Freedom of speech? Not on our plane!!

[Qdrop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/national/07passenger.html

Air Passenger Is Grounded Over T-Shirt

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 7, 2005

RENO, Nev., Oct. 6 (AP) - A woman was ordered off a Southwest Airlines flight in Reno for wearing a T-shirt with the pictures of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and an obscene word.

The woman, Lorrie Heasley of Woodland, Wash., said she planned to file a civil rights complaint against the airline over the incident, which occurred Tuesday at Reno-Tahoe International Airport.

Ms. Heasley, 32, said she wore the shirt as a joke and wanted her parents, who are Democrats, to see it when they picked her up at the airport in Portland, Ore. Ms. Heasley, who sells lumber, argued that she had a right to wear it.

"I just thought it was hilarious," Ms. Heasley told The Reno Gazette-Journal. "I have cousins in Iraq and other relatives going to war. Here we are trying to free another country, and I have to get off an airplane - over a T-shirt. That's not freedom."

Marilee McInnis, a spokeswoman for the airline, said the shirt became an issue after several passengers complained as they boarded during a scheduled stop in Reno.

After several conversations with flight attendants, Ms. Heasley agreed to cover the word with a sweatshirt. When the sweatshirt slipped while she was trying to sleep, she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave. She and husband, Ron, chose to leave.

Ms. McInnis said Southwest rules allowed the airline to deny boarding to anyone whose clothing was "lewd, obscene or patently offensive."

Allen Lichtenstein, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in Las Vegas, said Ms. Heasley's shirt was protected political speech under the Constitution. The real issue, Mr. Lichtenstein said, is that the airline allowed her to wear the shirt onboard and then objected only when passengers complained.

The flight originated in Los Angeles before making the stop in Reno. No one from Southwest complained about the shirt at Los Angeles International Airport, and neither the pilot nor crew members objected when she boarded the aircraft, Ms. Heasley said.

Ms. Heasley said she had been in touch with A.C.L.U. lawyers in Seattle and wanted Southwest to reimburse her for the last leg of their trip.

[TurdBerglar]

i can understand that. i can see a bunch of people getting rattled on the plane about that shit. no need for a bunch of pissed of fuckers trapped in a tube miles above the earth.

[beastieangel01]

yeah that's some shit.

[ms.peachy]

I don't know anything other than what you've posted here, but if that's it, then I don't know if she has got a case. If it was just political speech, then that is one thing. But if it can be deemed to be 'obscene', then the airline is well within it's rights.

[Junker]

Fuck That!!! Everybody is free to wear what they want to. :mad:

[ms.peachy]

Fuck That!!! Everybody is free to wear what they want to. :mad:
Since when?

[Junker]

Since when?

1893

[ms.peachy]

1893
Go ahead and see oif you can find me any law in any state of the US of A that says that a privately owned company does not have the right to exclude a person from its premesis on the basis of the use of obscene or offensive language. I dare you.

[TonsOfFun]

HOWEVER, you would think a line would of been set. I am sure and are willing to bet that some one at least once has worn a T-shirt with an slogan on that could of been offensive...

...unless they have all been thrown off the plane to, then that is some fucked up shit.

Or are you saying it's ok for one rule one person and another rule for another because of what they beleive because we need to have a law on everything and no common sense?

[Junker]

Go ahead and see oif you can find me any law in any state of the US of A that says that a privately owned company does not have the right to exclude a person from its premesis on the basis of the use of obscene or offensive language. I dare you.

Nahhh!!!!!! Im not in the mood to look for this law youre talking about. I just said that cause thats my revolutionary spirit talking trough my words. I dont need arguments to support my opinion. I just disagree (with everything)..... :D

(Damn........I need stop listen to Rage Against the Machine that often)

[ms.peachy]

HOWEVER, you would think a line would of been set. I am sure and are willing to bet that some one at least once has worn a T-shirt with an slogan on that could of been offensive...

...unless they have all been thrown off the plane to, then that is some fucked up shit.

Or are you saying it's ok for one rule one person and another rule for another because of what they beleive because we need to have a law on everything and no common sense?
I think it IS common sense.

First of all, in this case the woman wore it because clearly, she knew (by her own admission) that it was controversial. And she is allowed to do that in any PUBLIC forum.

But, an commercial jet liner is not a public forum. So, if a representative from the company has decided it is obscene - whether by their own initiative, or after complaints from other passengers, it's irrelevant which - and asked her to take steps to comply with their standard, that's their right. It's not about the political statement, it's about the obscenity.

None of us has any way of knowing how often this has happened before, so it is pointless to speculate as to when and how discretion is applied. We only know about it now because this woman has chosen to involve the ACLU. (And it really irritates me that the ACLU would spend money on this. I hate it when they make me consider rescinding my support with this kind of frivolous bullshit.)

I have personally confronted people who were wearing t-shirts considered to be obscene or inappropriate in both the museum I currently work in (in the UK) and in a previous museum (in the US), and I have no qualms about doing so.

[Junker]

But something obscene to you could not be obscene to me.....

For example, if a passenger go to the jet liner administration and complains about someone using a obscene t-shirt and the people who work on the jet liner dont think it is obscene, what should they do?

[armyofme]

Good thing we threw her off that flight. She might have been dangerous.

Honey, where did you put my boxcutter?

[kll]

Reno. ha!

[ms.peachy]

But something obscene to you could not be obscene to me.....

For example, if a passenger go to the jet liner administration and complains about someone using a obscene t-shirt and the people who work on the jet liner dont think it is obscene, what should they do?
It is at their discretion. They can either say, "Yes, we agree it contains obscene language" or "No, we can see how you may find it ideologically offensive, but it does not constitute an obscenity in our judgement."

Remember, too, that it would have been just as possible for the 'offended' passenger(s) to file suit against the airline for failing to take action.

[wanton wench]

i think barney (that stupid fuckin purple blob) is offensive. so do i have the right to complain and ask that someone be removed from a plane if they are wearing a tshirt with him on it?

:rolleyes: just wondering!

[ms.peachy]

i think barney (that stupid fuckin purple blob) is offensive. so do i have the right to complain and ask that someone be removed from a plane if they are wearing a tshirt with him on it?

:rolleyes: just wondering!
Sure, go ahead and try it. And if the airline fails to act, and you can find a lawyer who will take your case, you can take it to court if you like. You have all of those rights.

But you don't have any right to wear a shirt with obscene language on the premesis of a private company.

It's always amazing to me what a limited, tiny concept people have of this 'freedom of speech' stuff. :rolleyes:

[mickill]

Freedom of speech is insignificant if you don't actually excercise your freedom to think first. This isn't pertaining to do the first post, just a lot of the replies to it.

[armyofme]

That was so profound. Seriously, your glistening manhood of depth is riveting. Post again so that I might gaze in wonder at your enlightened state of being.

[mickill]

An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.

[armyofme]

Im pretty sure that just made me swallow my tongue.

[mickill]

If you build it, he will come.

[armyofme]

You are so magnamimous and righteous.

Like Ratt righteous.

[Qdrop]

armyofme really reminds me of Nuzz.....

hmmm....

[armyofme]

No no. Please don't. She is like the Elvira of this message board.

[mickill]

No. Nuzz was BEAR!

[Qdrop]

No no. Please don't. She is like the Elvira of this message board.

i just don't get the allure of creating an alias....
it's so self-indulgent...

[TonsOfFun]

"excuse me sir/madam, do you mind covering up your tee-shirt if if you have nothing to cover it up with, turn it inside out as it might offend passengers in these crazy times"

That would of been fine, and although I didn't read that this didn't happen and I have no clue what the ACLU is, I still think it's beyond any common sense. I am sure they could of been loads of scenarios to deal with the situation before sending them off a flight. I'm sure you don't ask people to leave but cover them up...

[armyofme]

i just don't get the allure of creating an alias....
it's so self-indulgent...
Everything we do for pleasure is self-indulgent.

and Im not an alias dipshit :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

Everything we do for pleasure is self-indulgent.

and Im not an alias dipshit :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[wanton wench]

But you don't have any right to wear a shirt with obscene language on the premesis of a private company.

It's always amazing to me what a limited, tiny concept people have of this 'freedom of speech' stuff. :rolleyes:

i was not talking about a tshirt with obscene language on it. the article said the shirt offened people. then they complained. then she was asked to turn it inside out or leave. (right? maybe i should reread it) my point is everyone has a different view of what is offensive! a private company has the right to ask anyone on their premesis to leave! but how do we/they decide what is offensive enough to ask someone to leave?

you either have freedom of speech or you dont! if i cant say what i want where i want when i want and to whom i want then i dont have feedom of speech. or at least thats my limited tiny concept on the whole thing!

:D

[Monsieur Decuts]

if your mom would have said "take that shirt off" then I think its safe to say its offensive.

My mom wouldn't let me where a shirt that said FUCK on it...what kind of message are you trying to send to people if you step on the plane with the word FUCK on your shirt. I'm pretty sure this wasn't so much about the people on the shirt but the verbage.

I can throw you out my my apartment anytime i want to...you have the right to say what every you want...but I also have the right to kick you off my property whenever I want, whatever the reason. No one HAS to do buisness with you (there's exceptions to that statement, but i'm sticking to it)

[Bob]

this reminds me of the time they wouldn't let me on the bus with my "I HATE NIGGERS" sign...god freedom of speech is DEAD in this country

[ms.peachy]

i was not talking about a tshirt with obscene language on it. the article said the shirt offened people. then they complained. then she was asked to turn it inside out or leave. (right? maybe i should reread it) my point is everyone has a different view of what is offensive! a private company has the right to ask anyone on their premesis to leave! but how do we/they decide what is offensive enough to ask someone to leave?
It said quite clearly in Q's original post that the T-shirt contained obscene language. Maybe brush up a little on your reading comprehension?

you either have freedom of speech or you dont! if i cant say what i want where i want when i want and to whom i want then i dont have feedom of speech. or at least thats my limited tiny concept on the whole thing!
:D
Yes, that is your tiny limited concept. The first amendment does not guarantee you the right to say anything you want anywhere at any time. After you've brushed up on that comprehension thing, try looking up the actual relevant laws sometime. It's amazing how much more sense these things make when you are actually armed with facts.

[mickill]

I love when peachy goes MENSA on that ass.

[ms.peachy]

I love when peachy goes MENSA on that ass.
It just gets up my nose when someone brays on about their right to freedom of speech whilst clearly having no concept of their responsibility to know what the fuck they're speech-ing about.

[TonsOfFun]

Stop swearing in this thread please, it's offending me.

Maybe I'll choose not to pay attention to it instead, see if that works?

[wanton wench]

It said quite clearly in Q's original post that the T-shirt contained obscene language. Maybe brush up a little on your reading comprehension?


Yes, that is your tiny limited concept. The first amendment does not guarantee you the right to say anything you want anywhere at any time. After you've brushed up on that comprehension thing, try looking up the actual relevant laws sometime. It's amazing how much more sense these things make when you are actually armed with facts.
haha you missed my point! i dont need to brush up on anything! the obscene language offened people. i was asking if other offensive things would get a person thrown off a plane and where do you draw the line at what is offensive?

by the way where the fuck are your facts? all you saying is i'm wrong which anyone can say! prove it!

here are mine:

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.



now for those who cant comprehend. when you read the next line after the bold text you will say this proves me wrong. but think about it a moment longer........................................the government will have to prove her tshirt caused a breach of peace or cause of violence for them to win their case. but i dont see that happening since it only caused a few people to be offened. and for those who cant read i already agreed with the fact that a private company has the right to deny service or throw anyone out for any reason they see fit! i'm not a dumbass and i dont need to brush up on shit.
cheers bitches!

[mickill]

Went a bit overboard there with the copying and pasting, no? HELLO.

[wanton wench]

Went a bit overboard there with the copying and pasting, no? HELLO.
hello how ya doing?
well i thought a few people might like to read what they are talking about!

[mickill]

I'm not knockin your hustle, scrap. Do your thing.

[wanton wench]

did you just call me scrap???


i always do my thing! whether its knocked or not!
but thanks :D

[Documad]

by the way where the fuck are your facts? all you saying is i'm wrong which anyone can say! prove it!
This isn't about facts. And it's not a matter of opinion. (You could make it about your opinion by saying what you think SHOULD happen.) Instead, you're arguing about what the law IS. Ms. Peachy is correct.



first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I.

* * *

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation.

* * *

the government will have to prove her tshirt caused a breach of peace or cause of violence for them to win their case. but i dont see that happening since it only caused a few people to be offened. and for those who cant read i already agreed with the fact that a private company has the right to deny service or throw anyone out for any reason they see fit! i'm not a dumbass and i dont need to brush up on shit.
cheers bitches!
The article says that Southwest Airlines enforced its rule in forbidding her from wearing her shirt. Southwest Airlines is not the government. Thus the authority you cited does not support your argument.

btw, the airline does NOT have a right to deny service "for any reason they see fit." It cannot refuse to fly black people, for instance. There are different laws that forbid that. ;)

[Medellia]

Southwest Airlines is not the government.
You beat me to it, Doc. :/

[Documad]

Ms. Peachy beat us both. :p

[hardnox71]

People really do need to chill. Don't we Americans have something else more important to worry about?
Apparantly not. This country's priorities are so far off.

[ms.peachy]

well i thought a few people might like to read what they are talking about!
Physician, heal thyself.

I know you think posting that big old hunk of crap made you look smarter, and as if you had a clue. But guess what...

[Medellia]

Ms. Peachy beat us both. :p
Word. Way to go, Peachy! (y)

[wanton wench]

This isn't about facts. And it's not a matter of opinion. (You could make it about your opinion by saying what you think SHOULD happen.) Instead, you're arguing about what the law IS. Ms. Peachy is correct.



The article says that Southwest Airlines enforced its rule in forbidding her from wearing her shirt. Southwest Airlines is not the government. Thus the authority you cited does not support your argument.

btw, the airline does NOT have a right to deny service "for any reason they see fit." It cannot refuse to fly black people, for instance. There are different laws that forbid that. ;)
ms. peachy made this about facts. the law is the law. i didnt state my opinion.
if this case goes to court, who do you think they will be dealing with?
the airline does reserve the right to refuse service. they cant be racist about it but they can refuse you.
i'm a peacful person. i dont like to argue. but come on, read the bill of rights! then read the cases (just a few) that have used it in court. and you will see there are many ways to interpret it.
ms. peachy- i dont care if i look smart or not. i know my rights and i wont just sit here while you tell me i'm wrong. if i'm wrong then prove it!

[ms.peachy]

ms. peachy made this about facts. the law is the law. i didnt state my opinion.
if this case goes to court, who do you think they will be dealing with?
the airline does reserve the right to refuse service. they cant be racist about it but they can refuse you.
i'm a peacful person. i dont like to argue. but come on, read the bill of rights! then read the cases (just a few) that have used it in court. and you will see there are many ways to interpret it.
ms. peachy- i dont care if i look smart or not. i know my rights and i wont just sit here while you tell me i'm wrong. if i'm wrong then prove it!
Quite aside from the fact that you're not making much sense... give it a rest. I'm done with this now.

[wanton wench]

reading comprehension problems!

[mickill]

Now you did it.

[ms.peachy]

reading comprehension problems!
Uh, yeah... something like that...

How about this: you win, you're right, you're making perfect sense, everything you have written here has utmost clarity, you've clearly made your points and I'm just too dense to see them. Obviously. Victory is yours.

[wanton wench]

i dont need for you to tell me i'm right! thats not what i was going for!
i was hoping you would have an open mind!
i was open to the fact that i might have been wrong. so i went and looked everything up again. and guess what...............................

[ms.peachy]

i dont need for you to tell me i'm right! thats not what i was going for!
i was hoping you would have an open mind!
i was open to the fact that i might have been wrong. so i went and looked everything up again. and guess what...............................
(y) good for you!

[Junker]

Sure, go ahead and try it. And if the airline fails to act, and you can find a lawyer who will take your case, you can take it to court if you like. You have all of those rights.


Damn, you guys like to sue everything :eek: