Oregon woman kicked off flight in Reno over offensive shirt

[NVMojo]

October 5, 2005

A Portland woman's flight home was stopped short in Reno, all because the message on the T-shirt she was wearing.

Lorrie Heasley claims it's a freedom of speech privilege, but airline officials say the message brings safety concerns.

Heasley, "There are bigger problems in the country, I can't believe people can be so petty."

Heasley boarded her flight Tuesday morning in Los Angeles, headed for Portland, Oregon with a stopover in Reno. But when Southwest Airlines employees asked her to cover her shirt, her stop over became a stop off her flight.

snip...

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.

more...

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3939788&nav=8faO

[niyad]

1. geez, some people REALLY need a humour transplant!

[onenote]

9. and she needs a common sense/common courtesy transplant

[niyad]

13. would you say that to every person who has something objectionable to you

on their t-shirts, or just to those who are opposing bush?

[onenote]

32. anyone

[DRoseDARs]

18. Does this mean you approved of that father and son being kicked out...

...of a mall by mall security for their "offensive" t-shirts too?

:shrug:

[donheld]

28. The father and son did not have "fuck" on their shirts

:banghead:

[onenote]

33. what did the shirts say?

[onenote]

35. Was it the guy wearing the "Peace on Earth, Give Peace a Chance Shirt?

If so, of course not. I'm going to assume that you see a difference between the shirts.

onenote

[mockmonkey]

22. I agree

She needs to think about what she is wearing in public.

[JDPriestly]

23. It;'s regional.

In LA and Portland, the shirt is socially quite acceptable.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Safety concerns? WTF? n/t

[jobycom]

3. Fockurs? nt

[merwin]

4. Duplicate topic

Original here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1828701

[donheld]

27. Beat to death topic - also see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x24099


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4980067

[jessicazi]

5. Hmm.

I don't think it is a safety concern, unless people got into a physical fight over the shirt during the flight.

[Bumblebee]

6. Hope she and ACLU sue them big time!

[onenote]

7. for what?

Its their airline. They have the right to refuse service to someone wearing what they consider an offensive shirt. Don't look for a lawsuit here.

onenote

[NVMojo]

20. so, if I ride Southwest Airlines and I see an idiot wearing a Bushco

supporting teeshirt, will the Airlines agree with me that the Bushco supporting teeshirt is offensive? What standards do they use to agree with a passenger to squelch another passenger's free speech?

Southwest and most airlines receive some sort of taxpayers subsidies. They shouldn't be allowed to make arbitrary condemnations like this, not on taxpayer dimes ...

[SaveElmer]

24. I suspect...

It was the F-Bomb on the shirt, not the anti-Bush sentiment that got them kicked off!!!

[donheld]

29. I think you're quite right

I'll bet many of anti-bush shirts have made it on Southwest fine. F-bomb shirts don't get my sympathy

[rsmith6621]

8. hmmmmm

[donheld]

25. ACLU won't touch it.

"Fuck" is not protected speech on a plane owned by a company.

[me b zola]

10. Scary times are upon us

Fuck the Fockers! Apparently we haven't been loud enough!

[Selatius]

11. The airline was probably afraid it would provoke a disturbance with others

They don't want that kind of action on their watch, so they dumped her.

[DesEtoiles]

12. 1-800-IFLYSWA

[msongs]

14. no big deal really nt

[HEyHEY]

15. And AWAAAYYY we go!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. There's no absolute control of free speech on private property

It's been years and years since I studied Constitutional Law but I recall a few cases (although I don't know if they've been overturned since). Pruneyard Shopping Center was one where the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court in finding that a shopping center was a type of public place, despite being privately owned, where free speech could not be arbitrarily denied. Even if the shopping center denied ALL political speech, regardless of the content or ideology expressed, they still didn't have the right to outlaw the First Amendment. I think an airline certainly could be comparable to a shopping center.

And there was the very famous case of Cohen v. California, where a man wearing a t-shirt that said "Fuck The Draft" in protest of the Vietnam era draft went wandering the hallways in a California courthouse. He was arrested for inciting violence and disturbing the peace, a criminal offense. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that merely wearing a t-shirt saying "Fuck The Draft" was neither the type of offensive behavior that would justify preventing his freedom of speech nor was it an incitement to violence, as the guy wearing the shirt made no loud noise, did not threaten anyone, and did not engage anyone in debate. He was merely wearing a shirt that said something in poor taste.

If the wearer of the t-shirt in this case had refused to leave the airplane and had been arrested by the police, it might have made for an interesting case. Here, since they apparently left voluntarily, I don't think this is going anywhere.

[SaveElmer]

17. Not sure they are comparable...I don't blame the airline

You generally don't have to pay several hundred dollars to enter a shopping center...

To tell you the truth I don't blame the airline. They have a right to uphold certain standards. I suspect it was the F-Bomb on the shirt, not the political content that got them kicked off.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. I don't think paying for anything is relevant - it cuts both ways

If you pay several hundreds dollars, you also don't expect to have an airline tell you what to wear. As far as standards are concerned, I say 'what standards?' I see nothing but slovenly dressed people on airlines, because it is comfortable to dress loosely and like a slob when you travel. An airlines is not a four-star restaurant. The issue isn't standards. I suppose the airlines could limit whether someone can go bare chested on the airline or deny the wearing of a bikini. But that isn't the exercise of speech. This involves free speech ...political speech in fact. That is a very protected area as it involves an important constitutional right. You can't balance the right to free political speech against some airlines standard regarding poor taste.

What matters is what you come to expect in a public place and whether the 1st Amendment can be eliminated in a public place, even one privately owned. I say it can't. And if you explore the complete story about this incident, the airline also said they reserved the right to limit reading material if they don't like it. Reading material! I think a shirt saying "Fuck" is offensive but I don't think they have the right to eliminate it.

[SaveElmer]

21. Sorry...I think that is not right...

I can see no way that an airplane can be considered a public place. To my mind a public place is somewhere that the general public has fairly free and easy access. If you have to pay a significant amount of money to be one of the 200 or so people on a plane, I don't think it can be considered a public space.

Companies have every right to limit how people are dressed on their premises. Certainly restaurants with dress codes are far more freely accessible than airplanes, yet I never hear of anyone challenging the right of the restaurants to limit clientele based upon that.

I don't blame them. Part of the airlines business is to provide as comfortable and stress free ride as possible. They also have kids flying. It is in their economic best interest to limit public profanity like this.

As to the reading material, I suspect they were envisioning someone whipping out a playboy,penthouse, or hustler while on the plane. I would have no problem with the airline limiting that either.

[JDPriestly]

30. Public profanity. Where do you live?

In LA the F* word is everywhere, spoken by nearly everyone. I have worked in offices with extremely cultured, well-educated people who used it frequently. I think this is regional. I'm from the mid-west and south and do not use the word, but I defend the right of anyone to use any word they wish any time they wish anywhere they wish. That is how opposed I am to any kind of censorship.

The F* word is just a word. Although originally meaning the sex act, its most common use is to express frustration, anger and dismissal. When used to refer to something other than the sex act it isn't really even obscene.

Compare the outrage at the use of the F* word with the lack of outrage at the word screw. Screw and the F* word can be used to mean the same sexual act, but no one objects to the use of the word screw to refer to the hardware item or to express anger, whereas the prudish howl when the F* word is used to express anger and frustration. The hullabaloo over the F* word is illogical and makes no sense to me. I think people who worry about profanity either haven't bothered to think the issue through, aren't very intelligent or are timid conformists -- and, mind you, I neither swear nor worry if others do myself unless the swearing is constant -- and then it mostly bothers me because it is repetitive and boring.

[SaveElmer]

31. You are missing the point...

Private entities, such as airlines, are free to limit the conduct of its customers on its premises. There is no constitutional violation of free speech rights in this case.

Just as there is no free speech violation by imposing dress codes at restaurants and at places of employment.

I personally am not particularly offended by profanity, but if I were running the airline I would do exactly what they did. It is in their economic best interest.

[Fescue4u]

26. Well amendments 2 through 10 are already suspended in airport

Its only fair kill the 1st amendment as well.

/sarcasm off

[onenote]

34. since you're a first amendment absolutist, I have a question

Here are some other real t-shirts. I'd be curious to know whether you think the airline would be out of line asking someone wearing one of these to cover it up or change it? Are some okay? Which ones and why?.

onenote



http://www.politicallyerectshirts.com/shirtpages/FUCK-H...

http://www.wowfans.com/jimnorton/jn-rape . jpg

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/designs/Attitude/pages/i...

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/Pussy-t-shirts/Shaved%20...

http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/New/Shirts/Theres-Nothin...

The second shirt displays automatically if the url is posted, so I put a space before .jpg. Remove the space if you want to see the shirt.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

36. I want to know ...

Just how did she get on the plane in the first place?

Melonhawg