Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clothes Call Dings Southwest Again (T-Shirt)  
User currently offlineJ_Hallgren From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Seems like deja vu all over again! From St Petersburg Times today (Oct 5):
"Southwest Airlines says it will apologize to Joe Winiecki for making him change his T-shirt, which uses sexual double entendre to promote a fictional fishing tackle shop."

See http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/05/Business/Clothes_call_dings_So.shtml


COBOL - Not a dead language yet!
120 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3462 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Southwest again? It is becoming boring


I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offlineCmhsrq From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 990 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

That is one classy T-shirt.


The voice of moderation
User currently offlineTINPUSHER007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

They need to get over themselves! Isn't this the airline that is supposed to be laid-back? There was nothing wrong with that shit. The type of people that fly on and for WN don't strike me as the type that would find his shirt or a damn mini-skirt offensive. For the most part, WN is the darling of the industry. Do they really want to start pissing people off?


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

"It's really disappointing in this country when I can't travel from Ohio to Florida with the clothes on my back," Winiecki said Thursday. "Who's to say what's offensive and what's not?"


First moron, freedom of speech is not absolute. Secondly, there is responsibility to go with it. Yeah, nice cute double entendre, haha, we all get a chuckle, now change it. Who's to say what's offensive? Easy. The company. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Time for people to get off this high horse of thinking they can do anything they want without consequence.

And it's time to raise the bar on what people wear in this country. For crying out loud.


User currently offlineAloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Freedom of Speech is for POLITICAL SPEECH. Not funny, sexually sugestive t-shirts.

-Aloha!



Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4870 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

I think WN need to get a grip. Seriously, anyone who understands the double entendre is old enough to see it.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 4):
First moron, freedom of speech is not absolute. Secondly, there is responsibility to go with it. Yeah, nice cute double entendre, haha, we all get a chuckle, now change it. Who's to say what's offensive? Easy. The company. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Plain red or green T-shirts can be offensive to the colour blinds. Tshirts with pictures of cats are offensive to dog lovers. A million reasons to refuse you boarding. Depends how zealous and pedantic the judge is.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineAAFan From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 4):
Who's to say what's offensive? Easy. The company. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Except in this case it was not the company that said it was offensive, it was one particular FA. The "company" actually admitted that they made a mistake and apologized to the customer.


User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1457 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting TINPUSHER007 (Reply 3):
The type of people that fly on and for WN don't strike me as the type that would find his shirt or a damn mini-skirt offensive.

"type" of people? What exactly do you mean? I've flown for other carriers, pax are ALL the same, trust me. First Class, Business Class, NO class.....they're everywhere. This assumption that our people are somehow different is tired.....Z Z zzz



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 5):
Freedom of Speech is for POLITICAL SPEECH. Not funny, sexually sugestive t-shirts.

-Aloha!

No; Free Speech is Free Speech. Period . Point blank.

U.S. Constitution :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"or abridging the freedom of speech" .... thats pretty clear.


User currently offlineN710PS From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1166 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

What the hell happened to the time when class and flying were asociated? Oh I forgot that dissapeared when Southwest came to being. (My girlfriend would shoot me if she saw this shes an WN F/A) I never fly in anything less than a pair of slacks and a polo shirt with classy shoes. Not just because my company policy states it but because I still respect flight that much. As much as I get a chuckle out of it I think that it should be reserved for the amusement park. Not the cabin of an airplane. No matter how classless an airline it is.


There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting TINPUSHER007 (Reply 3):
For the most part, WN is the darling of the industry. Do they really want to start pissing people off?

Who, exactly, are the "people" that they are pissing off?

Quoting Slider (Reply 4):
First moron, freedom of speech is not absolute. Secondly, there is responsibility to go with it. Yeah, nice cute double entendre, haha, we all get a chuckle, now change it. Who's to say what's offensive? Easy. The company. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Time for people to get off this high horse of thinking they can do anything they want without consequence.

 checkmark 

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 10):
No; Free Speech is Free Speech. Period . Point blank.

Really? Can you walk down any public street with a T-shirt on that says "F&$% YOU" emblazoned on the back without getting arrested? Or how about yelling "Fire" (when there isn't one) in a crowded theater? All of them forms of "Free Speech" and all them forms of speech that will get you thrown into jail.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
Plain red or green T-shirts can be offensive to the colour blinds. Tshirts with pictures of cats are offensive to dog lovers. A million reasons to refuse you boarding. Depends how zealous and pedantic the judge is.

That is an apples to watermelons argument and is wholly illogical. Actually, it’s kind of ridiculous.

In this case, you can make an argument that the t-shirt, double entendre or not, constitutes obscenity—promoting the general corruption or morals. Appealing to the prurient interest, as it were.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm

There are 3 general tests—read on, fair use excerpt:

Quote:
An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

The first test to be applied, therefore, in determining whether given material is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole and not part by part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person of the community as a whole, or the prurient interest of members of a deviant sexual group, as the case might be.

The second test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct such as ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; or lewd exhibition of the genitals measured against whether the material is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; that is, whether it so exceeds the generally accepted limits of candor as to be clearly offensive.

The third test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An item may have serious value in one or more of these areas even though it portrays explicit sexual conduct.

All three of these tests must be met before the material in question can be found to be obscene. If any one of them is not met the material would not be obscene within the meaning of the law.

Hmmm…check on 1, 2, and 3.


User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting N710PS (Reply 11):
What the hell happened to the time when class and flying were asociated? Oh I forgot that dissapeared when Southwest came to being.

I wouldn't say that Southwest was the cause. Deregulation was the real "killer" there. WN has been flying since 1971. Deregulation didn't happen until 1978. Complaining about the lack of class displayed throughout an industry, then (incorrectly) blaming a certain airline for it doesn't strike me as particularly classy. A lot of people these days can still afford to buy $10,000 tickets in F on airline X, Y, or Z and still board with questionable character - dresscode notwithstanding. Don't confuse cashless with classless.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 9):
"type" of people? What exactly do you mean? I've flown for other carriers, pax are ALL the same, trust me. First Class, Business Class, NO class.....they're everywhere. This assumption that our people are somehow different is tired.....Z Z zzz

 checkmark 



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Everyone needs to get off of WN's back. They are not a government owned operation. This private company can do what they want. If they tell someone to change their shirt, then so be it. They have every right to do what they are doing.

If I came to your house and you didnt like my shirt and asked me to change, I would comply or leave. It's really simple folks. Don't hate on them for trying to have some class. I know most of you don't know that that is nowadays.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineAloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 10):
No; Free Speech is Free Speech. Period . Point blank.

Do you think the founders were concerned about the right to wear a t-shirt with a "tee-hee" dirty joke on it??

Period. Dot. Bingo. NO WAY.

They were concerned about political speech and the free exercising of ideas.

Kudos to Southwest & its employees for having the balls to stand up against the pornification of our culture.

-Aloha!



Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5385 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
[a long, out-of-context rehash of obscenity doctrine]

Obscenity is an extremely tough standard to meet. The shirt in question wouldn't even come close, under any obscenity precedent in our history. Wearing the shirt may well be rude, but any attempt by the government to censor it in most public settings would be laughed out of court on First Amendment grounds.

But we're dealing with a private actor (WN) here, although one subject to common carrier restrictions, so it makes no sense to apply the obscenity standard. Southwest can kick the dude off if it wants to. But doesn't it have anything better to worry about?

People who can't tolerate the petty rudeness of others (and wearing this shirt is petty rudeness) without trying to ban things need to grow a thicker skin. We're surrounded by others all the time. They don't always act how we like. That's just life. We're well within our rights to tell them how we feel, but trying to get more and more conduct banned because you feel offended by it is infantile.


User currently offlineCgnnrw From Germany, joined May 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 5):
Freedom of Speech is for POLITICAL SPEECH. Not funny, sexually sugestive t-shirts.

-Aloha!


I really hope this is a joke. If not please show me the passage in the Constitution where this is found.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 9):
This assumption that our people are somehow different is tired.....Z Z zzz

Maybe it's just coincidence tha WN is the one airline that seems to be in the news a lot.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
Really? Can you walk down any public street with a T-shirt on that says "F&$% YOU" emblazoned on the back without getting arrested? Or how about yelling "Fire" (when there isn't one) in a crowded theater? All of them forms of "Free Speech" and all them forms of speech that will get you thrown into jail.

The US Supreme Court overturned a conviction for a man who was arrested for saying "f*ck you" to a California cop. They said he was using his constitutional right to express his opinion about California law enforcement officers.

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
Hmmm…check on 1, 2, and 3.

So a WN flight attendent can act as as prosecuting attorney, jury and judge? Save a lot of legal costs. Just go to the airport and ask an airline employee what they think and bingo instant justice for all!

Quoting Slider (Reply 4):
They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Another myth...no they don't. Hmmm...so an airline employee/employees who are members of the KKK can lawfully refuse to allow African-Americans, Hispanics to board the plane? A die-hard bleeding heart liberal can refuse a Christian fundamentalist TV preacher to boad the airplane? I think not!



A330 man.
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5385 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 16):
They were concerned about political speech and the free exercising of ideas.

So you think you're going to be able to draw a clear line between vulgar speech and the free exercise of ideas...

The classic example of blurring that line is Cohen v. California, where a protester wore a "Fuck the Draft" jacket into a courthouse. Think about it for a second and I'm sure you'll come up with plenty of others.

I'm not saying the guy was expressing any valuable ideas with his t-shirt (although someone might argue he was trying to challenge the societal taboo against masturbation) but you can't go and try to draw lines bisecting freedom of speech. Threats, libel, and slander affect others' rights, so they aren't protected. But the preservation of ideas and expression is vastly more important than preserving Mayberry-like decorum. I strongly think the Founding Fathers would agree with me on that. They were hardly shrinking violets.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25080 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Master Baiter"?

Where can I get one of those T shirts?  Smile

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 19):
The classic example of blurring that line is Cohen v. California, where a protester wore a "Fuck the Draft" jacket into a courthouse. Think about it for a second and I'm sure you'll come up with plenty of others.

I'm fine with that. Protesting is one thing, and it is FINE. I respect people who can protest without being vulgar, but to protest is their right, whether or not I respect them, or their views.

I do think a private person, organization, or company has the right to ask someone who is being "offensive" to remove the shirt/sign/button etc. or leave. There is a difference between the government asking him to remove the shirt and Southwest Airlines asking him to remove the shirt....the former being OK while the latter is NOT.

I recall hearing Maya Angelou on Oprah's show saying that if you say "bitch" in her home she kicks you out. Is she tramping of people's 1st Amendment rights? No, she is using hers.

-Aloha!



Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 18):
The US Supreme Court overturned a conviction for a man who was arrested for saying "f*ck you" to a California cop. They said he was using his constitutional right to express his opinion about California law enforcement officers.

Not familiar with the case, but even if they did that would be quite appropriate and more in line with the intent of the 1st Amendment since the speaker was specifically voicing an opinion about a government authority.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 18):
So a WN flight attendent can act as as prosecuting attorney, jury and judge?

Happens all the time in business. Take for example a bartender (flight attendant?) that refuses to serve a drink to someone that they -- subjectively I might add -- consider inebriated. What about most establishments that won't let anyone come inside unless they are wearing shirts and shoes? The list is endless. Businesses and their employees discriminate all the time. The difference is as long as they don't discriminate in a manner proscribed by law. And for the sake of their bottom line, as long as they don't do it in a manner that most people find offensive resulting in loss of business.

Perhaps this particular incident with WN is overblown, I nevertheless commend them for taking into consideration the potential sensibilities of the other 136 passengers on the plane at the expense of pissing off only one.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2071 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 10):
No; Free Speech is Free Speech. Period . Point blank.

U.S. Constitution :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"or abridging the freedom of speech" .... thats pretty clear.

The government didn't have anything to do with this situations so the first amendment doesn't apply. This is a business transaction between the passenger and the airline and the airline does put a fair number of conditions on the passenger, though most passengers don't know what those conditions are. Everyone seems to think that they know their "rights" but very few know their responsibilities.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
Really? Can you walk down any public street with a T-shirt on that says "F&$% YOU" emblazoned on the back without getting arrested? Or how about yelling "Fire" (when there isn't one) in a crowded theater? All of them forms of "Free Speech" and all them forms of speech that will get you thrown into jail.

Actually, you should be permitted to wear the shirt.

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm

There are 3 general tests—read on, fair use excerpt:

There is very little that actually qualifies as obscenity. In fact, the shirt in question wouldn't qualify in any of those areas. It's an attempt at humor and/or satire and would alone would invalidate just about any claim against it. Then again, this is not a relevant point in any case as there was no arrest or prosecution of this individual.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 18):
So a WN flight attendent can act as as prosecuting attorney, jury and judge? Save a lot of legal costs. Just go to the airport and ask an airline employee what they think and bingo instant justice for all!

And now the guy is on death row waiting for the electric chair. Seriously, could you over-react any more? The shirt is not appropriate for an environment that is likely to include children. If I wore a shirt that said "There is no Santa Claus" while traveling during christmas, it would again be legal but not appropriate. There is a subtle distinction that too many people miss.

Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 18):
Another myth...no they don't. Hmmm...so an airline employee/employees who are members of the KKK can lawfully refuse to allow African-Americans, Hispanics to board the plane? A die-hard bleeding heart liberal can refuse a Christian fundamentalist TV preacher to boad the airplane? I think not!

Wow, just wow. There is a significant difference between an attempt to enforce a dress code and the things you mention. If you can't see why there is a difference, I'm not sure any explanation (no matter how logical) will help you understand. I will give it a quick shot anyway.

There is no company policy (with any airline I know) that prevents Black or Hispanic passengers on their flights, same goes for any fundamentalist not intent on blowing up or hijacking an airplane. Most airlines do however have policies regarding proper attire for a flight. The flight attendant on this flight simply attempted to enforce the company dress code, nothing more sinister than trying to do her job.

Without some type of dress code, passengers could wear a tank top and a jockstrap on a flight and given the general physical condition of most americans none of us want to see that. There will always be differences of opinion when it comes to where exactly the line is drawn, the important thing is for us not to make those differences into personal attacks or blow the situations out of proportion as the media often loves to do.


User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 9):
"type" of people? What exactly do you mean? I've flown for other carriers, pax are ALL the same, trust me. First Class, Business Class, NO class.....they're everywhere. This assumption that our people are somehow different is tired.....Z Z zzz

Bad choice of words, I will admit. However, my point is that the culture of Southwest employees and customers seems to be alot more carefree and laid-back then that of most legacies. Jokes are part of the normal routine at Southwest, no?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
Who, exactly, are the "people" that they are pissing off?

Perhaps the people they seem to keep giving a hard time about their outfits.

Don't get wrong, I love LUV...they always get to me to work and back without a problem and as a jumpseating crewmember, Im always dressed appropriately. But in this case, especially, they were wrong in my opinion, and they admitted as much by issuing a public apology to the gentleman in question.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
25 Aloha73G : "Obscene T-Shirt Wearers" are not a protected class. Race and Religion are. In the same way people with Tatoos and Piercings can be refused jobs, hou
26 Slider : Exactly. I agree with you to an extent--there is no law protecting me from being offended by others. But as a parent, my perspective on this has chan
27 Post contains images Seabosdca : Read the opinion. Cohen was convicted of disturbing the peace. His conviction was overturned because his conduct constituted speech protected by the
28 HAMAD : my neighbor wore a t-shirt once that said "Queer as f***k" and went out on the street wit it. needlss to say how people were looking at him
29 Slider : Wow. I comprehend that kids are quick, many are very smart and some can put things into context. But there is no need to expose them unduly to excess
30 Post contains images Aloha73G : As Southwest was I'm guessing since they own the plane -Aloha!
31 Post contains images Seabosdca : I wouldn't go around deliberately exposing my kid to profanity either. But preserving the right to express ideas in public is far more important than
32 Md80fanatic : This is not obscene by any stretch of the definition. I knew a dude named Jack Hoff when I was in High School. And a Master Baiter is simply a descrip
33 Sh0rtybr0wn : Where does it end with WN? If the man wore a shirt that celebrated abortion or choice, or advocated torture, or denied the holocaust, or called for de
34 Aloha73G : But if you're in Maya Angelou's house or on a Southwest Airlines plane and they ask you to remove it or leave....you have no choice. -Aloha!
35 N1120A : Yes it is Only sort of. Southwest is a common carrier, which means they are held to a significantly higher standard that your average business. They
36 MSYtristar : Oh my, here we go again.This is LAUGHABLE. Man, WN continues to find ways to make itself look stupid. It's a shame it keeps on happening to this airli
37 ArcrftLvr : There are only a few circumstances when it is not protected. This isn't one of them. What difference does it make? How does your wardrobe represent y
38 Aa757first : If someone wears a shirt with a racial slur to a business meeting, can he be fired? If a teacher wears a shirt with a curse word into a private schoo
39 RedFlyer : Really? What's the misquote? Why is that a terrible analogy? It proved my point, which was that free speech is not absolute, in response to Sh0rtybr0
40 Maverick623 : Oh please. People have been saying that since the 50s. You're forgetting about a little thing called intent. The shirt was not an accident, the inten
41 ArcrftLvr : Because a shirt that says fuck you is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If I have to explain the difference, then there is no use in
42 RedFlyer : I know that. But saying F-You has its limitations as well. Don't believe me? Next time you're in traffic court and the judge finished fining you, say
43 Post contains images Mariner : My father used to say it in the 50's. Back then, he already thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket. He once complained to the f/a's on a
44 Johnboy : Although we'll probably never hear it, I'd be interested to know what instructions were passed along down to the frontline employees after the mini-sk
45 N1120A : The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in ev
46 MPDPilot : Thats your opinion and being the free country we live in I don't have to abide by your opinions. The thing about this is that WN needs to draw the li
47 ArcrftLvr : You are absolutely protected from that. However, you are now discussing interpretation. You're one of those slippery slope guys, huh?
48 N1120A : Being held in contempt of court is a completely different thing. If a court orders you to do something, you do it, and you sort out the details later
49 ArcrftLvr : Thank you! I was going to say that, but I figured if he didn't understand the difference to begin with, it was going to be an uphill battle...
50 Post contains images RedFlyer : I'm not saying you don't do what the judge tells you to do. What I'm saying is if after passing the fine, you thank the judge and say "Go F yourself"
51 Silentbob : I don't find it offensive at all, other than someone over 18 actually wearing a shirt like that. What kind of white trash, trailer park reject are yo
52 GBan : Quote from the original article: On Sunday, Joe Winiecki of Largo was sitting in the last row of a Southwest jet in Columbus, Ohio, ready to take off
53 Sh0rtybr0wn : I know. The idea of Sex offends many people in America, even this silly T-shirt joke. In Europe, of course, women go topless on the beach; as much as
54 Maverick623 : Southwest isn't the only one doing it. It's just that some attention whore a couple of months ago decided to... well... be an attention whore, and th
55 Mycrj17 : Well I guess I can't wear my WHO FARTED shirt...
56 EDICHC : Actually they can't do what they want. They are as contractually bound by their conditions of carriage as the passenger is. If a pax can demonstrate
57 Post contains links Lewis : Reminds me of one time when I was taking some foreign friends to see the sights around Athens, including the archaeological museum which is filled wi
58 NG1Fan : Caution RANT! I think the above is a sad indictement of USA society. What used to be a beacon of freedom looked up to and respected all around the wo
59 Pe@rson : Can't wait for my BUSTER CHERRY T-shirt to be delivered for my pending trip to the USA. Do you think stewardesses would be offended with a T-shirt sta
60 Gigneil : Fuuuuck that. A word of advice, as a parent, be careful or you're going to end up with kids that graduate high school, go to college, and become Jedi
61 Gokmengs : WN was wrong, when they wouldn't allow the lady with the miniskirt and they are wrong again in this case. For some reason WN, Fox news, Wal-Mart etc,
62 CV990 : Hi! In my opinion there's a complete different culture flying in USA and with US airlines and the way the rest of the world airlines flies and approac
63 WNCrew : I recently spoke with the FA in question re: the woman with the mini-skirt. Did you now that when she boarded and was taking her seat she reached up o
64 MD80fanatic : I think it is honorable to work towards a higher moral standard in the world, it's the methods people (and companies) use that I always question. 1)
65 RedFlyer : I'm surprised it took 58 posts before someone used this as an opportunity to bash the U.S. They're not. Only someone brimming with hatred for the U.S
66 MD80fanatic : NG1 is right Red. I know it's hard to hear from someone who has no real part in our society, but fact are facts. When you castigate an outsider for te
67 Post contains links RedFlyer : Agreed. But save the criticism for a forum on political discourse. We're here to talk airplanes. Not use it as an opportunity to country-bash. So, ha
68 Gigneil : I disagree. I love America, but I think there is no such thing as an insignificant incident that involves someone's freedom and particularly of expre
69 RedFlyer : Thank God for small miracles.
70 Aloha73G : I knew there had to be a little more to that story. Thanks for the "update." I'm sure the news article on this case isn't telling us the whole story
71 AY104 : I think the t-shirt is hilarious! Certainly I have seen far worse than that, that is basically just mild humor in my book. These guys really need to g
72 Post contains links Mycrj17 : http://www.deanfaulder.co.uk/myspace/borat.jpg And I take it that this is a no go as well... But knowing about WN this maybe ok for a guy but a no go
73 Post contains images Coronado990 : Apparently some cruise ship in the Caribbean sells them. Must have been a foreign registry as they did not seem to be too put off by it. In fact, loo
74 Post contains images JGPH1A : Yes you can - in the civilised world at least. Who died and gave anyone the right to tell me what I can and cannot wear in public ? If sad and repres
75 SCUMBAG : How about ALL airlines banning those disgusting sleveless "Redneck Wifebeater" tee shirts with the guy's armpit hair hanging out!
76 EWRCabincrew : So much for talking about female dogs... Personally, I found the shirt funny. It would have never crossed my mind to even approach the man. I would,
77 BoeingBoy : See - PIGS do fly - and talk
78 ArcrftLvr : This is a great point. So, where is the line drawn? As I stated in previous posts, it was a bad PR move for WN. I don't think the Company violated an
79 Post contains images RedFlyer : If I want interpretation of constitutional matters, I go to a lawyer specializing in constitutional law and not employment law. By the way, how much
80 MD80fanatic : The man did not need to know how to read as his clothing was neither lewd, nor obscene, nor patently offensive. It seems you believe it was offensive
81 RedFlyer : Now I ask you, how many of those shirts do you think would have been sold if there was no reference or hidden meaning to a sexual action or idea? Har
82 Post contains images Mike89406 : I would expect no less from WN cream of the crop PAX if you ask me
83 MD80fanatic : I'm certain less would be sold. It is not such a great leap, is it? It is not a full scale assault as we see with our fake church-ruled Government on
84 N1120A : Excuse me? You are the one completely going off tangent on something you don't know about, not to mention bringing up examples that are flat out inco
85 MPDPilot : I would also like add, that was a great post very well done.
86 Gigneil : Congratulations, sir. You codify my point. You are what's wrong with this country, precisely. NS
87 Post contains images RedFlyer : A court of law has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is if WN should have thrown the guy off the plane and if they were within their right to
88 Post contains links L410Turbolet : Even if they do not have an official dress code as admitted by WN spokesman??? "It was inappropriate for our employee to approach Joe," said spokesma
89 Nkops : I don't know if we have an actual "dress code" (except for non-revs') but I think there should be a reasonable expectation from pax on what they wear.
90 MD80fanatic : See Red....now that's clearly obscene. How in the world you equate Jack Hoff Master Baiter as being the same is beyond me. What is next for you? Supp
91 Post contains images RedFlyer : I'm confused. Was this a discussion on obscenity or WN's rights to throw a passenger off? I thought we were originally having a discussion on WN's ri
92 Indy : Thats great. That applies to the government. As a business owner you can set your own rules on your property. If you don't want people wearing certai
93 MD80fanatic : Okay then, sorry for taking this thread off topic. I spend a great deal of forum time (not here but in several other places) arguing against the stea
94 Luv2cattlecall : Congress may not be able abridge free speech but SWA can... you see, Congress == Southwest. Let me know if you'd like a Venn diagram to help out with
95 EDICHC : But in selling a ticket on a commercial airline, the carrier would have to state those rules at the time of purchase, stating precisely what is accep
96 AirTran717 : I totally agree. Now, let's start with Southwest's uniforms......
97 Falcon84 : Saw a guy not long ago in CLE near D-21 that had a T shirt on the back that said, in big, bold, capital letters "FUCK YOU, FUCKING FUCKERS". Had he be
98 N1120A : I'm not under 25. You just don't get it. The shirt isn't obscene and would not be adjudicated so.
99 Maverick623 : I'm fairly certain the contract also says the airline reserves the right to determine what is acceptable and what is not. It doesn't matter, as state
100 N1120A : Um, I wrote a whole line on contempt. Again, as a common carrier, they are held to a governmental standard, which is different than normal business.
101 EDICHC : Again a court may find such a condition does not comply with contract law, if the terms are too ambiguous it may not be recognised legally. A dress c
102 RedFlyer : No they are not. Depends on whether that loss was foreseeable or not. More importantly, it would also depend on the difficulty (or lack thereof) of t
103 Md80fanatic : Once the passenger has been allowed to board the aircraft (WN property), WN has accepted the passenger and agrees that the passenger complies with th
104 RedFlyer : What if the guy was wearing a jacket over his shirt?
105 MD80fanatic : That was not the case in this instance. Entertaining your question anyway though....I'd think if surrounding pax were complaining he'd be asked to pu
106 Post contains images Slider : This brings up another issue I have and that's management supporting their employees' judgment. I think even those of us with the strongest opinions
107 RedFlyer : Maybe that's what happened in this instance. Does anyone even know if a passenger complained about the guys shirt? Perhaps that's what started this w
108 Post contains images Johnboy : Those are the very best kind. And on a personal note... accused Master Baiter Joe Winiecki is damn hot. Wish i'd been on that flight.
109 Post contains links MD80fanatic : Well Johnboy.....here ya' go. Drink it in. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6538 Seems all has worked out the way it should have in the first place. Also yo
110 N1120A : Yes they are.
111 EDICHC : No they cannot, at least not without risk of being in breach of contract.
112 RedFlyer : And how is that different than what I said? They can toss a passenger for anything they want without violating any laws as long as they don't toss th
113 N1120A : The shirt is humorous, which means it has both literary and artistic value, excluding it from being obscene.
114 Post contains links MD80fanatic : The intent of the shirt is to advertise a realworld fishing shop. It is not the duty of the world to make sure nothing enters the field of view that
115 RedFlyer : I don't disagree with the humor or its literary and artistic value. But since when does humor or artistic value remove something from the realm of ob
116 Post contains images MD80fanatic : Of course not (that is a bit extreme isn't it). Your shop gets an X-rating while this man's shirt struggles to get a PG-13 (upgraded from a G based o
117 N1120A : Um, literary and artistic value are major portions of the prurient interest test.
118 CastleIsland : I'll agree that the shirt should not be considered obscene, but, according to the article, WN's contract of carriage 'prohibits "lewd, obscene or pate
119 Silentbob : They don't want to scare away potential customers. That's why they are publicly apologizing for employees following the company guidelines.
120 EDICHC : It is precisely this confusion which would be the downfall of the carrier should a pax sue for breach of contract. For terms and conditions to stand
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Southwest Grows Again At PDX posted Thu Jun 28 2007 03:36:06 by LHPDX
Southwest Dings Columbus posted Mon Jun 4 2007 23:28:41 by STLGph
Keep The Cattle Call Some Fliers Tell Southwest posted Tue Jun 27 2006 22:37:52 by KarlB737
The King (Southwest) Has No Clothes! posted Fri Apr 8 2005 19:50:22 by Padcrasher
Southwest Expands Service Again posted Mon Nov 22 2004 23:52:30 by ScottB
Southwest Sued Again posted Sat Sep 25 2004 00:25:13 by United4EverDEN
Southwest And The "cattle Call." posted Wed Apr 28 2004 22:00:50 by 7E72004
Southwest Downsizes Call Centers posted Tue Nov 4 2003 20:47:42 by Jblake1
Southwest Does It Again! posted Tue May 27 2003 18:29:37 by 727LOVER
China Airlines 737 Yet Again posted Sat Oct 6 2007 06:34:35 by Trent1000