analog

For a person who so emphatically shouts "think of the kids" in such a high-falutin' way, you sure don't seem to give a shit about the freedoms these children are supposed to have, and cherish.

The freedom that allows us to be critical of our government, the freedom that allows us to print newspapers that contain news, not propaganda, the freedom that alllows us to assemble peaceably, to protest, and to practice whatever religion we choose or none at all, is the same freedom granted us to wear a t-shirt that says, "fuck" on it.

You may not like the content, you may not like the message, but you should have more respect for the freedom to say it. Freedoms do not serve to hold, bind, or constrict, they set us free.

If your child is seriously, permanently damaged from having to see the word "meet the fuckers" on a t-shirt, you are a bad parent. You determine their education, you are responsible for the bulk of their wordly experience into their early teens... and if you strangle-hold your children so bad that anything outside the "safety bubble" from reality you've created for them gives them an actual mental problem, YOU are the problem, not the fucking t-shirt.

"Think of the children", indeed.

xepherys

I wonder if Southwest has written policies in view at the airport terminal, ticketing counter or on the ticket itself outlining this policy. If not, I think SW is SOL, and at a BARE minimum owes her a complete refund, including the money from the first leg of the flight.

Sure, it's their right, but it's also their responsibility to inform customers what the rules are.

Cynthetiq

those rules don't need to be written in plain view. there's only a few laws on the books that require such postings and even include what font and size they are required to be in. there's lots of rules that they foist upon their cusmtomers that they don't know about until they read the fine print on the back of their ticket that directs them to their website for a full disclosure statement.


Southwest contract of carriage
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf

I don't think that there is a sign big enough to have all this information on it.

__________________
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.

serlindsipity

Whatever happened to flipping the shirt inside out? they did that to us when we were in school.

I'd agree with docbungle too, that takes a bit of gall to wear that and not expect a reaction of some sorts.

__________________
My third eye is my camera's lens.

rsl12

On the flip side, I think it requires an attention-craving personality to want to wear a shirt like that.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

cellophanedeity

Oops... wrong button. Sorry. See post below.

cellophanedeity

You know what? I think the world would be a better place if we could just ban tacky T-shirts.

No, really, I think it's fair of the airline to kick her off, but not mid flight. I don't think that the ammendments really play into this at all, as it's a private company.

If a person walked into my counseling centre with a shirt like this on,
I'd tell them that they had to come back when they changed their shirt. Would that be against the American first ammendment? (or the Canadian charter?)

How about if I wore this shirt to my weekly scout meeting, where I lead 5-7 year olds? If they kicked me out, would that be against the first ammendment?

Yeah, I know that this is exaggerating things (that website is terrible...) but it's along the same lines.

highthief

Why do some people think that you are allowed, under freedom of expression, to say and do anything you want in any circumstances. I can't go into a movie and talk all the way through it and not expect to be kicked out. When one person's "freedom of expression" impinges upon the rights of every else to not have to listen or see something offensive (especially in an enclosed environment such as a plane), just what do this dingbat's advocates think is fair?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

FngKestrel

From T-shirt Hell's website, in response to this whole t-shirt thing:

xepherys

Wow... That's awesome!

Telluride

Apples and oranges, man. Had I claimed that students at public schools should be required to attend class 180 days per year until they were 18 and then have to pass a bunch of tests to graduate because public schools are "heavily subsidized" and "near monopolistic", it would be logical for you to insist that I apply this standard to everything that is "heavily subsidized" and "near monopolistic". But I didn't do that, so your comment doesn't apply to anything I said.

Schools are solely for education. Airlines are solely for travel. If push came to shove, I'd argue something like this was far more appropriate in a school than on an airplane. It could lead to an exchange of ideas, which can aid the education process. An exchange of ideas isn't necessary to ride on an airplane from one place to another.

Anyway; my point was that if you're going to argue that people on a plane have a right to a certain amount of free speech because airlines are "heavily subsidized" and allegedly "near monopolistic", this should apply to people in any environment that meets this criteria.

But a public school isn't public domain?

I agree. There should be no law prohibiting shirts that say "fuck" on them. Privately owned businesses, however, have every right to implement a dress code on private property.

__________________
"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

Telluride

Because some people don't seem to understand the concept of individual rights.

Exactly. But since a movie theater is a privately owned business, whether or not a talkative customer is allowed to stay should be decided by the owner or manager.

We don't have a right to be shielded from everything we may find offensive. When you venture out into public you have to accept the fact that you may see or hear things you don't like.

__________________
"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

analog

You're not forced to "see something offensive in an enclosed environment"... the only thing you can see on a plane is the seat in front of you, or the sides of the people around you. If you can see the shirt someone is wearing, it's because you're walking past them. WALKING PAST THEM. Not camping out and staring at the damn thing. It doesn't burn itself into your retinas... once you look at it, read it, and get your shorts in a bunch, you can look away. It's not like the woman is blocking you from seeing anything you'd otherwise want to see without obstruction of the pure evil emblazoned across her chest.

Going into a movie and talking through it violates the rules of the movie house- which has nothing to do with freedom of speech, only the rules of the private business- so your movie argument is pointless and doesn't apply. Also, according to the above carrier rules, there's nothing in there that covers the reason she was kicked off the plane. Wearing a t-shirt that some- note that is SOME, not all- people might find offensive, is not "being offensive".

So you're suggesting that a major tenet of every good document of civil rights, the freedom of speech, should be amended to disclude "tacky t-shirts" because there are some whiny crybaby dipshits whose lives are thrown into turmoil because they happened to glance at a shirt that said "fuckers" on it? It wasn't just the word for the sake of the word, either. It was political satire and a pun on a pop-culture reference. It wasn't just a shirt that said "fuckers" for the sake of saying "fuckers".

Also, the other shirts you gave as examples with "this is the wrong place to wear X shirt"... if you can't look past satire (just because it's not funny to you, doesn't mean it's not funny)... if anything you dislike is automatically offensive, that is a very closed-minded way to live, and I am disappointed.

What a sad, sad, pathetic existence is that of the person whose universe comes crashing down on them because they chanced to see a dirty word. Boo. "Fuckers". Hoo.

I have to look at feminine hygiene commercials all day. Do I want to? No. But i'm not going to bitch about it, because the world does not revolve around me, and just because I chance to see something I dislike, in passing, I'm not going to have a heart attack, piss my pants, or break down crying.

That's because i'm not a stupid douchebag, like these people.

It should be noted that I can count on one hand the number of times i've ever had to resort to using the word douchebag. I'm THAT bothered by the stupidity of others.

highthief

So are airlines. SW is a publicly traded company owned by private investors.

True, but the movie analogy still holds. People go on a plane (or a theatre or a restaraunt or Disney World) with an expectation of certain societal norms, and that does not include a tee shirt with the word "fuck" on it. Now, a nightclub might not care, but the airline does, and they can do whatever they want. It is not a free speech issue.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

highthief

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive,
threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently
offensive;

You were saying? It's rule numero uno...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

pig

that was my entire point. airport does not equal school. my point with the amount of federal $$$ that goes to bail out the airline industry every year is that I find the argument that airlines are private companies to be fallacious if you follow the $$$ trail. they are only "privately" owned because we can't allow them to fall into bankruptcy, because they are a de facto public form of transportation, particularly in the US.

No, nor is it particulary necessary anywhere. It's not necessary in the street, it's not necessary at the mall, etc. Following this argument, there would be very few places where the exchange of ideas is actually necessary; to argue that freedom of speech only applies in these places will very strictly limit where one can speak freely, no?

see above. that's not actually my argument for where I feel freedom of speach should apply, but rather my opinion of the airline industry.



yes, and it's rather different from a lot of other areas.


what other rights do private businesses have? what other rights should they have. i think it's important to separate those aspects that are my opinion of what i would prefer, and which aspects are legally binding, which i think is covered in above posts.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

highthief

The government offers subsidies to farmers, mining operations, forestry concerns, the arts, and a million other things. Are these government operations also? What about contractors who receive government dollars to build bridges, roads and other infrastructure projects?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

pig

in my opinion, that's an interesting point. always makes me laugh a little when people talk about what you can and can't do in a "private" business. similar issues with land "ownership" and so forth. also, note that i didn't say "government operation" (your phrasing) but "public domain."

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Spanxxx

I might have missed something in the list here, cause I got kind of tired of reading the revolving door of comments somewhere down page 2.

However, I wanted to point out that there is a very common practice of businesses turning away customers based on dress code. Has everyone forgotten about the whole "suitcoat" in a restaurant situation? Now, I've always thought this was a very silly practice, but still it goes on. Usually though, the way around it is that the restaurant often will kindly offer someone a jacket to wear during the meal, barring the rest of their attire fits within the guidelines (no shorts, tennis shoes, sandals, t-shirts, etc.).

No matter what is on the clothing, the principle here is the same. The business has the right to refuse the business. Now, of course, if they let you get half way through with your meal,then came to you and told you to leave, it would be a bit asinine. However, EVEN then, they would have that right. It might not be smart for them to act upon that right for the obviously good reason of maintaining a professional business atmosphere, but alas, they could do so if they wished.

That said, the women seemed stupid to me. She was asking for a reaction from someone. She got it. She should deal with it. She felt she was treated unfairly, and because she caused a media sensation, she'll probably get a settlement out of Soutwest. Yay, go her. Another fine example of how damaging our damn media driven culture is to our values of right and wrong.

At Southwest, the people gathering tickets are doing their best just to get you on the plane as fast as possible. There were probably other ways for them to handle the situation, but there again, how much do we really know about what happened? It sounds to me like they gave her the opportunity to diffuse the situation and prevent other passengers from being upset. She did not take it, and Southwest was within every margin of their rights and in my opinion, obligation, to ask her to leave. The last thing an airline needs is someone aboard who intentionally is trying to create an uncomfortable atmosphere for others.

__________________
I think that's what they mean by "nickels a day can feed a child." I thought, "How could food be so cheap over there?" It's not, they just eat nickels. - (supposedly) Peter Nguyen, internet hero

Cynthetiq

a business entity has all the same rights as a whole physical individual.

__________________
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.

filtherton

The first thing i notice reading this thread is that most of the people whom i associate with being against the "pussification of america" (as some have labelled it), are now in fact arguing for it. Hmm.

In any case, i could understand them kicking her off, but it seems rather pointless to me. The same way nearly anything on network t.v. is trite and innoffensive. Because americans love things that are trite and innoffensive.

I also think private businesses have way too many rights in america. Where exactly in the constitution does it say that for profit businesses are entitled to bill of rights protections?

roachboy

that would follow from the absurd decision to recognize "corporate personhood" during the 1880s.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Telluride

And I support the right of airlines to create and enforce their own rules for passengers.

I agree that airlines and other privately owned businesses have a right to make and enforce a dress code. I was only disputing the idea of a "right" to not see or hear something offensive.

__________________
"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

Telluride

I never argued that a school and an airline were the same thing.

Do you believe that public schools are "heavily subsidized" and "near monopolistic"?

Do you believe that the property of a business that receives government subsidies is just as private as the property of a person who receives government subsidies in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc.?

See my comment above.

I haven't argued that the right to freedom of speech - or any individual right, for that matter - should only be allowed when it is considered necessary.

I do maintain that free exchange of ideas is necessary to a good education, though.

Here is what you said:

"I think as a customer, using a heavily subsidized form of near monopolistic transportation, she should have some expectation to free speech."

If that was only your opinion of the airline industry rather than an argument for freedom of speech, why did you mention the customer's "expectation to free speech"?

Different in what way? Should schools be treated any differently than any other entity that is paid to provide a service?

We need to remember that rights and laws aren't the same thing. The law is frequently used to deny business owners their basic rights to choose to hire or not hire anyone for any reason, etc.

__________________
"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

pig

really quick - i have to sign off the intranet for a while, so i'll not be able to discuss for some time, but in answer: yes, public schools are funded almost entirely by public $$$. i view schools as a special place which caters to the education of our youth, and they have some marked differences from the general public domain as a result thereof. i'm not really going to argue that - the list of examples is fairly obvious. as for the free exchange of ideas, i agree completely.


depends on the nature of the business and what type of place the person on welfare lives. business = do they cater to the public and invite them in (say, for instance, an airport) or do they manufacture goods (say, a crushed velvet factory with heavy machinery around). welfare person = do they rent or own? if they own, they don't really "own" (nor do any of us) but that's another thread.

because, (note the bolded that i added.) it's not just that it's subsidized, and monopolistic, but that it is specifically a de facto form of public transportation. for instance, an f16 is also subsidized and monopolistic, but i'm not arguing that military personel should have the same rights to wear "fuck you president bush, you assbagging son of a whore" on their shirts (while on base,in the cockpit, etc). the airlines invite the public in, they use public tax dollars heavily, and i argue that makes them different from mom&pop's upscale italian restaurant, or welfare mom's shitty one-bedroom apartment, or an f16, or an industrial factory. it makes them a lot more like the town square, or the mall, or the sidewalk, the long island ferry, or a ski slope.

wonder why that is?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

FatFreeGoodness

Pigglet: “...the airlines invite the public in, they use public tax dollars heavily, and i argue that makes them different from mom&pop's upscale italian restaurant, or welfare mom's shitty one-bedroom apartment, or an f16, or an industrial factory. it makes them a lot more like the town square, or the mall, or the sidewalk, …”

Both your basic premise and your comparisons are flawed, here.

Flawed Examples: your assumptions as to how “public” the various locations you cite have no basis in reality. It appears you are assuming that many people being present makes something public, since you call a town square and a mall "public." But while a town square is publicly owned, a mall is private property. The mall invites customers, not all comers. They have the right to restrict behavior that is not in their best interests (which is selling things), even though the behavior may be perfectly legal. For instance, you have a right to hand out pro-choice or anti-abortion leaflets in public, but the mall may eject you for this. It is illegal to discriminate against customers based on certain characteristics such as race, but don’t assume that such rules make the mall any less private property. The same rules apply when you sell your house or car.

Flawed Premise: Receipt of tax benefits / subsidies mean an entity is semi-public-owned.
Reality: Simply not true. A factory may elect to locate in a state because the state offers tax subsidies. The state does assuming the factory will provide enough economic benefit to make it worthwhile. The factory does NOT become any less private property if they choose to take the offer.
Similarly, an airport may be constructed using public funds (as in most cities) because the cities think they will benefit from the improved air service they hope will result. The airlines do not become partially owned by the city or state, regardless.
Consider this: Imagine you are planning on building a garage on your property, and I offer you $5,000 to build it farther from our mutual property line. You accept, and build it in a location we mutually approve. Later, I assert that I can store my lawn equipment in the garage because I paid for part of it. However, that was not our deal.

pig

Legally? No crap. See my earlier posts. As far as the legal stuff, go back up and see what I posted about what I can tell about the actual legal aspects. I think they've got a case when they add obscenity + political speech. Maybe. Maybe not.

Some of it is opinion (ie. receiving tax dollars makes it publicly owned) - I think that certain types of places, where you receive a lot of federal/state/public $$$ and invite the public in should come into consideration when determining how much you may restrict the public's attire and comportment, and in that sense the amount to which it is public or private.

As far as the mall goes, I'll take your word for it. I've seen some atrocious things in the malls down here (in yon bible belt) and I'm pretty sure that a large portion of the people would rather they didn't have some of it around. They don't kick 'em out, and I've always assumed it was related to that whole "they're not actually breaking the law" thing. Can they, for instance, kick you out for wearing an "abortion is murder" shirt? Regardless, it doesn't really matter. I think I've presented my opinion on this issue enough times that it is, as someone else posted above, a revolving door. For the legal stuff, see start of post.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

uncle phil

damn...all of the above for a shitbag who wore an over-the-line "message" in a public place? let's get back on topic, ok?

__________________
"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.

Mherlee

My mother taught me that what you do is ok as long as you aren't hurting anyone. I cuss like a sailor at home when my kids are asleep but would never wear a shirt like that in a closed public area like that. I can just hear my 5 year old sounding it out "Ffff Uuuu Ccccc" acccccck. Sounds to me like she was looking for a reaction adn got it. Heaven forbid she should take responsibility. If they had kicked her off with no other choice I would feel for her, but she had the choice to stick by her behavior or eat crow and turn her shirt around or wear her sweatshirt properly. Sounds like she wasn't willing to back down out of embarassment...BIG problem in our society.