1. Royko on October 6th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
   

   I applaud Southwest Airlines for kicking the Liberal, mean-spirited wench off the flight.

   Now they face a costly action likely from the anti-American ACLU, and I hope the airline eventually wins.

   We should have the right not to be abused by the minority of Bush-hating whacos while we travel.
2. strongbow on October 6th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
   

   If a memorial display case containing a Bible can be removed from county property or The Ten Commandments can be removed from the State House in Georgia just because someone got offended at the sight of them, then SouthWorst was perfectly within their rights to remove this person from the plane if her apparel is offensive to other passengers or the crew.

   Libs, you cannot have it both ways.
3. jeffd on October 6th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
   

   What a ridiclous sediment, people should be able to wear whatever they want, and not be denied service because of it. If someone wore a shirt that made fun of Bill Clinton or Al Gore (a moving target for jokes) does it matter really?

   I would think these same rightwingers would take a bigger offense to big Johnson shirts or coed naked shirts cause heaven forbid if we talk about sex, stds or contraception.

   While we may not agree with something someones says or wears we still founded this country with the first amendment in mind to be able to express it.

   Well okay I agree their should be exceptions such as messages that are racist, spread hateful messages or threaten people. I could see if she wore a “This shirt is explosive” shirt and was boarding an airplane would probably not be advisable.
4. jimb on October 6th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
   

   Not to mention that it is the government that is supposed to be unable to restrict free speech. Southwest Airlines is not the government, and therefore is free to disallow offensive t-shirts on their planes.

   If the lady don’t like it, she is free to fly with someone else (or walk, for all I care). I certainly hope nobody tries to bring up a court case here, because I don’t see a valid claim.
5. jimb on October 6th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
   

   Jeffd -

   “Meet the Fockers, with one crucial fowel changed” means that the shirt was offensive to many, if not all, on the plane. I am pretty sure that the crucial vowel was not an A, E, or I. Free speech does not prevent airlines from asking people not to walk onto their planes (private property, btw) with offensive t-shirts.
6. Bobby Warren on October 6th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
   

   This is just stupid. Let’s review the facts:

   1) Her being kicked off the plane had zero to do with Bush or “Bush-hating” or “liberal mootbat wailing hippies”. The problem was the clearly offensive use of one of the most taboo words in the English language.

   2) The ACLU is NOT going to bring a lawsuit. There is no First Amendment issue here. Southwest Airlines is a private company. First Amendment violations only occur when a state actor is involved in some way. Here, that is clearly not the case.

   3) No, you do not have the right to be free from “Bush-hating” liberal shirts while flying on an airline (or “abused” as Royko put it). I’m certain that Southwest would not have done anything about the shirt if did not have vulgarity printed on it.

   It’s amazing when conservatives will get on a high horse and act like Don Quixote chasing after liberal windmills that aren’t really there.
7. squawkbox on October 6th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
   

   So jeffd since the shirts sentiments agree with your politics that makes it acceptable?
8. jeffd on October 6th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
   

   Well one problem I see is it will waste taxpayers dollars even if all she gets is a pleminary hearing in court.

   While I agree that all businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone I still think we are becoming too hypersensitive about offending people today.

   I strongly disagree with removing the ten commandments and other sympbols from the government building, the removal of the flag of saint george in England, and that whacko from California wasting our time and money to remove the pledge from our nations schools for example.

   I wasn’t considering the word Focker… I was more pointing out the ridiculousness of this particular incident. I fly a lot and all the time I see shirts that say “guckin fonuts” nobody ever kicks them off?

   I am misguided I probably will admit. But I think this is more political then bad taste in language.
9. Bill F on October 6th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
   

   So Jeff, are you saying that all of those restaurants that require men to wear jackets or clubs that require shirts with a collar on them are violating our rights to free expression by not letting us in? You mean I should sue Brennans because they won’t let me in wearing a t-shirt, shorts, and sandals? PRIVATE businesses have regulated what they ask people to wear in their establishments for decades, and private airplanes are no different.

   Southwest’s rules filed with the FAA say the airline will deny boarding to any customer “whose conduct is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is ‘lewd, obscene, or patently offensive”. I am quite certain that regardless of whose pictures is on it, a shirt that has the word f*ck prominently displayed on it in any of its forms would be considered “lewd, obscene, AND patently offensive” to a significant portion of Southwest’s customers. The woman wearing the shirt CLEARLY was doing so with the intent to shock people and create a stir. You don’t wear clothes with obscenities scrawled on them if you want to keep to yourself and avoid making a scene. So she got what she wanted…she caused a stir, and then refused to abide by the airline’s policies filed with the FAA. They gave her a number of reasonable options to deal with the situation and she refused to accomodate their requests. She deserved to be kicked off the plane and they don’t owe her a damn thing.
10. David Johnson on October 6th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
    

    Bobby Warren,

    On your points 1, 2, and 3, I agree with you. She was kicked off of the flight because of the offensive word, not the other pictures on the shirt. There is no First Amendment issue, as SW is a private company. And no, we don’t have a right to be free from political expression we don’t like.

    However, your concluding sentence ruins an otherwise thoughtful comment.

    Even without seeing the pictures on the shirt or being told what those pictures were, it was VERY EASY to guess the political orientation of the person wearing the shirt. IOW, only knowing that the shirt said “Meet the F*ckers” and had pictures of otherwise unidentified politicians on it, an intellectually honest person could guess the political orientation of the wearer of the shirt and be correct 99 times out of 100.

    This ‘liberal windmill’ is most certainly there. What is amazing is that you don’t seem to see it.
11. sunnyblue on October 6th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
    

    Southwest Airlines removed the woman from the flight because she had a well-known vulgar and obscene word on her chest, not because it was an anti-Bush slogan. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everthing to do with SA’s right to insure the comfort of all passengers.
12. jimb on October 6th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
    

    I have never been lucky (or unfortunate, depending on your point of view) enough to encounter someone getting on a plane wearing a t-shirt with questionable or downright offensive messages on it. I would imagine if the situation was such that it was an Oklahoma Sooner fan with a t-shirt that said “T*ck Fexas” on it, the result would have probably been the same - the person would have been asked to cover the shirt, change, or get off the plane.

    I have seen a shirt with that message on it, by the way. It was at the State Fair on the Texas-OU gameday.
13. jeffd on October 6th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
    

    No again, I agree with you Bill F that for example dress codes that require say a shirt and jacket or a suit for that matter should be upheld. For example, I would never where a t shirt and shorts to church or if my employer required a shirt and tie I have and would wear them without question.

    squawkbox:

    No I meant was I think we are becoming too hypersensitive about things. My arguement stems from what the women in question said concerning I think there are bigger things in the world to worry about then her t-shirt that said meet the f*ckers.

    I personally would never buy or wear that shirt, nor would I allow my children to wear anything remotely close to that as well. But If in her poor taste she wanted to wear it then she should be able too.
14. jimb on October 6th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
    

    …and she would be free to, in her own house, or in a public place, if she had the poor taste to do so. However, if SW Airlines don’t like that stuff on their planes, then she’s outta luck.
15. Me_Myself_n_I on October 6th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
    

    #13 Jeffd

    “If in her poor taste she wanted to wear it then she should be able too. ”

    If that is truly your belief, where is the line drawn?

    Would you object to a woman wearing a transparent shirt and not much of a skirt, getting on an airplane and sitting next to your children?

    Would you object to the construction a billboard near your house displaying the message F**K Y**?

    Would you abject to someone standing outside your children’s school everyday shouting obscenities?

    All of this would fall under “freedom of expression”.

    Sometimes we need to use common sense and have respect for others around us. This may mean some of our freedoms are restricted in certain circumstances…and these restrictions should be self-imposed.

    Allow me to modify your last sentence:
    “If in her poor taste she wanted to wear it IN THE PRIVACY OF HER OWN HOUSE then she should be able too.”
16. David Johnson on October 6th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
    

    “respect for others around us”

    Hmmm. What a concept!

    If she had that, we wouldn’t need this conversation.
17. The Dishy Partisan on October 6th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
    

    To David Johnson:

    Hear! Hear!
18. Mike Martin on October 6th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
    

    Another one gets her 15 minutes. I hope I don’t squander mine on a T-shirt.
19. jeffd on October 6th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
    

    To this I agree 100%

    This may mean some of our freedoms are restricted in certain circumstances…and these restrictions should be self-imposed.

    I am questing more to where do we draw the line of offensive and to how many people. Again I put this line into play.

    I strongly disagree with removing the ten commandments and other sympbols from the government building, the removal of the flag of saint george in England, and that whacko from California wasting our time and money to remove the pledge from our nations schools for example.

    Why do we allow these things yet kick a girl off of a plane (which no one will see again) for a shirt (which no one will read again)? Who becomes the “moral” police?
20. miaprada on October 6th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
    

    Wait a minute…is this America? Are you guys in this country are you serious? Do you guys really talk in Bush isms like that”for reals?” I just can’t believe the audacity of some. Nerve enough to call someone who is clearly expressing her first amendment protected right to free speech wrong. Who cares what she said. Does she pay your bills? Does she owe you money? Is she your daughter? God Bless America and all of our political differences. Let freedom ring.
21. miaprada on October 6th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
    

    F*** it you guys who cares about all this anyway?

    JEREMY WEIDENHOF POLICES THE THREAD:  Let’s keep the swearing to a minimum here Miaprada, this is a family site.  (Asterisks above added by LST)
22. davewolfgang on October 6th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
    

    For all of you out there, it’s called a Social Contract (one of those funny things that I actually remember from college!). In our country we call this social contract the Constitution of the United States of America. You give up some of your rights for the BETTERMENT of the whole community (or country). You have rights right up until you interfere with someone elses rights. That’s where common laws and other regulations come in, and we elect people to create and enact those laws. If we don’t like them, then we elect different people who will enact what we want.

    But just because you have the “right” to say whatever you want, doesn’t give you the “right” to MAKE anyone else listen (or in this case look and read).

    And remember, censorship ONLY applies to governing bodies.
23. Bobby Warren on October 6th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
    

    David:

    I do not dispute that she is liberal. But the fact that she’s liberal has nothing to do with this. The problem is the vulgarity. Just as you said, the picture on the shirt had nothing to do with the story.

    My criticism of the post on LST is that it essentially attempts to make this a liberal issue when it most certainly is not. It’s like me saying Rick Perry’s "adios, mofo" comment reflects upon all conservatives. Or Dick Cheney’s "f**k off" comment to Sen. Leahy. None of that has to do with the person’s political beliefs - that speaks to that individual’s character.

    Yet, Jeremy Weidenhof comes to this conclusion:
    "Such juvenile, boorish behavior seems to be standard from our Left-wing friends these days, but then again Bush hatred knows no bounds."

    This is the windmill. The fact that he makes this into a political issue when it is not. Yes, there are people who are vulgar on both sides. But that has nothing to do with one’s poltical affiliation - it’s character.

    JEREMY WEIDENHOF RESPONDS:  Are you suggesting that Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Kanye West, and other Liberals who have publicly and intentionally uttered ridiculous statements about President Bush and Republicans are a fiction created by the conservative mind?  If you cannot see a pattern of hatred there, of which this woman’s shirt is a part, then you have blinders on Mr. Warren.
24. jimb on October 6th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
    

    #19 -

    This has nothing to do with Morality police and there is no real connection between this issue and removing the Ten Commandments or St. George or any of that.

    It’s not a political or moral issue, it is a private property issue. A Southwest Airlines crew responsible for the plane decided that maybe the lady was a fruit loop who would have gone wacky, or they received complaints from other passengers (customers) that the shirt was offensive, or maybe some other scenario arose, but for whatever reason, SW Airlines personnel made a busines/financial decision that having the lady wear the shirt on the plane was too much for the other passengers and asked her to either cover it up, change shirts or leave, which was a perfectly reasonable decision under the circumstances.

    #20 -

    Southwest Airlines is not a government agency, and therefore by definiton cannot infringe upon this person’s first amendment rights. Besides, you don’t have the first amendment right to make an ass of yourself on an airplane.
25. davewolfgang on October 6th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
    

    #23

    I don’t know where you get your news or what you are paying attention to, but this is the EXACT thing that we see ALL the time from the Liberals. And I’m NOT just talking about “conservative” blogs and radio, I subscribe to the NYTimes and the Washington Post, and I do check up on the Comical from time to time. It’s everywhere, but if you can’t see it, then clearly your view on things is NOT with most of the country.

    What do you call it when the Liberal media spends WEEKS on the mother of one soldier who has died in the war on terror and completely IGNORES any other mother or wife with an opinion that happens to agree with this administration? Especially when 99.9% of the action of that one mother is STAGED. Why do you think most of the networks that helped in that staging are losing viewer? Because WE don’t want to see it anymore. And I DO have to right to turn if off (actually haven’t had cable for over 4 years now).
26. skicougar on October 6th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
    

    #20

    it is southwest’s plane, not the public. southwest has the right to refuse service just like it says on the door to most restaurants.

    #21

    she walked thru an entire airport and past how many kids ? i don’t have kids yet, but i’m sure a very high majority of americans don’t want to explain what f**kers means until those kids hear it in school, where most kids learn to curse.
27. Royko on October 6th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
    

    To Bobbywarren, the “ProgressiveTexan”

    If you had read the initial story, my comments were related to her behavior and comments in the 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.”

    You may be among the few who do not deem this Bush bashing.

    “But American Civil Liberties Union officials say Heasley’s T-shirt is “protected” political speech under the Constitution.”

    The ACLU has already weighed-in on this.

    “Heasley says she plans to press a civil-rights complaint against the airline over Tuesday’s action at Reno-Tahoe International Airport.”

    She has stated she to initiate the legal process.

    Again, we should have the right to not be abused by these whaco’s while we travel.

    I’m disappointed not to have read that the cops had to be called in so as to Taser her prior to her removal from the plane.
28. Bobby Warren on October 6th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
    

    Jeremy:

    I’m not so blind or ignorent as to assume that all conservatives use the inflammatory rhetoric espoused by such people as Fred Phelps, David Duke, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, or James Dobson. I’m not going to point to what they say and go, “this is typical conservative Clinton-bashing, the usual un-civil discourse expected from conservatives.” Those people espouse hate, and that reflects on them. It does not reflect on most conservatives, who are good people.

    I have many conservatives friends who I would never lump into that group (e.g., Matt Bramanti). To do so is nothing more than divisive rhetoric that does this country no good. To not see that, sir, is to wear blinders.

    Royko: I never said it wasn’t “Bush bashing”. It is Bush bashing. I said it was not a “liberal issue”. A true liberal issue would be if the shirt actually had something substantive to say that espoused liberal philosophy. Her shirt was vulgar with no substance - that is the issue.

    As for the ACLU issue, I can’t see how any attorney could file a lawsuit on a First Amendment issue without being sanctioned (fined). If I were defending Southwest Airlines, this is what I’d do (assuming it’s in federal court):

    1) File an answer with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion arguing that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for which the law can provide relief.
    2) Wait for the court to dismiss.

    That’s all - no “waste of taxpayer dollars”, because the filing fee would easily cover the cost of a clerk to fill in the form order necessary to sustain the 12(b)(6) motion. Also, the attorney for the plaintiff could potentially be sanctioned, so Southwest Airlines would also get its attorney fees paid from those sanctions.

    I can’t believe everyone has gotten in such a huff over one idiot. If each of you believe this is representative of all liberals or progressives, then all of you need to get out more. Chances are, each of you have dealt with numerous liberals who carry themselves out in far more intelligent and thoughful manners. Don’t insult them just to politicize the issue.
29. jeffd on October 6th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
    

    Jim and others

    But my point to my post at 19 was this has to do with what is offensive and what is not and to whom this is offensive.

    I fully understand the differnce between a public place and a private enterprise to which the latter reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.

    However if such as the case of a Denny’s resturant where a few years ago they refused to (i can’t remember exactly) hire or serve African Americans they were sued.

    No, I am not trying to compare the f-bomb to blantant racism.
    But merely point out maybe people are too hypersensitive to offensive things such as the case of this t-shirt. So again where do we draw the line? Leave it up to the individual company?
30. TexasDrifter on October 6th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
    

    Actually it her lack of consideration for others, a morality issue, that turned it into a private property issue. I believe it does relate to the Ten Commandment displays. From my observations it is very hypocritical that a profanity is not to be considered offensive but a set of rules representing the basic rules of morality are. This relates in that the liberal side spouts the belief of tolerance only if it is expressed from their point of view, otherwise it is offensive and should be banned.

    The pledge, on the other hand, I can understand how the word God is offensive to some religions. In particular I know of one that has traced translations of the name YHWH and noted purposeful mis-tranlations made througout history. The word God accordingly is traced to representations of false gods, which is against the ten commandments. In that respect I can see how it is offensive to some, but it was not raised in such a manner by members of this religion because they are more tolerant than those that were.
31. Bobby Warren on October 6th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
    

    TexasDrifter:

    You’re talking apples and oranges here. The Ten Commandment displays that have been ordered removed by courts were not removed because they were obscene or vulgar. Instead, they were removed because they violate well established federal court precedent on the Establishment Cause of the First Amendment.

    The shirt is not protected by any stretch of the imagination. Although I consider myself liberal, I agree 100% with the decision of Southwest Airlines. As I have stated previously, the person or persons to whom the vulgarity was directed is irrelevant. The shirt was vulgar, and that’s that. Southwest Airlines is a private company and may choose to remove the woman from the flight within the terms of the contact for the ticket sale (in which I’m certain allows them to remove a person from a flight and refund their money at their sole discretion).

    As to your point on the pledge, that is fairly interesting. It does not, however, have any bearing on the test espoused by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (which I’ve addressed in previous discussions on the pledge). The issue isn’t whether it is “offensive” to other religions. The real issue is whether there is excessive government entanglement in religion. As for the pledge, we’ll have to see what the 9th circuit and SCOTUS do with the most recent case.
32. malcolm on October 6th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
    

    Guys/Gals:
    Take a really deep breath!
    None of you will ever (well maybe a few will) change the mind and the others postiion. Your wasting your time and energy.
    Chill! All of you!
    Sit back as an outside observer (if you can)and read the posts, and evaluate the positions stated by all of the parties. Is there any one argument, pro or con that makes you take a different position or stand towards the issue at hand? If so, please enlightem me. Have any of you changed you position based on the retorts or rehetoric? I think not.
    Just post a comment on the open comment thread for today and enjoy… We have a record to break …183 replies! Have a great evening, all of you!
33. Rahman on October 6th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
    

    Instead of arguing among yourselves why don’t one of you call South west to find out what word on the T shirt was offensive?
    And don’t be surprised with their response.
34. Mike Martin on October 6th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
    

    #31, #32

    Deep breaths before reaction are always a good idea, regardless of your party affiliation. Actually, as conservative as I am, Bobby Warren’s point has kind of chilled me out. The whole issue really has nothing to do with politics. If a person wears something offensive, it is a statement about that person and nothing more. Neither Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, or even Bill Clinton himself were the ones wearing the shirt.

    Realistically, if my kids were with me and saw that, I would explain it as a poor choice made by an individual and nothing more. Personal responsibility is one of the greatest values I try to instill in my children, and to try and ascribe a deeper political meaning to a tasteless T-shirt would only give it more attention than it rightly deserves.
35. jimb on October 6th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
    

    #29 -

    Yep - leave it up to the invidual company. The individual company is normally going to listen to their customers and decide, based on that, whether or not a shirt that *most* consider openly offensive is appropriate for the environment.

    I know that there are those that are just fine with the shirt, but from the company’s standpoint, they can be sure that a large majority of folks would not want to see it on the plane, or have their kids see it, and the airline acts accordingly. Like you said - this isn’t because of the person’s skin color or appearance that they have no control over, but their choice of dress and the messages contained therein.

    Now if you think maybe it is not such a big deal, then that’s another matter, but the airline will certainly go with the majority of their customers on this one. You almost have to admit that the woman was out to get attention/notoriety.
36. Bear Creek on October 7th, 2005 at 12:23 am
    

    I can’t believe so many people commented on this. Obviously a t-shirt, especially if it’s rude to Republicans, could be used as a terrorist implement on a plane, etc.
    All they have to do is stuff it in the crapper until the plane explodes.

    I kid you not, the Big Daddy BBQ over here has a marquee sign out front that says free gas with every bean purchase. Obviously they hope we’ll fill up.
    See, Congress could DO that.

    But isn’t Bush’s plan to stuff any of us he doesn’t like right in the crapper?
37. gmland on October 7th, 2005 at 6:30 am
    

    Hey Kanye West…er, I mean Bear Creek. Big Daddy BBQ would earn my business with clever advertising like that. If there sign said “Come stuff some BBQ up your a#$”, would that not be offensive?

    Kuddos to SWA for having some backbone with a granola head!
38. jimb on October 7th, 2005 at 7:29 am
    

    Bear Creek - what if the shirt just said something generically offensive in a non-political way? Would you be defending her then? This isn’t about politics, it’s about a moron who decided to go for shock value and get herself kicked off a plane.
39. malcolm on October 7th, 2005 at 7:51 am
    

    jimb:
    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s just about using good common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking these days.
40. Royko on October 7th, 2005 at 8:43 am
    

    TO: Bobby Warren (Progressive Texan)

    Reply to # 28

    “I can’t believe everyone has gotten in such a huff over one idiot. If each of you believe this is representative of all liberals or progressives, then all of you need to get out more. Chances are, each of you have dealt with numerous liberals who carry themselves out in far more intelligent and thoughful manners. Don’t insult them just to politicize the issue.”

    How about “Queen” Sheila? - typical examples:

    “I came here as a slave, and I deserve to vote.”
    ________

    on hurricane names
    “All racial groups should be represented,” Lee said, according to the Hill. She hoped federal weather officials “would try to be inclusive of African-American names.”
    __________

    The Congressional bonehead award goes to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: “We just don’t teach enough science.” Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee. Perhaps some committee reassignments are in order…
    _______

    Former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg included Jackson-Lee in his book “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America,” ranking her #98.

    ********

    Who needs further examples to prove the point?
41. Bear Creek on October 7th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
    

    Ms. Miers t-shirt simply read:
    Ronnie Earl is an idiot.
42. Royko on October 7th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
    

    Speaking of Ms. Miers, one should not be surprised if it is discovered that she coincidently was one of Laura’s SMU Sorority Sisters.
43. jimb on October 8th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
    

    Once again, this is not about politics, it is about the fact that the woman wore an offensive shirt, and pushed the issue under the guise of free speech.
44. phelps on October 9th, 2005 at 5:34 am
    

    And here I was hoping that SWA was banning T-shirts in general. Shorts and baseball caps could go and I would be fine with that too.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.