is the equivalent of wearing a shirt with the word Fuck on it. The airline is not able to show that the rule they applied even exists, and if it does that passengers are notified in advance, and it has been applied consistently to all rather than to someone who stands out for another perceived offense.

drake3781
Oct 8th, 2005, 08:27 AM
all this complaining that come from people who would bitch all day if someone used the word gay as a condescending adjective. how would you feel if someone on the plane that had a shirt that said "i hate fags" sit on the plane. youd really respect that and let them get away with it?

Yes .

I think you already asked this and it was answered, maybe you don't believe it? The answer is yes. Can you imagine that? People can wear what they want and it is allowed, whether it is liked or not. You don't need to like somebody's clothes or the words written on them to get from point A to point B in an airplane. You read your in-flight magazine, look at the clouds, and maybe even start a conversation to share your views and listen to theirs.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 8th, 2005, 09:25 AM
Consider that the woman got past security and Southwest's gate agent. Consider that the airline doesn't have a written policy on this matter to which they adhered. IF this is indeed an airine rule, then don't they need to systematicallly and consistently check each passenger for violation of the rule before boarding. It looks like the rule was made up "on the fly" based on other customers' reactions. That is a large part of the problem.

Example: You have three carry-ons in your possession. There is a posted rule, which all customers are made aware of prior to boarding, that no passenger may have more than two carry-ons. Each passenger is checked systematically and consistently at the gate for number of carryons. You see this check being applied to all the other passengers. You are told that you must check one of your carry-ons. This is not being done by reason of passenger complaints which may be directed at you for some reason (you smell bad, you were rude to somebody earlier, you are a racial minority, you wear an anti-Bush tshirt) pass over other passengers who also have more than two carry-ons. You have no grounds for complaint of a violation of your rights.

Three carry-ons is the equivalent of wearing a shirt with the word Fuck on it. The airline is not able to show that the rule they applied even exists, and if it does that passengers are notified in advance, and it has been applied consistently to all rather than to someone who stands out for another perceived offense.

Look, I agree with you that these are the issues. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment but everything to do with the questions you are raising about how well the company promulgated any policies how consistently they were enforced, etc. Perhaps the company even breached its contract, though I doubt it .... air flight contracts usually empower the airline to do all sorts of things if you read the fine print on your ticket.

I'm not particularly trying to defend the company. Maybe it acted reasonably in all the circumstances. Maybe it didn't. My point is that is the issue. It's not a constitutional law issue at all.

On the other point, I have think you have a romantic idea of how libertarian people on the left are about these things. At least in my country, lots of older people (such as my parents) would be shocked by the word "fuck" even if they agreed with the political sentiment. Also, I've encountered a lot of PC lefty censorship. I remember being treated very sarcastically in a lefty gathering for using the word "chairman" instead of "chairperson". Believe me, people on the Left can be very intolerant of speech that doesn't match their thinking.

marmite1
Oct 8th, 2005, 09:26 AM
The title of this thread reminds of the song "Im going to wash that man right out of my hair" :lol:

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 8th, 2005, 09:52 AM
:lol:

It actually took me a while to work out that it refers to Washington.

kabuki
Oct 8th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Actually I don't think the complainers were upset with the vulgarity of the tshirt, but moreso with who the attack was directed at. ;)

I just don't buy that. If the shirt said just plain old "fuck," I think the result would have been the same.

kabuki
Oct 8th, 2005, 12:47 PM
:bs:

the limits on freedom of speech are for things like yelling "fire" in a movie theather.

not to force people to pacify idiots who have babies they dont know how to raise. because if they have raised the child to go crazy over whats on someone elses t-shirt, they clearly have not one once of parenting skills. :wavey:

Sorry JP, but when I become a parent, I will prefer to choose when and where my child encounters vulgarity. I don't need some trashy stranger on a plane to do it for me. That's partially why we have ratings for movies, for video games, on television. By the by, when was the last time you heard fuck on network television? (NBC, ABC, CBS)

IMO, the ACLU tarnishes it's credibility (which is sorely needed for truly important civil liberties cases) by taking on garbage such as this.

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2005, 12:54 AM
having a green tshirt and having a tshirt with profane language on it is TOTALLY different.
Stop trying to bring in stupid arguments like that.
Wearing a tshirt with language like that in public is not accepted especially when there are children around.
I know that you might not understand, but most believe (believe it or not) actually do mind when people use foul language in public especially when their children are present and they don't want their children listening to such words.
If this shirt just said "F*CK" and no mention of Bush, trust me, the woman would be forced to change it or get kicked off the plane.
:bs:

you talked about wear shit that you know who be offense to others, and green is definately offensive, but notheless if her t-shirt had said fuck terrorists she would NOT have been asked to leave, not even close.

so its complete :bs: to say that this is about a four letter word and its not about keeping "order" as you claimed before.

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2005, 01:00 AM
Sorry JP, but when I become a parent, I will prefer to choose when and where my child encounters vulgarity. I don't need some trashy stranger on a plane to do it for me. That's partially why we have ratings for movies, for video games, on television. By the by, when was the last time you heard fuck on network television? (NBC, ABC, CBS)

IMO, the ACLU tarnishes it's credibility (which is sorely needed for truly important civil liberties cases) by taking on garbage such as this.
so what are you going to demand that someone walking down the street wearing a teeshirt that says "fuck bad parents" to be arrested? :smash:

and yes paris hilton said fuck on fox, you can see a video of it on ebuams world.

and no that is NOT why they have rating on games and movies. thats so that people know what they are PAYING FOR, but not so that inept parents can keep grown folks from having the FREEDOM to pick their own wardobe.

kabuki
Oct 9th, 2005, 02:42 AM
so what are you going to demand that someone walking down the street wearing a teeshirt that says "fuck bad parents" to be arrested? :smash:

and yes paris hilton said fuck on fox, you can see a video of it on ebuams world.

and no that is NOT why they have rating on games and movies. thats so that people know what they are PAYING FOR, but not so that inept parents can keep grown folks from having the FREEDOM to pick their own wardobe.

Being arrested and denied access or service is two totally different things. If someone came in my place of work wearing that, I would ask them to cover it as well. My other clients don't want to see vulgarity on an article of clothing.

I should hope FOX bleeped the-esteemed-arbiter-of-good-taste Paris out.

I did use the word partially, didn't I? Sex, violence, adult themes, language- those are the reasons for labels, so that people and parents can make easier decisions regarding their and their children's choices. My point in bringing it up is that there are standards applied, and whether such classy individuals as this woman like it or not, the rest of us don't want to be subjected to their trash. It's like second hand smoke or loud music at 3am- have your freedom, but not at the expense of others.

I mean come on. Would you wear a shirt like that in public? Would your Mom? To an airport?

cheesestix
Oct 9th, 2005, 04:09 AM
so what are you going to demand that someone walking down the street wearing a teeshirt that says "fuck bad parents" to be arrested? :smash:

Who got arrested? :rolleyes: The lady was kicked off an airplane for violating the airline's policies. Why is that so hard to understand??? :confused:

BTW, look it up if you don't believe it's Southwest's policy. :rolleyes:

and no that is NOT why they have rating on games and movies. thats so that people know what they are PAYING FOR,

Yeah, right. That's why movie theaters can legally deny access to an R-rated movie for someone that's under 17 (unless accompanied by a guardian)??? :rolleyes:

And, BTW, if it's NC-17, then they're legally supposed to deny access to anyone under 17 in all cases. ;)

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2005, 04:51 AM
Being arrested and denied access or service is two totally different things. If someone came in my place of work wearing that, I would ask them to cover it as well. My other clients don't want to see vulgarity on an article of clothing.

I should hope FOX bleeped the-esteemed-arbiter-of-good-taste Paris out.

I did use the word partially, didn't I? Sex, violence, adult themes, language- those are the reasons for labels, so that people and parents can make easier decisions regarding their and their children's choices. My point in bringing it up is that there are standards applied, and whether such classy individuals as this woman like it or not, the rest of us don't want to be subjected to their trash. It's like second hand smoke or loud music at 3am- have your freedom, but not at the expense of others.

I mean come on. Would you wear a shirt like that in public? Would your Mom? To an airport?

fine then is someone had on a tee-shirt that said "fuck bad parents" would you have them be denied access to public transportation?

and no paris was not bleeped, thats why its so funny.

and about the ratings, people just know beforehand whats inside, that doesnt mean that people are forced to stop making these games, in fact its had the opposite affect ever since the ratings for movies and games have been introduced they have only gotten more and more violent.

and no i dont buy this bs about labels being there to protect children, because most violent games in the hands of children were bought by thier parents who know well and good that its violence and cursing in the games and dont care. the same with movies, got to any r rated movie and see just how many parents take their kids to see this shit. the same parents, that will complain and bitch when an ADULT expresses himself. the labels are there to protect companies from getting sued by idiots who dont give two shits about what their children see and dont see, but will cry foul at the first chance of making a buck.

Erika_Angel
Oct 9th, 2005, 06:08 AM
Jigglypuff, If someone walked onto that plane with the phrase "F*ck bad parents" or "F*ck terrorists" I would definately think they would be asked to remove or change it. This is not about what the actual message of the shirt was, this is about what was written on it and that it is offensive to most people.
Now saying that I was saying bullshit about Green and the word "f*ck" not being similar. I'm sorry Jigglypuff but once again you are the one trying to twist things around. The color green is NOT offensive to most people, and is accepted everywhere. Unless the person had some grave fear of the color the normal person would not be offended by it. However vulgar language offends ALOT of people, generally not young people (15-25), but parents of children, older people etc. would usually be offended.

Stop trying to make this out to be something about Bush, because honestly darling, it just is not. It is about walking onto a public plane OWNED by a company, and that company feeling that the shirt she was wearing was not suitable attire for their plane, not because it has Bush on it, but because it had vulgar language on it. If the t-shirt said "F*ck Terrorists" or "F*ck Bad Parents" they would be asked to remove it aswell.

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Jigglypuff, If someone walked onto that plane with the phrase "F*ck bad parents" or "F*ck terrorists" I would definately think they would be asked to remove or change it. This is not about what the actual message of the shirt was, this is about what was written on it and that it is offensive to most people.
Now saying that I was saying bullshit about Green and the word "f*ck" not being similar. I'm sorry Jigglypuff but once again you are the one trying to twist things around. The color green is NOT offensive to most people, and is accepted everywhere. Unless the person had some grave fear of the color the normal person would not be offended by it. However vulgar language offends ALOT of people, generally not young people (15-25), but parents of children, older people etc. would usually be offended.

Stop trying to make this out to be something about Bush, because honestly darling, it just is not. It is about walking onto a public plane OWNED by a company, and that company feeling that the shirt she was wearing was not suitable attire for their plane, not because it has Bush on it, but because it had vulgar language on it. If the t-shirt said "F*ck Terrorists" or "F*ck Bad Parents" they would be asked to remove it aswell.

you honestly believe that is someone walked into a plane with a shirt that said "fuck terrorist" people who have complained to get this person removed from the flight?

you really believe this eh?

and stop with the stupidness of the plane being privately owned, you only show how little you know of federal regulations, how laws work that control public and private entities. :wavey:

ttaM
Oct 9th, 2005, 03:42 PM
Here is what can get you kicked off a SWA flight:

"A person whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, patently offensive"
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf (top of page 11)

If a person is wearing a shirt that has "fuck" on it, I don't care what precedes it or procedes it, this person is an attention whore.

If you want to test this policy on your next flight, visit this website :lol:
http://www.tshirthell.com/hell.shtml

:wavey:

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Here is what can get you kicked off a SWA flight:

"A person whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, patently offensive"
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf (top of page 11)

If a person is wearing a shirt that has "fuck" on it, I don't care what precedes it or procedes it, this person is an attention whore.

If you want to test this policy on your next flight, visit this website :lol:
http://www.tshirthell.com/hell.shtml


:wavey:

thats fine. my problem is two fold:
one if someone wore a teeshirt that said fuck terrorists they would not be ejected.
and they never define what is a offensive (i.e. they dont say you cant have foul words, they just say you cant have things are offensive with is VERY subjective)

cheesestix
Oct 9th, 2005, 04:07 PM
and they never define what is a offensive (i.e. they dont say you cant have foul words, they just say you cant have things are offensive with is VERY subjective)

I guess you just missed the part (of the policy) about clothing being lewd or obscene? :confused: But I guess words like "fuck" don't fit into that (lewd/obscene) category? :rolleyes:

As for "offensive" being subjective....yeah, right. Who would imagine that the word "fuck" might offend someone? :rolleyes:

BUBI
Oct 9th, 2005, 06:57 PM
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/3/30735993_F_tn.jpg

Erika_Angel
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:49 AM
thats fine. my problem is two fold:
one if someone wore a teeshirt that said fuck terrorists they would not be ejected.
and they never define what is a offensive (i.e. they dont say you cant have foul words, they just say you cant have things are offensive with is VERY subjective)

Your whole argument bases around some fantasy situation where you "think" that a person wearing a tshirt saying "F*ck terrorists" wouldn't be asked to change or be removed from the plane .... news for you .... it hasn't happened so stop claiming it like it has, and secondly, like most have said, they most probably WOULD be ejected because like cheesestix said, F*ck is considered offensive (and don't give me your bullsh*t about green being offensive :rolleyes: )
Your argument is both flawed and hilariously ludicrous.

Erika_Angel
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:56 AM
you honestly believe that is someone walked into a plane with a shirt that said "fuck terrorist" people who have complained to get this person removed from the flight?

you really believe this eh?

Yes hun I do, is that so hard to believe :rolleyes:

and stop with the stupidness of the plane being privately owned, you only show how little you know of federal regulations, how laws work that control public and private entities.

The point I made about the plane being owned by a private company had nothing to do with that. I was just pointing out that the company had a right to kick the woman out because the top she was wearing went against their dress code. For some reason you find this hard to understand. Why? I have no idea :rolleyes:

oh .... and :wavey: to you too ..... :tape:

SelesFan70
Oct 10th, 2005, 06:09 AM
Believe me, those crying "Freedom of Speech" wouldn't be so swift to defend her if it said something like...

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/crap/new/images/Fuck/Fuck%20Poverty.jpg

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/crap/religious/images/God%20hates%20fags%20but%20lesbians%20are%20the%20 shit!.jpg

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/T_SHIRT_DESIGNS/images/RETARDED_PEOPLE_MAKE_BETTER.jpg

drake3781
Oct 10th, 2005, 06:29 AM
Believe me, those crying "Freedom of Speech" wouldn't be so swift to defend her if it said something like...

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/crap/new/images/Fuck/Fuck%20Poverty.jpg

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/crap/religious/images/God%20hates%20fags%20but%20lesbians%20are%20the%20 shit!.jpg

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/T_SHIRT_DESIGNS/images/RETARDED_PEOPLE_MAKE_BETTER.jpg


I would, and I would be disturbed if others on the plane were making a deal of it... that's the basis for free speech. Don't have to like it, but tolerate it. It's not dangerous, just ugly.

Scotso
Oct 10th, 2005, 01:59 PM
This has really gone too far. We live in a country where freedom of speech is supposed to be so treasured. You know... I hear people shouting "explicatives" every day in public, and I never see them punished for it... but someone puts it on a shirt and OH NO?! Give me a break. It's just a word like any other.

In my opinion, "Bush is a weenie head" is no better than "Bush is a fucktard." :shrug:

In any case, the woman should not have been kicked off the plane, but well... Southwest Airlines is based in Texas, and that mostly explains it. Not only is it the home of our most imcompetent leader, but it is probably the most backwards state in the nation.

Scotso
Oct 10th, 2005, 02:00 PM
I would, and I would be disturbed if others on the plane were making a deal of it... that's the basis for free speech. Don't have to like it, but tolerate it. It's not dangerous, just ugly.

I would, too. You can't pick and choose with things like this. Freedom is freedom, no matter who is the subject.

Denise4925
Oct 10th, 2005, 04:21 PM
This has really gone too far. We live in a country where freedom of speech is supposed to be so treasured. You know... I hear people shouting "explicatives" every day in public, and I never see them punished for it... but someone puts it on a shirt and OH NO?! Give me a break. It's just a word like any other.

In my opinion, "Bush is a weenie head" is no better than "Bush is a fucktard." :shrug:

In any case, the woman should not have been kicked off the plane, but well... Southwest Airlines is based in Texas, and that mostly explains it. Not only is it the home of our most imcompetent leader, but it is probably the most backwards state in the nation.
:rolleyes: That has nothing to do with anything. What is it about the airline's policies that you don't understand? It has nothing to do with violating the woman's constitutional rights and it has nothing to do with Bush, but everything to do with the airline's policies, and contrary to what cheestix said, the shirt was not obscene or lewd as that is defined or can be defined on a case by case basis by the courts, but that it was offensive and it caused the other passengers discomfort. Now, it seems that if she's going to fight this case, it will be based on a breach of contract between her and the airline, and not on any constitutional issues such as violation of her rights to freedom of speech or any type of discrimination.

harloo
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:34 PM
I just don't buy that. If the shirt said just plain old "fuck," I think the result would have been the same.

Well then you don't realize how defensive some people in this country are concerning Bush. Many folks have lost their jobs and livlihood for speaking out against this President. I have never witnessed anything like it ever.;)

harloo
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:36 PM
and it has nothing to do with Bush


The t shirt did say Fuck Bush. So how does this have nothing to do with him?:confused: I just don't think much of a deal would of been made out of the shirt if someone else was named.

Denise4925
Oct 10th, 2005, 08:26 PM
and it has nothing to do with Bush


The t shirt did say Fuck Bush. So how does this have nothing to do with him?:confused: I just don't think much of a deal would of been made out of the shirt if someone else was named.
I think we are talking about two different things here. One is an emotional argument that I really agree with and the other is a legal argument. Yes, it probably garnered more attention because the tee shirt featured Bush, but that has nothing to do with the airline's position and their right to deplane this woman.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 11th, 2005, 02:11 AM
I don't know why people can't just accept what the two qualified lawyers on this thread are saying about the applicable legal doctrines. It's not as if Denise and I always agree and are colluding about this. Nor is it that either of us likes George Bush.

Fact is, Denise is absolutely correct in everything she says. End of story.