Martian and friends,
I did a little digging around - I'd love to continue this more after I've had time to do more looking. What I found was something off wikipedia (i know, open community submission - beware the devil FIRE FIRE FIRE) but it was quick and seems fairly decent.
linky A couple of quick things:
1. The notion that Freedom of Speech only applies to the State, in an official capacity, not being able to stop an individual from freely expressing themselves does not seem to be correct. Otherwise, the law would seem to be useless. This isn't just freedom of the press, or freedom of religion. This is the freedom to say what I want, when I want, yes with certain exceptions. I seem to recall the provision of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and the like.
2. I note that there seem to be some limitations on obscenity, but then there is this clause "
Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
So the discussion also get muddied back down by the fact that the shirt *did* have a political message, and you can't just arbitrarily set that apart. I can see a lawyer right now making the case that the shocking nature of the obscenity was viewed to be key to getting the message of the political protest across, etc. It would seem that using this type of test, that the onus will come down on the airline to prove that they were within their rights to supress. I think they may be in for a difficult time, and I would look for a settlement.
3. I personally think that there is a huge difference between running around yelling "fuckety fuckety fuck fuck fuck fuck" or whatever was mentioned above, and having a stupid t-shirt on. I wouldn't move to suppress either one, but they are not the same. That's like saying, in my opinion, that if someone farts on a plane, they should be kicked off, becuase if someone pulled down their pants and dropped a steamer in the middle of the aisle they probably would be relocated. It's a question of degree.
4. Regardless of Case law and so forth, I am also speaking in completely non-legal sense about the type of world I would
rather live in. One where people wouldn't wear this kind of thing in public; but if they did, then others would simply ignore them. Which do you think actually has a greater chance of getting this woman to reevalute her choice? All this crap, and becoming (right or wrong) a "martyr" for Free Speech, or simply enduring a lot of people looking at her like she was an idiot?
To reiterate, I will personally always come down to side with a position that allows for
too much expression over too
restricted. I don't like the precedent this type of action creates. That's my long end position. I would much prefer a society that might seem too wide open for some, than a society that seems to repressed for some.