|
View Poll Results: How do you weigh in on this? The airline... | |||
can take or leave anyone they want, and have no obligation to "free speech" as a business. | 42 | 31.34% | |
is justified because they could be responsible for their passengers' exposure to it. | 12 | 8.96% | |
is enforcing a made-up rule, no one complained, and it shouldn't have happened. | 23 | 17.16% | |
is within their right, but should respect free speech more than that. | 27 | 20.15% | |
can go fly a kite, they're not getting my money for such a display. | 17 | 12.69% | |
-- Why is this news? Who cares? -- | 13 | 9.70% | |
Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
10-12-2005, 08:51 PM | #41 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/ |
|
10-13-2005, 01:13 AM | #42 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I think there may be some confusion here. Here's how I understood the article:
1. They did ask her to cover up and she did cover it up with sweatshirt. 2. Onboard, she says the sweatshirt "slipped" revealing her t-shirt 3. SWA staff then asked her to either turn the shirt inside out or get off the plane. 4. She CHOSE to get off the plane. I personally believe the image of the people are irrelevant. I also think it's weird that once the sweatshirt "slipped", why couldn't she just put it back on again? By the way, on airplanes, the profanities are edited out of the movies. |
10-13-2005, 02:02 AM | #43 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum. |
|
10-13-2005, 04:59 AM | #44 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Maineville, OH
|
Free speech applies to the government jailing you for political views (among other things), not to a private business denying service for obscenity.
Southwest was in the right. I also don't think that SWA was obligated to find this person a flight on another airline. She made two distinct choices - to wear the shirt in the first place, and to deny the request to turn the shirt inside out. Either one would have allowed her to continue her trip. I love seeing bad karma instantly balanced...and on a similar note, I wonder if she got extra security screening for her t-shirt's message!
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me |
10-13-2005, 05:03 AM | #45 (permalink) | ||
Insane
Location: Maineville, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me |
||
10-13-2005, 06:43 AM | #46 (permalink) |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
well, seems i'm the minority vote here. fine. screw you guys, I'm going home...
/channels Cartman but seriously, don't get me wrong - as I said before, the woman sounds like an ass. wearing that sort of thing in public, particulary at the ripe old age of 32 is pretty innervating. i personally hate all that super-clever crap such as bumper stickers and t-shirts and so forth proclaiming one's political opinion with a little quip like this. my opinion is essentially that i would rather tolerate such a nuissance in public, than to censor it out. i don't like the precedent. who is really hurt by letting an idiot proclaim themselves publicly? your kid? i'd bet they are exposed to this a *lot* more often than by some lady with a shirt that says "fuck" on it, and this way you can make a little lesson out it. it's not like she was a street preacher with turret's syndrome, spewing obscenity-laced messages of armegeddon to her captive airborn audience. she had one little crappy t-shirt, that probably looked like she'd picked it up in daytona beach. as for the 1st amendment aspect - it seems the first amendment is rapidly falling out of favor in our country - i seem to recall statastics showing that a large portion of school kids these days think it should be ok to censor the news. if you want to protest a political event, you can do so - from a nice, safe, far-away distance. i think it sucks donkey balls. there. i said it. don. key. balls. nice and offensive. and i would rather have that spice being kicked around, than to have a nice, well mannered, staid public. everyone on their p's and q's. all the time. that's not to say i always want be the person doing the offending, but i'd rather have a society that tolerates it and errs on the side of tolerating other's views, than one that fails the other way. is this still part of the backlash against the sixties counter culture that seems to be in favor now? for the private business aspects. this ain't mom and pops bistro. this is a de facto public form of transportation that hasn't managed to be consistently solvent for any respectable period of time that i can recall. they are only still operating because federal tax dollars bail them out. ng: no particular offense on the nascar stuff - it was a rhetorical point. i do really hate spandex in public places. icky icky foo. to each their own...now, the nail polish stuff. that's just a personal anti-fetish of mine. it drives me up the walls. kind of like eddie murphy's "hammertoe" thing in boomerrang. /off to work
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
10-13-2005, 09:44 AM | #47 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Moderator Emeritus
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
__________________
Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.
|
|
10-13-2005, 10:08 AM | #48 (permalink) | |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Quote:
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
|
10-13-2005, 10:12 AM | #49 (permalink) | |||
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Furthermore, if it was truly upset over the FUCK word, you should thank this idiotic lady for giving you a chance to have an actual CONVERSATION with your children about what is appropriate and what is not. Seeing FUCK on her shirt certainly isn't going to scar them for life and it gives you a prime opportunity to discuss good public behavior.. Education is always better than censorship. EDIT to add a great quote by JJ: Quote:
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 10-13-2005 at 10:19 AM.. |
|||
10-13-2005, 10:44 AM | #50 (permalink) |
Tilted
|
Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title "Meet the Fockers."
ok..it says the t-shirt was SIMILAR to "Meet the Fockers"..does anybody know EXACTLY what the shirt said? |
10-13-2005, 10:51 AM | #51 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Moderator Emeritus
Location: Chicago
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/we...9odonnell.html
Quote:
Interesting article from the NY Times... I'm too lazy to check Southwest's Contract...
__________________
Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.
|
|
10-13-2005, 10:55 AM | #52 (permalink) | ||
On the lam
Location: northern va
|
Quote:
Though I can't prove conclusively that it's an obscenity issue, I did some research of my own, and came across this: http://www.editorsguild.com/newslett...ght_movies.htm Apparently airlines go to great lengths to remove the word 'fuck' from movies on domestic flights, as well as many other words: Quote:
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy. |
||
10-13-2005, 11:18 AM | #53 (permalink) |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/s...nastore/823759
Tee's, cups, mugs, hoodies, tank tops.. MEET THE FUCKERS! I should note that I firmly agree that a private company has the right to refuse service based on their own criteria; anyone with the slightest understanding with the laws of the US knows this by inspection. The question, for me, is whether they SHOULD have. Cohen vs. California specifically prohibits the Government from making using the word FUCK illegal, and case law has supported this. I think this is evident of the "spirit" of the law -- that although you have the option as a private entity-- should you really exercise that right?
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
10-13-2005, 11:22 AM | #54 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
10-13-2005, 12:49 PM | #55 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
I've seen the opposite. I have been on an international flight in which of the movies that were shown quite a few were rated R and the one i saw had a full frontal nude scene and plenty of F words. The thing was that every seat had its own tv screen and headseat but still anyone could tune into any movie, and any kid walking by could have peeked and seen the nude scene. But this wasn't an American airline it was virgin atlantic i think.
|
10-13-2005, 01:21 PM | #56 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
10-13-2005, 03:43 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
comfortably numb...
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
|
Quote:
sorry, i just have a real problem with this...
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it. |
|
10-13-2005, 05:19 PM | #58 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
10-13-2005, 11:42 PM | #60 (permalink) | |
Registered User
|
Quote:
|
|
10-14-2005, 01:14 AM | #61 (permalink) |
Young Crumudgeon
Location: Canada
|
Where does this woman getting off saying her freedom has been violated?
She's not being imprisoned, fined, exiled or beheaded for wearing an offensive t-shirt. She's not even being forced to remove it. She's being subjected to an airline's policy and having common sense forced upon her, since she is so clearly lacking it herself. Your own freedom does not come at the expense of another's and just as she was free to wear a t-shirt intended to offend, the airline is free to remove her from the flight for doing so, regardless of whether the plane's in LA, Reno or Buttfuck, Alabama. The way I see it, the flight crew did their job admirably. They approached her about a potentially bad situation regarding an offensive piece of apparel and gave her a valid alternative. She agreed (likely with a great deal of theatrics and argument; I remember the type from my own days in the customer service field), then failed to comply with the agreement. The flight crew then proceeded to offer her a new compromise, as the prior one had not achieved the desired effect. They informed her in advance of her making a decision that she would either have to comply with the new agreement or disembark. She knowingly chose the latter. Somehow that gives her the right to bitch? I don't follow. pigglet - What does the first amendment have to do with any of this? Aside from the fact that the vast majority of the world survives without it, the first amendment was absolutely upheld here. This is a point that often gets lost when discussing constitutional rights - while the first amendment gives American citizens the right to express themselves freely, it does not absolve them from any potential consequences of that free expression. It protects you from the state or the union, but not from private companies. lindalove - Look at it from a different perspective. the job of the flight crew is customer service. The job by it's very nature involves striking a balance, as it's impossible to please everyone all the time. In this case they took the appropriate action in that they had a woman who was clearly violating airline policy and in so doing was offending other passengers. Naturally it makes more sense to deal with her than to tell any other passengers who may see the shirt and complain to deal with it. And even if not a single passenger complains, it's a truism in customer service that for every complaint you receive there are 10 you don't. In other words, if you offer poor customer service, what many customers will do is rather than complain to you, they'll stay quiet when it comes to you and then complain to their friends. This ultimately results in lost revenue and the only solution is to try to spot and deal with any situations that may cause offense or lower the quality of service for customers. Bottom line is, she was being blatantly offensive and violating airline policy. She was given alternatives. She had plenty of chances and she made her own decision that wearing an offensive t-shirt was more important to her than staying on the flight to her destination. The only thing wrong with this is that she's stupid enough to think that she has any right to complain.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame |
10-14-2005, 05:11 AM | #62 (permalink) |
Mulletproof
Location: Some nucking fut house.
|
Well said Martian. I know not if you are a native Canadian or a transplant but you seem to have a better understanding of the first amendment than most flag waving Americans south of your border.
I'm also amused by people who get posts moderated on message boards that jump up with claims to their right to free speech (although I can't recall seeing it on this board).
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts. |
10-14-2005, 05:57 AM | #64 (permalink) | |||
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
but its just my opinion of what i would prefer. i'm no harriet miers of constitutional law.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
|||
10-14-2005, 07:32 AM | #65 (permalink) |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
I agree 100% pigglet
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
10-14-2005, 07:46 AM | #66 (permalink) |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
yeah, we may not follow the same pee pee protocols, but i think we're good on the bigger issues.
/think i'm going to go wash my hands in honor of this convergence of the minds...ha!
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
10-14-2005, 11:42 AM | #67 (permalink) | ||
Young Crumudgeon
Location: Canada
|
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame |
||
10-14-2005, 11:53 AM | #68 (permalink) |
Tilted
|
If you owned a business you would want the right to exclude "lewd, obscene or patently offensive" behavior also.If you owned a business you would want the right to exclude "lewd, obscene or patently offensive" behavior also. It is not a huge imposition on a traveler to ask that they not wear clothing with visible obscene messages. It is an imposition to ask other travelers to put up with it.
It’s not as if they kicked her off as soon as they saw it. They asked her to cover it; she said she would comply but did not. They asked her to change, turn the shirt inside out, cover it up, or not get on the next flight. She CHOSE not to get on the next flight. Any expenses she incurred (rental car, hotel bill) is her problem. |
10-14-2005, 12:02 PM | #69 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Maineville, OH
|
Martian:
Bravo! Well put, and 100% correctly so, IMHO. Most Americans believe that their "Freedom of Speech" applies to any ol' thing they wish to say being allowed. To those people, I can only say this: Try running around screaming,"F*** you, you F***ING F***ERS!" over and over in front of a police officer. See how long they let you go on doing this. More than likely, they'll immediately ask you to stop. When you don't, they will arrest you for indecent behavior, disturbing the peace, or some other offense. Our freedoms of speech were specifically meant to apply to the actions the government can take should you express opinions that are contrary or in opposition to the State. Meaning that the State can do NOTHING against you. Now, if you screw up & throw some profanity in there, they can censor you. If you use slander, libel, or defamatory language, they can prosecute you...but only for those offenses. So many of us fail to understand the ramifications of this important right...without it, those Liberals who love to belittle the President now (and those Conservatives who loved to bash Clinton) would find themselves imprisoned, or worse. Find an Iraqi immigrant, or a Saudi immigrant...ask them what would happen if they were to speak out against their government! Ask them what would happen if they were to openly oppose Islam in their countries!
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have. -Gerald R. Ford GoogleMap Me |
10-14-2005, 12:44 PM | #70 (permalink) |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
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.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
10-15-2005, 09:42 AM | #72 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
And how do you feel about this t-shirt? What about the fact that people wearing them are doing so only to cause problems? Some people just want to cause trouble. I remembered this shirt when I first read this story, went to the webpage, and look what I else found. http://www.tshirthell.com/traveloffer.htm Quote:
__________________
. Last edited by Vincentt; 10-15-2005 at 09:47 AM.. |
|
10-15-2005, 01:20 PM | #73 (permalink) |
WaterDog
|
i would have had that lady escorted out of the airport.... out of common sense and decency, people should be smart enough to not wear that.... and i don't see anything wrong with a private business preventing her from boarding! i've been to tons of places that would prevent entry to people like that.... in public, you shouldn't even be allowed to wear profane shirts, think of the kids! she might just as well go flash some 1st graders
i know i wouldn't let her into any venue that i own, and if she had a problem with it, i would call the cops and have her arrested
__________________
...AquaFox... Last edited by AquaFox; 10-15-2005 at 01:23 PM.. |
10-15-2005, 07:01 PM | #74 (permalink) |
slightly impaired
Location: Down South
|
You can't wear a t-shirt like that and not intend to offend people. A t-shirt with FUCK on it is going to be offensive to someone and she had to know that when she put it on. She had opportunity to correct things but chose to push the situation to a bad conclusion.
Whether or not you like/use the word FUCK has nothing to do with whether it is offensive to have it printed on a shirt and worn in a public place. She should have had more respect for others. I look at naked women on The Titty Board but that doesn't make it OK to walk around with a big shaved pussy on my shirt. It's my right to view the Titty Board but NOT my right to force it on someone else. |
10-16-2005, 12:02 AM | #75 (permalink) | |
Comment or else!!
Location: Home sweet home
|
Quote:
__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe? Me: Shit happens. Last edited by KellyC; 10-16-2005 at 12:05 AM.. |
|
10-16-2005, 05:25 AM | #77 (permalink) |
Mulletproof
Location: Some nucking fut house.
|
I feel the shirt is tasteless. And I doubt the people who buy shirts like that do it to cause problems. Instead I suspsect they do it to be attention whores.
__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts. |
10-19-2005, 11:16 PM | #79 (permalink) | |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Quote:
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
|
10-20-2005, 09:57 AM | #80 (permalink) | |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Quote:
public schools already have a rather special place in our society, and a special set of rules, as they are solely for the education of our children, etc. long story short, airports aren't the same thing as school. i can shennanigans. what i'm saying is that 1. you couldn't throw joe schmoe in jail in most towns for walking down the street wearing a shirt that says "fuck" on it, and i consider airports much closer to that type of public domain than to an expensive italian restaurant. 2. even in the towns that have such laws on the books, I would rather that you couldn't throw monsieur de la schmoe in jail. i'd rather err on the side of tolerance, etc etc etc.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
|
Tags |
kicked, plane, tshirt, woman |
|
|