Carno

Wtf? That has nothing to do with wearing a shirt that has "fuck" written on it.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

jorgelito

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.

highthief

Exactly - t's the obscenity, near as I can tell, that got her in Dutch, not her political views (views shared by the majority of Americans at the moment). The Tibet analogy is flawed.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

ScottKuma

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.

GoogleMap Me

ScottKuma

Probably because the flight attendant determined that she purposefully decided to ride up her t-shirt. And I'd guess she's probably right...I've never had a t-shirt "slip" far enough up my torso while sleeping to display the area where most t-shirt silkscreens are located.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

pig

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

maleficent

My bet would be she didn't wear the sweatshirt, she probably just put it over the front of her like a blanket -- then when she fell asleep.. it slid down (like a blanket would do)

__________________

pig

yeah, my bestest uninformed guess is that someone who would wear that crap in the first place on a plane was probably doing just about everything she could to make sure that it was visible, while still trying to stay just this side of complying with the request to cover it up.

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

Jinn

I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that this had more to do with soemone being offended by an attack on their 'man' than the actual language. If it had said "Meet the Fuckers" as a play on the movie, without the faces.. I suspect we wouldn't be hearing this story at all. They're both political statements (Free Tibet, Fuck Bush..) and such is my correlation.


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:

Similarly, if you're worried that your kid is going to say the fuck word, teach him now to behave appropriately. Don't blame some nitwit on a plane for using a word YOU choose to be offended by.

__________________
"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

Ganggreen

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?

maleficent

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/we...9odonnell.html


Interesting article from the NY Times... I'm too lazy to check Southwest's Contract...

__________________

rsl12

I'm guessing you're in the minority--that most of the people here would agree that it's an obscenity issue, not a political one.

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:

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Jinn

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

Cynthetiq

having just been on several long international flights over 7 hours each... one being 17 hours I can tell you all about the media I watched and how sanitized it was. I did have an option to at least use my portable DVD player but still... it was interesting to watch for the "loops" where they removed the offending words.

__________________
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.

albania

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.

Cynthetiq

Cathay Pacific, British Airways, American Airlines all were relooped. Just goes to show that the market will let things happen as they see fit. If you don't like it on one airlines then you go to another... vote with your wallet.

__________________
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.

uncle phil

the "lady" deserves to be booted from the flight for, if nothing else, a total lack of common sense...jeebus 'ckin' cripes, lets just all go out and buy and wear the most agitating tee-shirts we can get and just fuck everyone's sense of taste and sensibilities...

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.

Charlatan

As someone who licenses content to airlines I find the scenario you describe very hard to believe. Nearly all airlines show edited versions of the films they screen. I don't know the specifics of Virgin but will try to look into this...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

albania

It was a while ago i think 99 anyway i remember it well because i was young and needless to say very happy to see it, i looked up the movie, it was croupier with clive owen.

Edit
P.S. it was a good movie just thought I'd mention it.

lindalove

The majority? I think that's a bit excessive. I think if it had been a "majority" we would've been seeing that said instead of "other passengers complained." I read that not as a majority, but as some adults acting like spoiled brats and whinging and whinging and whinging so the staff finally kicked the women off in order to not have to deal with the complaints.

Martian

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

Psycho Dad

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.

Prince

I wouldn't be the least bit offended by a shirt like that. Don't we have bigger things to worry about? Everyone just has to be offended by something these days.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

pig

well, because technically it has.

but really, that's not the point. our freedoms are regularly constrained by the old social contract, etc.

I brought it up because it had been mentioned in previous posts, and I find in general that people seem to have a sense these days of standing up for our rights in cases where its a moot point, but not wanting to defend the extreme cases where it actually matters. Does this case matter? Hell no. I consider the actual situation to be trivial. A pox on this woman, and fie on her to boot. But I don't like the precedent of de facto censorship over something I see as so completely juvenile. as for the first amendment, well, i'd have to say it does absolve one of some potential consequences of that free expression, otherwise it's absolutely meaningless. I mean, it's not free if you can say whatever you want, then I can bash your head in with a rock. In my opinion, the first amendment should not protect you from being ridiculed by others if you say something stupid. For instance, I can be saying saying something absolutely asinine right now as far as you're concerned, and you can post back and say "pigglet, you steaming pile of rhino feces. would that your mother had sewn her labia together such that ye were never born..." and that's fine. i think that kicking someone off a plane, which I consider public transportation, is taking it too far for such a little thing. in my opinion, you allow this kind of crap to slide, then the next thing is that someone is censored for something more *serious*, and the person just says "well, they offended me" and so yes, I kicked them off the plane in the middle of nowhere. That's not to say I'm not sympathetic to the flight attendant/pilot's position, but I think that after reasonable efforts to get this ass to behave, you eventually let this one slide. choose your battles, etc. or else announce over the microphone that people may want to avoid the idiot in seat 3A who is wearing the incendiary shirt. there are lots of ways to more cleverly handle this situation, in my opinion.

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

Jinn

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

pig

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

Martian

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 :

Emphasis mine. That, however, is tempered by the Application of Charter :

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.

__________________
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

FatFreeGoodness

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.

ScottKuma

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.

GoogleMap Me

pig

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

jt6879

The first problem of this story is it happened in Reno... lol

__________________
Just remember this my friend, when you look up at the sky, you can see the stars and still not see the light..

Vincentt

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

__________________
.

AquaFox

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...

tangledweb

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.

KellyC

Ok, maybe not the majority, but it seems like the people who complain are more than the people who agitated the complaints, which is just her. Power in number. I think the staff would rather piss off 1 people rather than 2 or 3 (I know that's what I'd do). The decision to leave the airplane is still hers, they didn't exactly kick her out. And it has been said before, but she's just asking for trouble when she wears that T-shirt and trouble came (I would also like to add that she also have her fair share of complaints, so she's just as bad as the other "spoiled brats" passengers). Serves her right.

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

la petite moi

It is wrong of the airline to kick her out, because of free speech in this country. However, it was tacky and idiotic of the hick woman to wear a shirt like that when children may be present.

Psycho Dad

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.

Leviathan[NCV]

Sounds like free speach to me... We live in a country where business get the right to choose, am I wrong here?

And, ack, someone else already posted it!

Telluride

Using those standards, public schools wouldn't be allowed to have dress codes.

__________________
"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

using that argument, you'd have to attend airport 180 days/year until you were 18, and then you'd have to pass a bunch of tests to be able to board and get off the planes.

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