pigglet - The thing is, the first amendment
doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions. What it does is prohibit the state from persecuting you based on your ideas or beliefs. Looking the other way while I bashed your head in with a rock would qualify as persecution as it wouldn't grant you equal rights and opportunities. I could do that, but I'd be subject to the laws prohibiting that.
If you want to argue this on the most basic level, you're right in that her freedom has been violated. As the United States is not an anarchistic nation, such violations are necessary.
And I have to completly disagree with you on the 'try and give up' policy. Ignoring her just says that it's okay to do things like that, which again will reflect poorly on the airline with the passengers. That's something the airline does not want and cannot afford to do.
Frankly, had I been the member of the flight crew to make the call, I wouldn't have given her the second chance. She was given a fair bit of leeway and chose to ignore the opportunities given to her to amend behaviour that was clearly stated to be unacceptable. How is it the flight crew's responsibility to coddle her and protect her from her own ignorance?
As I'm Canadian, the first amendment doesn't apply to me. We do have something similar in the Charter, which is our equivalent of the Constitution :
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
|
Emphasis mine. That, however, is tempered by the Application of Charter :
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charter of Rights and Freedom
32. (1)This Charter applies
a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
|
This, of course, mirrors the first amendment insofar as it guarantees that I have the right from my provincial and federal government to be immune from any persecution or undue action as a consequence of the way I choose to express myself. On private property, such as the premises of a business, it's a different ballgame. They have the right to exercise any legal action available to them in order to prevent me from expressing views they find untoward or in an untoward manner on their premises, up to and including ejection from said premises. If I'm expressing a message of love and universal harmony I'm probably okay; ejecting someone with such a message isn't good business. If I'm being profane and upsetting other clientele, not only is the business within it's rights to eject me, but they're pretty much obligated to; if they don't their clientele will go somewhere where they're not going to be offended, which is most likely to be a competitor.
The truth of it is I find the woman more pitiable than objectionable, but that doesn't mean her behaviour was acceptable. She's a 32 year old child and I laud the flight crew for standing firm and forcing her to accept that her actions have consequences.
Psycho Dad - I'm native Canuckistani, but I'm also naturally inquisitive and therefore took it upon myself to find out just how the constitution and amendments work. Besides, I'm in love with a yank. Since I'll have to take the citizenship exam someday, it's probably a good idea for me to know these things.