Woman Kicked Off Flight For A Bad Word on T-Shirt

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
SO again with the hypocracy from the right wingers.
"Freedom of Speech, as long as you say something I like, if not we will kill you."

Why is that? Just like they use God to defend their actions when they hate on Gays/Blacks/Jews yet God never says hate them, humans do, but not God. It would take hundreds of shrinks thousands of years to figure out one of these people.

"So you say your God is all loving yet you go out and beat black men to death for being black, but did they have a choice? Didn't God make them black?" They then call in security to restrain the right winger when he snaps and starts on his well, right winger rant.

"So you say the 1st Amendment is the most important, yet you routinly censor people or attack them because they don't worship the same politicians as you?"

Get my point? Just strange.




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
It becomes less and less subjective, when many people complain.

It became clear that people were offended...Now, do you take off, and fly, knowing you have a potential Mile High argument on your hands?

Or do you kick off the offender, and let people relax?

Airlines are businesses (some even make money).
I think they were trying to piss off the lowest number of people possible.


Woo-Hoo! I figured out how to quote properly!

Anyway, that's actually a very good point. Like I said, Southwest has the right to make a decision on these matters, especially if they feel it would put people in danger. I wonder if they bothered to explain that aspect of it to her.

My beef is more with society in general expecting obscenity to be controlled (and that by someone who only agrees with their views, if it were even possible). That shirt being considered obscene may have been the prevailing view on that particular plane, but what if the 'Jesus Saves' T-Shirt was on a plane with a bunch of people heading to some kind of Muslim conference or something? They would become the majority, and the 'Jesus Saves' T-Shirt would have to go as potentally obscene and riot provoking under that logic.

How could we avoid this double standard, other than to expect that we should all have respect for eachother's opinions, even if we don't agree, to ensure a fair and safe society? While we can simply turn our backs to what we don't like, we choose to impose our opinions and will on others, and that should not be tolerated either.

Yes, it was a rather nasty shirt, with a rather nasty sentiment, but once we start there, it could get out of control in society at large, not just with one airline.

The proclivity toward violence to solve our differences (potental disgruntled airline passanges) is a whole other issue.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   


I don't want to read people's clothes with the F Bomb on them.


Objection noted. I want to wear clothes bearing profanity. Now there's a conflict between the desires of two citizens. Not uncommon, really. It's up to us to mediate the dispute in a sensible fashion.

You won't budge, and I won't budge because you won't. So nobody's budging. (Is that even a word?)

You can't make me stop wearing the shirt, and since no harm has befallen you there isn't a legal recourse.

So basically you just have to look away and forget you ever saw the naughty word.

All that being said, I defend the right of the airline to set dress codes as they see fit to promote their business with the uptight crowd. It's a huge market, and the airlines couldn't survive without them. Hell, the airlines can't survive with them.



I don't care who they are complaining about - Bush, Clinton,
Koffi Annan ... It's invading my space and I don't want to see it.


That's nonsense. It's invading your space and you don't want to see it? What about ugly people? What about fat people? What about Persians? What if the shade of pink on one of your sweatshirts offended me and someone like Grady was the pilot? You'd be focked.

Back in the real world people have to learn to get along with one another.

The shuttlecock's in your airspace...



She's a classless idiot for wearing it in public.


Personal opinion is all fine and well, but you're not the only citizen who has one.

I have a lovely shirt that has a nametag printed on the material, it says "Hello, My Name is [the bad word]face." Down the arms is printed "Mean People Suck." I like the shirt very much, and it's comfortable. Sometimes people laugh when they see it, which is good. Sometimes people smile, which is also good. Sometimes people really have fun with it, calling out to me and such. All in good fun. Never once has someone come up to me and said "Your shirt is very offensive, and I want you to cover up."

Maybe the fact that I'm enormous has something to do with that, or maybe people are just cowards when they know they're being ridiculous and are afraid of being laughed at to their face. I don't know.

I think peoples' personal aversion to certain words is their right, but making it societal dictum is irrational and primitive. What are we, apes hiding in a cave afraid of lightning? It's just letters, words, concepts, ideas. The parents can't educate their children on bad words and good words, they can't reinforce good behavior without attempting to stifle the natural environment of public discourse?

Nobody better try to argue that obscene clothing isn't a function of public discourse, that would be foolish. You can't legislate taste, just ask Larry Flynt.

This society has gotten in the nasty habit of censoring ideas based on the objections of a vocal minority. Everyone knows reasonable, sensible people don't write letters or complain to the air crew when they see a bad word in print. It's the vocal minority, the people who like to impose their will upon the world, who get all the recognition in this country.

Most people just shrug it off as bad taste and go on about their lives. That's the sensible thing to do.

I'll never fly Southwest again, and I used to be a paying customer of theirs. Screw 'em if they can't stand up for the rights of all their passengers equally.

Of course it's their right to allow mob rule, but I think it shows a lack of character in a business when it plays into the hands of extremists to garner support from those camps.


[edit on 7-10-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
SO again with the hypocracy from the right wingers.
"Freedom of Speech, as long as you say something I like, if not we will kill you."

Why is that? Just like they use God to defend their actions when they hate on Gays/Blacks/Jews yet God never says hate them, humans do, but not God. It would take hundreds of shrinks thousands of years to figure out one of these people.

"So you say your God is all loving yet you go out and beat black men to death for being black, but did they have a choice? Didn't God make them black?" They then call in security to restrain the right winger when he snaps and starts on his well, right winger rant.

"So you say the 1st Amendment is the most important, yet you routinly censor people or attack them because they don't worship the same politicians as you?"

Get my point? Just strange.


You are taking things out of context, right wingers or left wingers or whatever they may be.

The issue here is that a private company has a policy not to allow people with offensive t-shirts onto their flights unless they cover them up or remove the shirt. That is called right to domain and is an act of free speech. The woman's right to free speech is limited by what the owner of the jet may allow, this is because we believe in property rights. You, the owner, have the right to do what you will with your property, and the owner of this particular property has a policy saying 'No offensive t-shirts'.

It is much like the censorship here on ATS. Do you get what we mean?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstrik
This borders on indecent exposure and shouldn't be allowed to be worn in public. Do you want your children reading crap like this? I see anti-american and anti-Bush shirts all the time on the streets, so nice try to bash America but try again.

Is this some sort of parody or something???



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Where does it stop then? Judging by your character i'm guessing you wouldn't mind if people wore shirts with naked people sexxin on it either. Well guess what this is a nation of laws and although the very vocal minority such as yourself are pushing the moral limits of this country daily, doesn't mean there still aren't many people who do want to explain things to their kids on their own time not because some idiot decides hes funny and enourmous enough to wear something in public without repercussions.

It's called having respect for other people, not living in cave man times. Morals are something some people never learn so it's a waste of breath speaking to them, thus we need laws to enforce things in this case. It also is a maturity factor I think the majority of the time, they want to be funny or insult people so they where something "taboo" in public to get attention their mommy never gave them.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
WyrdeOne
Finally a sane response!! vote coming your way.

I think such a situation could be used as you said a teaching opportunity (as should many situations that people don't take advantage of) It's is not very hard to explain to your children that you do not, and you think that they should not, use such language.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstrik
Where does it stop then?
...
Well guess what this is a nation of laws


You answered your own quesition. Public nakedness is against the law. It's against the law to display pornography publicly. It's called indecent exposure.

Profanity or the display of such isn't against the law.

That's where the line is. The LAW.


And even though you weren't talking to me, no, I wouldn't mind the shirt you described. But it's against the law.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

If anyone does care, it will be parents with kids who will
make sure they DO fly the on that airlines.



You know, that would be fantastic! Then I would know which one to avoid like the plague!

No more ear popping baby screaming for me! No more incessent peek-a-boo when I want to sleep! Or little kicks to my backside...

(Sorry, that just made me chuckle, and this is my attempt a light-hearted joke. I've been hoping for an airline that just caters to families for a while just so I don't have to sit next to the dreaded... screaming baby on the plane!!)

EDIT: Arg, I guess I shouldn't have been so happy with myself for learning how to quote...

[edit on 7-10-2005 by LucyStoner76]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Naked is a crime in public, so it is different. Saying the F word isn't

*Off topic vulgar humor removed by nasty moderator.

I edited it since I got warned. I edited myself already but guess it was to explitive(sp?) Sorry for that. Hopefully this one isn't considered to explitive(sp? or using right? I need a dictionary)

[edit on 7-10-2005 by Full Metal]



[edit on 7-10-2005 by kinglizard]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by rstrik
Where does it stop then?
...
Well guess what this is a nation of laws


You answered your own quesition. Public nakedness is against the law. It's against the law to display pornography publicly. It's called indecent exposure.

Profanity or the display of such isn't against the law.

That's where the line is. The LAW.


And even though you weren't talking to me, no, I wouldn't mind the shirt you described. But it's against the law.


Distrubing the peace is against the law, and distrubing the peace can be qualified as many different things. If you walk into a Police station and start cursing out everybody in the place, you don't think they will arrest you it? Specifically displaying text that is cursing isn't per say against the law but doing it in such a way that offends or causes a commotion is against the law. Goes back to the same as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. No law prohibits the language of saying Fire but doing it in a way to disrupt society does. This arguement can go on forever, a grey area of the law is just that, no hard proof required only the discretion of the authoritative figure witnessing it.

/die thread



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstrik
Distrubing the peace is against the law, and distrubing the peace can be qualified as many different things.


I referenced this on page 2 of this thread. If you don't want to read the whole thing, please just read the parts in bold below.


U.S. Supreme Court
COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
403 U.S. 15

COHEN v. CALIFORNIA
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. 299.
Argued February 22, 1971
Decided June 7, 1971

Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "**** the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26



Specifically displaying text that is cursing isn't per say against the law but doing it in such a way that offends or causes a commotion is against the law.


No it is not. Those who start the commotion, depending on what action they take, may be breaking the law, but the displayer of profanity, as long as that's all he's doing is not breaking the law.



This arguement can go on forever, a grey area of the law is just that, no hard proof required only the discretion of the authoritative figure witnessing it.


Sorry, but only in the minds of those who oppose public profanity and wish it to be illegal, is it a gray area. The law is very clear.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I guess that I also have the right to fart in public. Not take a shower and stink the whole place up. My right. Would I do? No.

Lord knows that I try to protect my son from the "real world". He has to grow up sometime. I just hope to make his journey a better one than I had.

When does it become ok to bash people over the head with your opinion on how you feel? I believe in free speech just not the kind that she wants.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Racer5
I believe in free speech just not the kind that she wants.


Then you do not believe in free speech.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
She wants the right to wear cuss words in public. I don't agree. Thats the good thing about the US.. we can agree to disagree..


[edit on 7-10-2005 by Racer5]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
oh gosh big deal so she wore a shirt with "the f word" i thought it was freedom of speech here man unless its in a threatening manner which it wasnt



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Sorry, but only in the minds of those who oppose public profanity and wish it to be illegal, is it a gray area. The law is very clear.


*waves white flag*

Curse on people curse on.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rstrik
Nice try but you forgot to quote the most important aspect of this lame story.

The shirt had pictures of members of the Bush Administration, and a phrase based on the movie "Meet the Fockers," but with one crucial vowel changed.

This borders on indecent exposure and shouldn't be allowed to be worn in public. Do you want your children reading crap like this? I see anti-american and anti-Bush shirts all the time on the streets, so nice try to bash America but try again.


I fail to see how that has much to do with.. well anything. With or without pictures of bush and 'anti-bush' sentiments, it is a clear violation of freedom of speech, not to mention freedom of dress.

How is wearing that t-shirt un-american anyway? It is not, it may be anti-bush but being anti-bush and being anti-american are two VERY different things.

It is always such a great argument for bush supporters to make. If you are being anti-bush you are being anti-american. But the truth is, you are not. You are making criticisms and remarks on the CURRENT administration of the USA. Nothing more. Infact, for those of us lucky enough to live in a so-called 'democracy', it is our job to criticise the current administrations.

You will probably also find, that bush is not many of the peope's president. To alot he is an embaressment, and the whole world gets to watch as America makes an a** of itself.

Back to the topic at hand, i used to have a t-shirt that said "F*** OFF" (without the ***'s) ALL over it, it said it about 15 times in this nice little patern. The teachers used to love it! (I'm actually being serious.. they did) and I also used to wear one that said "F*** OFF A**HOLES" in big blue capital letters, again without the *'s and i never had a problem with that at school either.

This is just a sign of things to come, i fear.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Racer5
I believe in free speech just not the kind that she wants.


Then you do not believe in free speech.


Spot on there.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The airlines have the right to decide what is and isn't acceptable to wear on their planes. It's that simple. As has been stated many times, it's the same with any business. Have you ever tried to fly standby on an airline? Most of them have a dress code. Some of them require you to wear a dress shirt, and slacks. If you show up in a t-shirt and shorts, you're not getting on the plane. If they have the right to decide for a standby passenger, then they have the right for a paying passenger. They have the right to do a lot of things people don't realize. You can buy a ticket months ahead of time, show up to check in and get to the gate, and they can tell you "Sorry, you're not getting on the plane." and there's nothing you can do about it.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join