The T-Shirt Terrorist?

October 11, 2005 12:26 PM

Last week, a woman was forced off a Southwest Airlines flight for wearing a t-shirt. The shirt in question bore the phrase "Meet the F*ckers" and an image of US President Bush, VP Cheney and Condoleezza Rice. The passenger, Lorrie Heasley, refused to remove it after other passengers complained. Apparently "Southwest rules filed with the FAA say they can remove a passenger that is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive," but the airline says the curse (not the political message) led to her being asked to leave. Ms. Heasley is now speaking with the ACLU to see if she can initiate a lawsuit, but the NYTimes checked with experts in constitutional law and they don't think she has a case.

Well, the makers of the t-shirt have responded: "If any T-Shirt Hell customer is kicked off of any commercial airline flight simply for wearing one of our shirts, we will provide you with alternate transportation to get you to your original destination. This transportation includes, but is not limited to, the T-Shirt Hell corporate jet."
posted by zarq (221 comments total)

Good PR. I wonder how well that's gonna work out though if it takes til next day...
posted by dig_duggler at 12:29 PM on October 11, 2005

Had that woman been reading a magazine with that cover, no one would have complained. Why is clothing any different?
posted by orange swan at 12:30 PM on October 11, 2005

Had that woman been reading a magazine with that cover, no one would have complained.

Afraid I have to disagree.
posted by russilwvong at 12:33 PM on October 11, 2005

T-shirt corporate jet? Man, I'm in the wrong business.
posted by rolypolyman at 12:33 PM on October 11, 2005

The passenger, Lorrie Heasley, refused to remove it after other passengers complained.

Guess she didn't want to go topless.
posted by alumshubby at 12:34 PM on October 11, 2005

I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I'm glad she was forced off. I mean, how about showing a little decorum in public? When you are going to be in an enclosed space with a couple hundred other captives for several hours, it might be thoughtful to leave the shirt with the curse words folded up in your dresser. You don't have the constitutional right to be a thoughtless, crass asshole on an airplane.
posted by MegoSteve at 12:34 PM on October 11, 2005

She got thrown off for the lame joke.

I don't see how this is a big deal. Nightclubs are free to enforce dress codes, why not airlines? Traveling by air on a corporate owned airline is not a constitutional right, now is it?

If she owned a private plane and had a bunch of "Fuck Bush" t-shirts in the cargo hold and the FAA wouldn't let her take off -- I'd fight this to the death. Southwest has every right to exclude her for what she wishes to wear as she has every right to pick a different airline.
posted by geoff. at 12:34 PM on October 11, 2005

You didn't read your own link. It makes it clear that T-Shirt Hell was not the manufacturer of the shirt in question. ("We believe her only crime was purchasing a t-shirt from somewhere other than tshirthell.com")
posted by dobbs at 12:36 PM on October 11, 2005

If anyone had a shirt that said "Fuck" on it and refused to cover it up, I would also support them being kicked off a plane. I don't swear around little kids or mixed company and an airline is perfectly within its rights to ban that sort of behavior if it so chooses. No ones rights are being infringed.

If an airline only selectively utilized this policy and only booted off people with politically charged shirts with such language, then that would be more disturbing. Seems here that the airline did just that or at least had conflicting reasons.
posted by Falconetti at 12:37 PM on October 11, 2005

Yeah, the story loses a little bit of its punch when you realize that T-Shirt Hell is just jumping on the bandwagon for publicity (and it is a nice PR stunt; I'll grant them that) rather than responding to an incident that actually involved a shirt that they printed.

Bonus points for the "of" tag, too.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:39 PM on October 11, 2005

Had that woman been reading a magazine with that cover, no one would have complained.

T-shirts are like bumper stickers, used to broadcast one's political beliefs/taste in music/experiences/etc., whereas a magazine is just something you buy, consume and don't necessarily endorse the views of. Although I have to agree with russilwvong; a magazine with a similar slogan could very well have elicited a similar response.
posted by you just lost the game at 12:40 PM on October 11, 2005

My parents got bombed by the US and lost their limbs and all I got was this lousy t-shirt

My parents got neglected due to poverty and race during a flood and all I got was this lousy t-shirt

My parents are consistantly lied to and manipulated and all I got ...
posted by Peter H at 12:44 PM on October 11, 2005

So now tons of people will wear T-Shirt Hell shirts on planes, trying to get kicked off. What happenes when dozens of people start calling up looking for a ride on their corporate jet? This is going to backfire on them.

As for this woman, boo fucking hoo. If she values her freedom of speech so much let's see her wear it to her next job interview and see how that goes. You're in Southwest Airline's house, they can kick you out for being a douchebag.
posted by bondcliff at 12:47 PM on October 11, 2005

If anyone had a shirt that said "Fuck" on it and refused to cover it up, I would...

...be awfully tempted to walk off the plane with them. Not sure if I would do it, since I have a wife who would be angry, and it would depend on the reason for our flight, but still I'd be tempted.

Seriously, the world, especially the current American culture needs to get off the morality crusades and start growing a little common sense. The woman agreed to cover it up for chris'sakes, and fell asleep and the covering fell off. It's a t-shirt, and she acted entirely appropriately when requested to cover it. She should NOT have been booted off the plane because other people were offended, when she was breaking no law.

What's next? Can I get that Muslim booted off the plane because we happen to be waiting for takeoff during the time for his daily prayer? Or just because his wife is wearing a hijab and I don't agree with that? How about that rich son-of-a-bitch in First Class who can't stop talking about his job in Big Tobacco? Can he be frog-marched out on the tarmac? Or maybe I'm a member of "No Kidding" and the squalling brat in seat 4B offends me?
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:47 PM on October 11, 2005

What is going to happen to someone who accidentally sees the word "Fuck?"
posted by dial-tone at 12:47 PM on October 11, 2005

but the NYTimes checked with experts in constitutional law and they don't think she has a case.

They had to check with experts in constitutional law to know this? It is facially obvious that she doesn't have a claim.
posted by dios at 12:48 PM on October 11, 2005

stupid citizen sues for own ignorance. news at eleven.
posted by NationalKato at 12:48 PM on October 11, 2005

"If anyone had a shirt that said "Fuck" on it and refused to cover it up, I would also support them being kicked off a plane."

If anyone had a shirt that said "Believe in Jesus" on it and refused to cover it up, I would also support them being kicked off a plane.

If anyone had a shirt that said "Michigan State University" on it and refused to cover it up, I would also support them being kicked off a plane.

If anyone had a shirt that said "Nike" on it and refused to cover it up, I would also support them being kicked off a plane.

If anyone had weird facial piercings that made my kids ask uncomfortable questions, I would also support them being kicked off a plane.


I support your right to shut up and stop worrying so much about other people's clothing choices.
Or..oh wait...am I living in a theocracy? Oh...I forgot. That's right. *quickly changes into more appropriate clothing*
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:49 PM on October 11, 2005

So I guess that means fcuk shirts are grounds for exit since it's clear that the association is made in the majority of people's minds.

Somehow, I don't think this will be the case.
posted by juiceCake at 12:49 PM on October 11, 2005

This isn't anything new. You can be refused service at all kinds of places - restaurants, stores, DISNEY - if you are deemed to be offending others with your clothing (or lack thereof).

While I fully support her right to wear the shirt, there are times to do it and then there aren't times.

It's not like I go around wearing my DDR (East German) shirt everywhere. Just on the 4th. ;)
posted by vannsant at 12:49 PM on October 11, 2005

Yeah, I wonder if I can get a shirt ordered, a flight booked, and myself kicked off the flight in time for my trip this weekend...

What is going to happen to someone who accidentally sees the word "Fuck?"

THEY WILL DIE
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:50 PM on October 11, 2005

posted by MegoSteve I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I'm glad she was forced off. I mean, how about showing a little decorum in public? When you are going to be in an enclosed space with a couple hundred other captives for several hours, it might be thoughtful to leave the shirt with the curse words folded up in your dresser. You don't have the constitutional right to be a thoughtless, crass asshole on an airplane.

I quote Frank Zappa: "We're talking about words."
If you're getting that worked up over words on a t-shirt, you've got issues a dress code and manners aren't going to solve.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:50 PM on October 11, 2005

French Connection UK, a major fashion chain, has been blazing its 'FCUK' logo across its clothes in Britain for years. The joke is lame now (of course, it always was) but for a while it wasn't unusual to see T-shirts that said 'FCUK me' and 'gorgeous as FCUK'. No one's ever been kicked off a plane, or a bus for that matter, for wearing a French Connection top... much to the company's chagrin.
posted by MinPin at 12:50 PM on October 11, 2005

This reminds me of an episode of the cable show "Airport" (I think that's what it was called) where a passenger was told, more or less, "Sir, it is not your constitutional right to sit in the waiting area wearing a mini-skirt with your balls hanging out."

I think we can all agree on at least that.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:52 PM on October 11, 2005

dobbs: DOH! Thanks for the correction. :)
posted by zarq at 12:52 PM on October 11, 2005

Faint of Heart: Yeah, my first time using tags on a MeFi post.
posted by zarq at 12:53 PM on October 11, 2005

A friend of mine runs sinfulshirts.com, which is 100x better then t-shirt hell. T-shirt hell are just publicity whores, and their press releases are 90% bs designed to get them traffic, which is exactly what this post has done.
posted by delmoi at 12:53 PM on October 11, 2005

dios: If the Times simply stated she didn't without going to an expert source, they'd be editorializing, not reporting. :)
posted by zarq at 12:56 PM on October 11, 2005

hey, why stop there? why not just let everyone board airplanes naked? i mean, golly gee, what's the big deal?

c'mon, we all know everyone here supports the first amendment. but let's look at this realistically: bondcliff put it best - she chose to wear a shirt that said 'Fuck.' she was called on it.

for the record, i also support kicking the following off of planes: screaming babies, cell phone jerks, flatulent bastards, and those people who think they have all the time in the damned world to stow their overhead baggage. i paid for my ticket just like you pal...try not to be the center of the universe for once day in your life.
posted by NationalKato at 12:58 PM on October 11, 2005

French Connection UK, a major fashion chain, has been blazing its 'FCUK' logo across its clothes in Britain for years. The joke is lame now (of course, it always was) but for a while it wasn't unusual to see T-shirts that said 'FCUK me' and 'gorgeous as FCUK'. No one's ever been kicked off a plane, or a bus for that matter, for wearing a French Connection top... much to the company's chagrin.

Yes, and they sell FCUK stuff in the US as well, which makes no sense.
posted by delmoi at 12:59 PM on October 11, 2005

fandango_matt: Acting like "it's just words, they don't mean anything" is damn stupid on a web site that's almost entirely text-based.
posted by MegoSteve at 1:00 PM on October 11, 2005

I really wonder who initiated the complaint. The story says that the couple was not approached until after they boarded. I imagine this means some other annoying passenger noticed it at some point while waiting/boarding and stewed in their own prudishness until they decided to complain. This means that the person had ALREADY been offended and, since no one can really see another passenger's shirt from another seat on the plane, wanted these people punished retroactively.

If airline officials had noticed it in the terminal and decided to preempt any offense, that would be more acceptable in my mind. This just sounds like Southwest was forced to react by some unreasonable passenger that had the letter of the law/policy on their side. Those type of people are hurting America.
posted by mullacc at 1:00 PM on October 11, 2005

Those type of people are hurting America.

Wait, I thought Bush flew on Air Force One?
posted by NationalKato at 1:02 PM on October 11, 2005

If anyone had a shirt that said "Believe in Jesus" on it and refused to cover it up, I would also support them being kicked off a plane.

What about a shirt that said N*****S ♥ WATERMELON?
posted by delmoi at 1:04 PM on October 11, 2005

Those type of people are hurting America.
posted by mullacc at 3:00 PM CST on October 11

Those are the people hurting America?

The people who are so shrill, callous, and lowbrow that they think such a shirt is a good political statement and who apparently don't care about decorum or civility.... those people aren't the ones hurting America?

I would think this country could use a little more decorum and civility in general, but even more so in their political discourse.
posted by dios at 1:04 PM on October 11, 2005

I am 28 years old, but, so help me, if I see the word "fuck" in a public space with no warning, I just don't know what may happen! I may lose control! Lives may be forever affected!

America is full of fat, wage-earning crybabies. People need to get over themselves and their stupid little social taboos.
posted by wakko at 1:04 PM on October 11, 2005

delmoi: What about a shirt that said N*****S ♥ WATERMELON?

I doubt they'd make it on the plane in the first place without being beaten within an inch of their life.
posted by zarq at 1:07 PM on October 11, 2005

wage-earning

Is that an insult?
posted by dios at 1:07 PM on October 11, 2005

Lorrie needs to learn a basic life skill: how to pick her fights. Heh, what a goofball thing to take a stand on...
posted by scheptech at 1:08 PM on October 11, 2005

Those are the people hurting America?

Actually, both kinds of people are hurting America.
posted by you just lost the game at 1:08 PM on October 11, 2005

I doubt they'd make it on the plane in the first place without being beaten within an inch of their life.

Yes, because the Nipponees are known for being voilent.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on October 11, 2005

I really don't care if there is no constitutional protection for her...whoever couldn't sack it up because they saw a bad word in a public place was a whiny idiot. And to derail another passenger's travel plans because oh noes, it's a bad word, is just fucking stupid.
posted by emjaybee at 1:10 PM on October 11, 2005

I doubt they'd make it on the plane in the first place without being beaten within an inch of their life.

You didn't answer the question.
posted by NationalKato at 1:10 PM on October 11, 2005

I don't swear around little kids or mixed company

Babies usually come out of a dripping wet pussy several months after a quality fucking. There is nothing dangerous for children in this.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:11 PM on October 11, 2005

If the complaint had come just a little later, when the plane was in the air, would they have turned the plane around and returned to the airport rather than endure the hideous, destroying presence of this T-shirt? Or would we have had to scramble the F-16s?
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:12 PM on October 11, 2005

Sorry, I'm being a little random here. But the point is that some phrases can be offensive and it's resonable for an airline to try to make the airplane flight not quite so uncomfortable for the other passengers.

People used to dress up in suits and whatnot for airplane rides, now it's tracksuits and sweats.

Although, I suppose if they let her on the plane to begin with, it's rather rude to kick her off in the middle of the flight, leaving her stranded.

Meh.
posted by delmoi at 1:13 PM on October 11, 2005

I'm with you just lost the game. So a shirt says fuck. It's not that big of a deal. Which means the other people on the plane were cry babies. Choosing to make a big deal about it, also kind of whiny.

Oops, I just lost the game.
posted by dial-tone at 1:14 PM on October 11, 2005

George: actualy they kicked her off at a stop-over, or whatever they're called.
posted by delmoi at 1:14 PM on October 11, 2005

Previously posted and discussed here.
posted by ericb at 1:14 PM on October 11, 2005

Oops, I just lost the game.

Thanks, for sharing. It was everso important that you did.
posted by delmoi at 1:15 PM on October 11, 2005

Nationalkato, sure a person can wear a t-shirt that says someone loves watermelons. Other people are free to confront them for choosing to express their opinions to the person wearing said t-shirt.

Free Speech, it might not always be pleasant, but it's the right thing to do.
posted by dial-tone at 1:18 PM on October 11, 2005

delmoi, fair point. As for your other observation, people used to wear suits to baseball games. The very notion of casual clothing was pretty novel before the 1950s or so.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:20 PM on October 11, 2005

Metafilter: Full of fat, wage-earning crybabies
posted by Outlawyr at 1:21 PM on October 11, 2005

Note that the airline could also have settled the issue by offering the complaining passenger a later flight.

"Sir, if you're unable to continue on the 2:15 flight, we can transfer you to the 4:30 without charge..."
posted by jellicle at 1:22 PM on October 11, 2005

From the typical airplane seat, how much clothing can you see? Some of your own, and some of your immediate neighbor's - and that's about it. Even from the aisle, a T-shirt on a seated passenger isn't exactly a billboard. On a Hollywood fantasy airplane, maybe, but not in the sardine-can of a real one.

The story doesn't say any of the passengers complained. It sounds like the air crew could have just ignored the shirt, and there would have been no incident.

If this is the shirt in question, I'd have to say by far the most offensive thing about it is the color.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:23 PM on October 11, 2005

What doesn't make sense to me is that a corporation like Southwest chose, in protecting one uptight passenger from offense, generated a PR shitstorm that offended probably thousands. Was it worth it?
posted by ToasT at 1:23 PM on October 11, 2005

She gets very little sympathy from me. There are plenty of more witty, intelligent and effective things to say to get your point across than "meet the fuckers". We live in a country with obscenity taboos that are enshrined in law. If you can't accept it then work to change the law, don't whine about it.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:24 PM on October 11, 2005

This all seems so familiar.

Anyway, T-Shirt Hell's best shirt, in my humble opinion, has been What Would Jesus Do for a Klondike Bar? But then, I haven't been paying attention for a long time.

Didn't they also used to have a cool referalls program?
posted by fenriq at 1:26 PM on October 11, 2005

They had to check with experts in constitutional law to know this? It is facially obvious that she doesn't have a claim.
posted by dios at 12:48 PM PST on October 11

Hey buddy, long time no see. I've missed you.

On topic, it's pretty clear that the airline was clearly within its rights to decide a dress code; however, I'm not going to fly Southwest anymore. It's the Kmart of airlines.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:26 PM on October 11, 2005

How did we get to the point in this country where it being "offended" became a crisis that needed solving? Whiney fuckers. Fuck 'em. Fuckfuckfuckfuck.
posted by selfmedicating at 1:27 PM on October 11, 2005

...and to top it all off, it was a bad pun based on a mind-numbingly stupid movie. C'mon.
posted by fet at 1:30 PM on October 11, 2005

All these people saying "get over it, it's just a shirt", I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I wore that shirt to Christmas dinner at your grandmother's house, or to your church, or to your mother-in-law's house, or any number of other places where common sense and tact would dictate that perhaps I could put my public statement of individuality and rebelliousness aside for a couple of hours.

Nobody asked for this woman to be arrested, as far as I know. Nobody cried that the sky was falling. Nobody said anything about suffering permanent damage. All they wanted her to do was change her damn shirt.
posted by bondcliff at 1:30 PM on October 11, 2005

dial-tone, it all comes down to an airline's right to decide the dress code for its passengers. they don't let you board naked, either. where's the ACLU suit on that front? bottom line: you don't like the airline's policies, fly a different airline. it's not like she was kicked off the only flight in town.
posted by NationalKato at 1:30 PM on October 11, 2005

Bloom County comic strip (p38, "Loose Tails")

[voices from a crowd at a bus stop, opus looking on...]
"Ya know, you penguin types offend me."
"Hey, I'll tell ya what offends me...dirty words, that's what"
"Polish jokes offend me"
"Stereotypes offend ME"
"TV sex offends me!!"
"Look! That SIGN is offensive!"
"I made that sign, and I'm offended!"
"Frankly, sir, YOU offend ME!"
"Well! I'm offended at your offense!"
"Those nudes offend my womanhood!"
"Those gays offend my manhood!"
"This comic offends my offensiveness!"
...
[all together]
MY GOSH, LIFE IS OFFENSIVE!!
AAAAIIIGGGHHH!!!
[everybody runs away, screaming]

leaving poor opus all alone, who, nonplussed, remarks to the camera: "Offensensitivity."
posted by eatdonuts at 1:31 PM on October 11, 2005

ToasT, you could ask the same thing of Martha Stewart, how much did she lose by saving that $100K? She lost hundreds of millions of dollars, her empire has been diminished substantially and her reputation has been permanently tarnished. I doubt she'd say it was worth it.

Same thing for Southwest. But Southwest can't make anywhere near as good an Apple Crisp as Martha can.
posted by fenriq at 1:31 PM on October 11, 2005

Just for this thread, I've just created a special shirt. Buy it, wear it on a plane, let us know what happens!
posted by fandango_matt at 1:31 PM on October 11, 2005

NationalKato: That's because the question wasn't asked of me. It was a response to Baby_Balrog's comment by delmoi.

I don't personally like the sentiment, but the person wearing it certainly has the right to wear it. Well, unless by doing so they incite a riot or something.
posted by zarq at 1:31 PM on October 11, 2005

i love that website!
posted by swinginjohn at 1:32 PM on October 11, 2005

And now, the correct link.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:32 PM on October 11, 2005

Dios said "The people who are so shrill, callous, and lowbrow that they think such a shirt is a good political statement and who apparently don't care about decorum or civility.... those people aren't the ones hurting America?"

Shrill, callous and lowbrow is better than petty, vindictive and self-important.


However, I don't think the t-shirt lady was being callous - unthoughtful, yes, but not quite so bad as to be called callous.
posted by mullacc at 1:35 PM on October 11, 2005

posted by MegoSteve Acting like "it's just words, they don't mean anything" is damn stupid on a web site that's almost entirely text-based.

That's not what I said. Please reread my comment.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:36 PM on October 11, 2005

but the person wearing it certainly has the right to wear it. posted by zarq at 3:31 PM CST on October 11

And companies have the right to refuse her service based on here callous, shrill, unfunny and incivil lack of decorum. Remember, constitutional protections, for the most part, only apply against government action.

Any company that wants to can ban offensive shirts, pink shirts, collared shirts, sandals, Lance Armstrong bracelets, or whatever they want.

And if you think you are excercising your rights by behaving in such a craven manner, then be proud of yourself, but be prepared to suffer the consequences of such behavior.
posted by dios at 1:37 PM on October 11, 2005

Yes, because the Nipponees are known for being voilent.

The Nipponese, you mean? Try again. ;-D
posted by zarq at 1:39 PM on October 11, 2005

In addition to being incivil, it is uncivil, as well.
posted by dios at 1:39 PM on October 11, 2005

1) I love T-Shirt Hell & their products

2) I would never wear any of it

3) It's hard to sympathize with someone who does, in public, and then cries 'persecution' to the media.

Drama. Queenery. How about writing the lady a ticket for being tacky & entitled and sending her on her way?
posted by dhoyt at 1:40 PM on October 11, 2005

1) I love T-Shirt Hell & their products

Yes, i know the shirt wasn't from them.
posted by dhoyt at 1:40 PM on October 11, 2005

You don't have the constitutional right to be a thoughtless, crass asshole on an airplane

It would seem you do, based on the number of them I've met in economy class.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:41 PM on October 11, 2005

Who the fuck cares?
The 'She gets little sympathy because it was a dumb shirt' is mealy-mouthed bullshit from people who think they have convictions but will sell them out at a moment's notice. Yeah, it was a dumb shirt. Hustler's a dumb magazine. Guess what: you should be able to take either one on a plane.
'What about decorum?'
Fuck yer decorum. You don't say anything about my dumb shirt, I won't say anything about your dumb haircut and your leaking assface. You do not have a right to not be offended in public.
'What if the shirt had said that 'Niggers love watermelon?'
So what? Black people can't be trusted to be around a racist without launching into an uncontrolable rage? The shirt would just mark the wearer as a mouth-breathing slope-browed shitheel. That's the baggage that they have to take through life, not you.
Adults can be expected to ignore things that bother them in public spaces. That's why I don't club you all to death with a tire iron when you pay by check for your pack of gum or ask stupid questions in class. Are any of your essential freedoms abrogated by seeing "Fuck"? Have I restrained your life, liberty or property? (Specious arguments about being able to enjoy the "property" of purchased airline flight can be shat out here. I've been reading Locke all day and am willing to mix my labor with a boot to your rhetorical head).
Civility is fine, but using force (or the implied threat of forceful coercion) to enforce it is fundamentally flawed.
posted by klangklangston at 1:41 PM on October 11, 2005

Or how about this? Is this t-shirt obscene? Or would the airline be culpable of discrimination? Yeah, paradox! That's what Kirk would do! (Now, I'm going to go get me a "What Would Kirk Do?" shirt...)
posted by klaatu at 1:42 PM on October 11, 2005

"And companies have the right to refuse her service based on here callous, shrill, unfunny and incivil lack of decorum..."
Ah, the tyranny of the majority meets corporatism in one satisfying morsel.
posted by klangklangston at 1:43 PM on October 11, 2005

Nationalkato, sure they have the right to ban anyone for wearing anything, I never said they didn't (unless if I misread your question). It doesn't mean they should do it.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I wore that shirt to Christmas dinner at your grandmother's house, or to your church, or to your mother-in-law's house, or any number of other places where common sense and tact would dictate that perhaps I could put my public statement of individuality and rebelliousness aside for a couple of hours.


If you feel the need to wear that sort of thing to my grandma's house, feel free to. Saying that a person should be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a swear word on it isn't the same as saying people should go around wearing t-shirts with swear words written on it.
posted by dial-tone at 1:44 PM on October 11, 2005

All these people saying "get over it, it's just a shirt", I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I wore that shirt to Christmas dinner at your grandmother's house...

What if you had, by prior arrangement, paid me $500 for the honor of dining at my Grandmother's house? What if the house was hundreds or thousands of miles away from your home? What if I let you eat half a meal, then suddenly "noticed" your shirt, and kicked your ass out into the snow, refusing to refund your $500 - refusing even to call a cab to help you get back home? You wouldn't have anything bad to say about my reaction?
posted by Western Infidels at 1:46 PM on October 11, 2005

dios: I didn't think I said otherwise. Of course they do. Southwest is a private company, providing a private service and can establish reasonable rules which their passengers must follow.

What I mean is, anyone has a legal right to wear a watermelon shirt. The right to do so doesn't give them carte blanche, nor does it mean they won't be attacked by someone who finds it offensive.
posted by zarq at 1:48 PM on October 11, 2005

zarq: Southwest is a public company and has a duty to its shareholders to careful screen the t-shirts of its customers.
posted by mullacc at 1:54 PM on October 11, 2005

She wore the shirt hoping to get a reaction. She got one. End of story.
posted by b_thinky at 2:00 PM on October 11, 2005

Aww, B_thinky, you almost got to the point where you b_thought.
posted by klangklangston at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2005

Ah, the tyranny of the majority meets corporatism in one satisfying morsel.

If you seriously think that not being able to wear the t-shirt of your choice is the tyranny of the majority, your definition of tyranny is so weak as to be useless.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2005

mullac: Well, more accurately, they have a duty to their shareholders not to do anything that would ruin the company's public reputation or cause it to lose money and customers.

I suspect decent arguments for and against screening could be made on that basis. In other words, it's a no-win situation.
posted by zarq at 2:04 PM on October 11, 2005

The story that she covered it up but it slipped as she slept and then she got kicked off is bullshit from so many angles.
posted by fire&wings at 2:09 PM on October 11, 2005

zarq got it. A commerical plane is private property and the owner can legally expel anyone from the plane. They can also keep your money unless you have a good lawyer that can invalidate the purchase contract.

The airline acted well within reason. The other passengers, who also paid $500, do not have be subjected to objectionable vulgarity. The airline simply asked the dimwit to cover the t-shirt up, the dimwit, being dumb, refused, so bub-bye.
posted by StarForce5 at 2:10 PM on October 11, 2005

"If you seriously think that not being able to wear the t-shirt of your choice is the tyranny of the majority, your definition of tyranny is so weak as to be useless."
Or so pervasive that you ignore it. Or flattering to your biases so you accept it.
And besides, the point was the attitudes evidenced behind his comment, not that this t-shirt was somehow the Bloody Sunday of the revolution.
posted by klangklangston at 2:11 PM on October 11, 2005

"The other passengers, who also paid $500, do not have be subjected to objectionable vulgarity."
Because their panties might knot up so tightly that they'd never get them off!
posted by klangklangston at 2:12 PM on October 11, 2005

The 'She gets little sympathy because it was a dumb shirt' is mealy-mouthed bullshit from people who think they have convictions but will sell them out at a moment's notice. Yeah, it was a dumb shirt. Hustler's a dumb magazine. Guess what: you should be able to take either one on a plane.

Thanks for magically looking into my soul and divining my moral fiber. Guess what: just because you think something "should" be allowed does not enshrine it into law. All your references to the constitution fall on deaf ears because this is not even remotely about constitutional issues or freedom of speech. I think it "shouldn't" be allowed. Quit oppressing me by drowning out my constitutional freedom of speech on Metafilter.

People that get their rocks off by wearing an offensive t-shirt in public are egotistical, narcissistic overgrown babies. Respecting other people's personal space and environment isn't usually that hard and decent people who believe that communities are more important than their own personal selfish statements accomodate others within reason.
posted by Falconetti at 2:13 PM on October 11, 2005

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I wore that shirt to Christmas dinner at your grandmother's house, or to your church, or to your mother-in-law's house

Last time I checked, though, none of those examples offered prepaid services under any kind of common carrier type agreement.
posted by mce at 2:15 PM on October 11, 2005

posted by StarForce5 The other passengers, who also paid $500, do not have be subjected to objectionable vulgarity.

I'd really like to know if and where this clause exists in the purchase contract, because every time I'm seated next to a screaming baby, someone with bad BO, or a really fat person, I'm going to sue the daylights out of the airline for subjecting me to "objectional vugarity."
posted by fandango_matt at 2:16 PM on October 11, 2005

Is there a sign saying no shirts with 'fuck' on them when you board? Perhaps we need obscenity detectors in place at the airports. I wonder if people would have complained if the shirt featured a picture of say i don't know, maybe SATAN (not to say that it didn't). I mean with all these skateboarders for Christ what else say's i love god more than fuck satan. What if the shirt said something offensive in Arabic and an arab guy complained would the person be removed, hmmm somehow i doubts it. The type of person that would complain about said shirt is also the type to support Bush, you know who you are.
And yes those t-shirt hell shirts are tacky as hell but so are those damn magnetic ribbons and plastic writsbands, let's face it U.S.A you are not classy, not even close, possibly the most tasteless nation ever!
posted by los pijamas del gato at 2:17 PM on October 11, 2005

Last time I checked, though, none of those examples offered prepaid services under any kind of common carrier type agreement.
posted by mce at 4:15 PM CST on October 11
Last time I checked, though, the offering of prepaid services under any kind of common carrier type agreement didn't have any effect at all on the ability to establish standards regarding offensive clothing.
posted by dios at 2:18 PM on October 11, 2005

11 posts tagged "of"
posted by voltairemodern at 2:19 PM on October 11, 2005

*BOONG*

Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some mild hysteria, so the captain has turned on the Objectional Vulgarity sign. Please unclench and return your panties to the unknotted and untwisted position.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:21 PM on October 11, 2005

My review of the situation:

T-shirt: dumb
Complainant: dumber
SouthWest: dumbest

I've sat 6 hours next to people who prosetylized on the genius of Michael Moore, and others who were compelled to share the wisdom of Anne Coulter. Perhaps if I was flying SouthWest, I could've had them tossed at the first layover.
posted by I Love Tacos at 2:23 PM on October 11, 2005

I'm not happy with it. But I'm torn between the right of free speech vs. the right of private property.
While I agree there is no “right to travel by commercial airline” thats much along the same “there is no right to have a driver’s license” BS. There isn’t any other way to travel and you should have the right to travel (given that you aren’t an explicit danger to others).

If the shirt said “Fuck” I’d side more with the airlines. But this is political speech. I think that should be safeguarded by the government.
But then again, this is private property and they have to err on the side of the least amount of trouble or trouble causing.

It’s their plane, but I don’t have to like it.

Given that she isn’t actively causing trouble (being rowdy, etc - vs. passively), they should have found her a flight with an alternate airlines.
Refunding her money would have been more reasonable.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:23 PM on October 11, 2005

Let's say airline A didn't have or enforce any kind of dress code, and airlines B, C, D and DD did.

If airline A became more profitable and market research tied it back to the fact that they let butt-plugged nudists and people with "I'm a child-raping paedophile" embroidered on their assless leather chaps on board, then the competing airlines would drop their policies in a heartbeat. Such is the nature of oligopoly.

Yet, I suspect that all major air carriers have and enforce a passenger dress code policy.

So the free market chooses civility. Boo-hoo.

I suspect that if the woman were wearing a t-shirt that said: "Hillary Clinton is a fucking cuntbag" she may have found herself in the same situation, so ya'll can save yourself the faux-righteous indignation.
posted by buck09 at 2:24 PM on October 11, 2005

The type of person that would complain about said shirt is also the type to support Bush, you know who you are.

You are wrong, at least in my case. Actually I doubt I would complain, but I wouldn't complain if someone else complained. Civility and respect for other people is not (or at least should not) be the province of conservatives.
posted by Falconetti at 2:26 PM on October 11, 2005

"I've sat 6 hours next to people who prosetylized on the genius of Michael Moore, and others who were compelled to share the wisdom of Anne Coulter. "

Which raises the question - what if she was speaking using foul language? Politically extreme language?
Why is the line drawn around a t-shirt?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:27 PM on October 11, 2005

Why is the line drawn around a t-shirt?

Practical and pragmatic reasons probably. It would be difficult to police peoples' conversations on an airplane. If they did and then booted people off for being obnoxious they would probably get a lot of bad press, which would be bad for their business. In the abstract, these are business decisions, not constitutional decisions.

If the airline did boot her off, not because of the vulgarity, but because they disagreed with her political viewpoint, then they would probably have to contend with people boycotting or refusing to fly on their airline. Whatever happens, happens. As it was mentioned above, the market decides the consequences for all parties.
posted by Falconetti at 2:32 PM on October 11, 2005

Cogent point Falconetti
posted by Smedleyman at 2:40 PM on October 11, 2005

Good PR move. It *should* cost them very little since most people kicked off airlines are probably drunk. But every time they do pick up the tab, they get press coverage! So I don't think the'd mind having it happen a little more often to keep their name in the news.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:42 PM on October 11, 2005

'You are wrong, at least in my case. Actually I doubt I would complain, but I wouldn't complain if someone else complained. Civility and respect for other people is not (or at least should not) be the province of conservatives'
Um, if by civility and respect for other people you mean not having them kicked off a plane for wearing a dumb shirt i certainly would not say that was the province of the conservatives (who may or may not support Bush, these days)
and also "I wouldn't complain if someone else complained" means virtually nothing, which is something. Would you complain if someone else did not complain? and would you be complaining about the shirt or just the general lack of complaining?
posted by los pijamas del gato at 2:43 PM on October 11, 2005

I would bet that I could get on a Southwest flight everyday for the rest of my life with that same shirt and unless another passenger has a hissy fit, Southwest would take absolutely no action to remove it or me. Southwest may or may not have a "policy" regarding a dress code, but the real policy it follows is to oil the squeaky wheel. If you complained about a baby crying, nothing would happen because Southwest knows that your squeaking is infinitely less squeaky than the outcry it would be subject to if it were seen as anti-baby. But if you wear a political shirt that says fuck this or that person and someone gets worked up, you're gone baby because there's no ACLU case or real outrage there.

This is why letter-writers are effective. Because they're so fucking annoying.
posted by mullacc at 2:43 PM on October 11, 2005

and also "I wouldn't complain if someone else complained" means virtually nothing, which is something. Would you complain if someone else did not complain? and would you be complaining about the shirt or just the general lack of complaining?

It may amount to meaning nothing, but I was trying to say that I don't think I'd personally care enough to actively take a stand if confronted with a similar issue, but that if someone else found the shirt truly upsetting or didn't want their child to see that language, then I wouldn't object to the airline asking the person to cover up the offending language. And if she refused, I wouldn't object to booting her. (Note: there are conflicting versions of the events in the article, so this is a hypothetical not meant to opine on the facts of the immediate case.)

Finally, what is so atrocious about approving of a public sphere that at least attempts to be welcoming to everyone. All public interaction on a grand scale is a process of negotiating what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The consensus is that wearing offensive material in public is generally unacceptable. Wearing it to a fetish club or your friend's house or a concert is much more acceptable. It is that simple. There are borderline cases of course, but as a general matter one should try not to upset the applecart if there is no countervailing reason.
posted by Falconetti at 2:55 PM on October 11, 2005

I think mullacc just nailed the very mundane origin of this issue.
posted by Falconetti at 2:56 PM on October 11, 2005

Or so pervasive that you ignore it. Or flattering to your biases so you accept it.

It's neither pervasive - you could wear this t-shirt in public spaces - nor flattering to my biases, whatever that means. I'm no fan of this administration, that's for sure.

And besides, the point was the attitudes evidenced behind his comment, not that this t-shirt was somehow the Bloody Sunday of the revolution.

I'm not sure what that means at all, but if I were running an airline, I'd do the same sort of thing. Air travel is unpleasant enough, thank you very much.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:57 PM on October 11, 2005

You kow what scares the living shit out of me and would make me cringe on a flight? Sitting next to another fundie dumbass college age kid wearing a Steadman-esque technicolor mess on his torso advertising the awesome power of The Lord. In a pefect world those guys would be thumbing rides to their destination out on the Serial Assrape highway.
posted by docpops at 2:58 PM on October 11, 2005

Ms. Heasley is now speaking with the ACLU to see if she can initiate a lawsuit...

You know...what a *****. I'm sure she knew what she was doing...trolling on an airplane enough to get kicked off so she could sue.

If the shirt said, "I don't agree with (whoever's) politics" it would be different and wouldn't have little children trying to sound out a new word.

I must admit though, it does make an interesting topic on what it would be like if the government had full control of the airlines.
posted by samsara at 2:59 PM on October 11, 2005

I'm really hoping that every passenger on Southwest finds something to get offended over on every single flight.
posted by Hildegarde at 3:05 PM on October 11, 2005

I just wanted to say that I agree a business can set any dress code they like and refuse service to anyone they want to for just about any reason at all. That is just a fact. But how would it be if you went into a restaurant, were seated at a table, ordered your meal and when you had eaten half of it, they decided what you were wearing didn't fit the dress code (one that isn't publicly posted) and tossed you out without a refund or your leftover meal? The time to decide these things is before you begin giving someone service.

The airline felt that the T-shirt was offensive and that other passengers would be outraged by it ...

... the airline's contract with the Federal Aviation Administration contains rules that 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.

The airline decided it was an offensive shirt, not complaining passengers, so they should have found it offensive before letting her on the plane, or at the very least before taking off.

Personally, I would have removed the teeshirt, and then gotten thrown off for showing my boobs (though I probably wouldn't have worn that shirt on a plane anyway).
posted by Orb at 3:12 PM on October 11, 2005

I love this quote from the second link. Everyone at Metafilter should take note:

"The Constitution only restricts the government," said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in War Times."

He added, "One of the most basic facts of the Constitution that the general public doesn't understand is that the Constitution governs the government, so only the government can violate the Constitution."
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:12 PM on October 11, 2005

I, for one, welcome our new T-Shirt selling overlords.
posted by vagus at 3:17 PM on October 11, 2005

"so only the government can violate the Constitution."

Yeah, but it just seems un-American to do something like this.
I would point out though it is illegal to refuse someone service based on race, creed, etc. You could argue this from that point of view.
You’d lose - because of the profanity, but if that wasn’t there, I think she’d have a case.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:23 PM on October 11, 2005

* certain kinds of service
posted by Smedleyman at 3:24 PM on October 11, 2005

You’d lose - because of the profanity, but if that wasn’t there, I think she’d have a case.

If the profanity wasn't there, she wouldn't have been kicked off of the flight!
posted by me & my monkey at 3:30 PM on October 11, 2005

While she might not "win" a lawsuit, I'll be shocked if a lawyer doesn't take up her case, and end up settling out of court.

Some pictures of the SouthWest terminal in Ft. Lauderdale during spring break would prove that the policy regarding "obscene" t-shirts is not enforced in a fair or consistent manner.
posted by I Love Tacos at 3:39 PM on October 11, 2005

"If the profanity wasn't there, she wouldn't have been kicked off of the flight!"

Just following Roger Dodger's quote through the hypothetical. Bit of a derail really.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:39 PM on October 11, 2005

The other passengers, who also paid $500, do not have be subjected to objectionable vulgarity.

And yet they show violent films on planes. Where is the line drawn? It's entirely absurd.
posted by juiceCake at 3:40 PM on October 11, 2005

The thing that annoys me most about this whole thing is, frankly, the T-shirt slogan itself.

"Meet The Fockers" Is already a contrived and poor allusion to the word "Fuck". It's why his character was called "Gaylord Focker" in the first place. As such it is totally unacceptable, under any circumstance, to make a reference to "Meet The Fuckers", as if it were somehow a novel and inventive bit of wordplay.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 3:40 PM on October 11, 2005

This thread is terrifying to me. Much more so than the airline's original actions.
posted by Laen at 3:42 PM on October 11, 2005

All these people saying "get over it, it's just a shirt", I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I wore that shirt to Christmas dinner at your grandmother's house, or to your church, or to your mother-in-law's house, or any number of other places

Yes, but a t-shirt might be a bit cold for Christmas dinner. You would be better off knitting it into a sweater.
posted by Happy Monkey at 3:43 PM on October 11, 2005

eatdonuts: I love that strip. :) Nice reference.
posted by zarq at 3:44 PM on October 11, 2005

"...Meet The Fockers" Is already a contrived and poor allusion to the word... "

Agreed Jon Mitchell, most of this type of political humor is crap.

That consistiency thing has me thinking, I Love Tacos.
Southwest would have to justify why ‘fuck’ in one context is wrong but ok in another.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:48 PM on October 11, 2005

Whatever happened to "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?"

As long as she wasn't trying to suffocate someone with it, swing it wet around her head (so it's splattering her neighbors), making a big deal out of it to the kids around her, loudly reading it aloud over and over again, and so on -- who cares what her t-shirt said??

Personally, I see lots of better places to start cleaning up manners and mannerisms, if we're going to worry over decorum.
posted by muckalucka at 3:48 PM on October 11, 2005

All the people saying she deserves what she got - could you answer a question for me?

What is the point of "bad words"?
posted by Happy Monkey at 3:49 PM on October 11, 2005

If you seriously think that not being able to wear the t-shirt of your choice is the tyranny of the majority, your definition of tyranny is so weak as to be useless.

I did not speak when they came for the woman in the Fuck T-shirt ...

the person had ALREADY been offended and... wanted these people punished retroactively.
If airline officials had noticed it in the terminal and decided to preempt any offense, that would be more acceptable ...

Thank you, mullacc (and others). That was precisely the point I was trying to make the first time we discussed this. If it was so offensive it violated SW's policy why didn't SW stop her before she got on the plane?

If the shirt said Fuck I'd side more with the airlines. But this is political speech. I think that should be safeguarded by the government.
And you smedleyman got to the other reason this particular situation bothers me - Was this an issue of obscenity or an issue of repressing a political message.

I recall the original poster of the previous thread, a Canadian, was shocked that US laws on such matters *are* different WRT censorship by government or corporations.

Conservatives whine about having to be "political correct" when it comes to important things such as how we treat minorities and women. But don't they turn PC when it comes to what T-fcuking shirt says. Especially those questioning Dear Leader.

Oh, and -
Metafilter: It is not your constitutional right to sit in the waiting area with your balls hanging out.
posted by NorthernLite at 3:56 PM on October 11, 2005

I was in the grocery store about six months ago when I saw a boy of about 15 or 16 with a man who was probably his dad. (A definite family resemblance there.) The boy was wearing a t-shirt that said in big, bold, capitalized letters, "FUCK YOU ALL."

I wasn't offended, but I was a little saddened. That looked like the emotion of the others in the store--a few head shakes and a lot of downturned eyes. It's unfortunate to be so young and have that attitude. I don't, however, think that anyone there tried to have him kicked out of the grocery store.

The t-shirt on the airplane at least had a little more class than that. And it certainly didn't evoke sadness.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:05 PM on October 11, 2005

What is the point of "bad words"?

Whatever point you are making, Frank Zappa George Carlin III, it is too broad to be relevant. The airline made a business decision and they will be subject to whatever response the market deems. If tons of people are up in arms about it, then they will suffer. If most people think the woman is an annoying, selfish, egotist, then they will either be applauded for their actions or ignored. If the government did or sanctioned such behavior, it would be an entirely different story. Or if she was punished purely for political speech, then while probably still legal, it would be a lot more disturbing. But neither seems to be the case here (although there are conflicting versions of events).

Someone may philosophically believe that "Fuck" should be allowed anywhere and at anytime, but fortunately our laws and norms (ideally) are decided on consensus and fundamental principles not individual worldviews.
posted by Falconetti at 4:06 PM on October 11, 2005

I do find it a bit rich, though, that Southwest, of all focking airlines, gets so "prudish" about a t-shirt.
posted by Skeptic at 4:08 PM on October 11, 2005

I used to work in the music business, at a record distributor. (If that doesn't show my age, I don't know what does!) The first week I was there, one of the promo guys for Motown Records came in to the office wearing a t-shirt that said "No Head, No Backstage Pass."

I was mortified! Of course, that was 25 years ago... back when the shock value of something like that was extreme, and backstage passes were really cool. I asked him if he wore it out in public, where young girls might see it. He was absolutely unashamed at telling me that he wore it everywhere, regardless of the audience. I asked him to cover it up while in my presence. He refused.

One of the owners of the distributorship called him on it, and forbade him to wear that shirt in his place of business ever again. Somehow when his livelihood hinged on the issue, he suddenly saw how that shirt could be offensive.
posted by Corky at 4:09 PM on October 11, 2005

So wait... airline employees cannot ask someone to put their seatback up after they crush my knees and refuse my pleas for a mear 0 amount of legroom as opposed to the negative legroom just incurred (United Airlines, who ironically have many signs proclaiming the great legroom they have, my favorite being "Why let other airlines leave you in a pinch?"), but they can remove someone from a plane over a fucking t-shirt?

Fuck this shit, I'm moving to the goddamned moon.
posted by chibikeandy at 4:15 PM on October 11, 2005

"Finally, what is so atrocious about approving of a public sphere that at least attempts to be welcoming to everyone."
What is attrocious is the idea that your morality supercedes mine. It doesn't.
Ah, you counter that you have a bunch of people who have all decided what is moral, and they've outvoted me.
Doesn't matter. (That was the reference to the tyranny of the majority earlier. My right to wear what I want, to be secure in my person and property, is my right. No matter how many people you have voting.)
Ah, you counter that I'm taking an absolutist view, and anyway, rights only count when dealing with the government.
No. First off, I'm willing to concede that if this woman was truly disrupting the flight, she should be asked to leave. But "Fuck" on a t-shirt ain't a disruption, and anyone claiming thusly is a fool both personally and politically. Second off, rights apply whenever two people interact. That we don't use the government to regulate some of these interactions, prefering to base our enforcement on market forces, doesn't mean that a) those rights are irrelevant, or b) that this is the correct tack to take with regard to the rights in question.
People are too willing to give up their rights and their dignities for convenience, safety or simple herd-mindedness. Your rights are your rights, inalienable. And unless you're infringing on the rights of others in a substantive way, you should be free to exercize those rights no matter where you are.
posted by klangklangston at 4:25 PM on October 11, 2005

"Someone may philosophically believe that "Fuck" should be allowed anywhere and at anytime, but fortunately our laws and norms (ideally) are decided on consensus and fundamental principles not individual worldviews."
Wrong. Welcome to a liberal democracy.
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on October 11, 2005

So wait... airline employees cannot ask someone to put their seatback up after they crush my knees and refuse my pleas for a mear 0 amount of legroom as opposed to the negative legroom just incurred (United Airlines, who ironically have many signs proclaiming the great legroom they have, my favorite being "Why let other airlines leave you in a pinch?"), but they can remove someone from a plane over a fucking t-shirt?

Fuck this shit, I'm moving to the goddamned moon.
posted by chibikeandy at 4:31 PM on October 11, 2005

I did not speak when they came for the woman in the Fuck T-shirt ...

... and, eventually, you were alone on the plane?

All the people saying she deserves what she got - could you answer a question for me?

What is the point of "bad words"?

I don't know. However, I don't see why that question is relevant in the least bit. It doesn't really matter what makes up an offensive gesture, other than that people generally agree it's an offensive gesture.

When I lived in Germany for a short time, I remember being told that tapping your index finger to your temple was an obscene gesture. I don't know if that's true, but I have no trouble believing that people might get offended by something that, to me, carries no significant meaning.

If it was so offensive it violated SW's policy why didn't SW stop her before she got on the plane?

My guess is, that their policy really is just to get along and go along wherever possible. If no one had said anything, she would have likely been allowed to complete her flight. So, someone says something about it, and the Southwest person on the spot has to decide who's going to be pissed off - the person complaining, or the one wearing the t-shirt.

And unless you're infringing on the rights of others in a substantive way, you should be free to exercize those rights no matter where you are.

That's absurd. I have the right to fuck (consenting) people up the ass - should I be able to do it on the plane, right there in the aisle? Assuming I don't get santorum on the carpet, and I'm not blocking the cart, how am I infringing on anyone else's rights by doing so?

Rights aren't absolute. Rights imply duties. For me to have a right to do something, you have to have a duty to allow me to do that. When you buy your own airline, you'll be free to create whatever rules about t-shirts and anal sex you like, and your potential customers can choose whether to use your services based on those rules if they like.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:38 PM on October 11, 2005

Can I sue the airline if they show "Meet the Fockers" as my in-flight film?

Also:
You know...what a *****. I'm sure she knew what she was doing...trolling on an airplane enough to get kicked off so she could sue.

This ("*****") makes me laugh and makes me want to tell you to go **** ********.
posted by ColdChef at 4:40 PM on October 11, 2005

Skeptic: And once upon a time, you could eye the friendly thighs of United, too.
posted by alumshubby at 4:41 PM on October 11, 2005

Wrong. Welcome to a liberal democracy.

I appreciate your libertarianism and I mostly agree with it. But in the areas where the constitution and its protections do not extend, such as private businesses (for the most part), I believe they have the right to make up the rules. The validity of those rules are then decided in the marketplace. We disagree here, of course, which you made clear above. Your characterization of how people can exert their inalienable rights finds no support in the US Constitution though, but you very well may believe that the interpretation of the constitution is incorrect or that it should be written differently. That's OK too.

Also please note that I made a concerted effort to limit my comments to a certain set of facts. If she was kicked off the plane for the political nature of her shirt or was singled out in some arbitrary way, then I would find it much more distressing. I was just using this case as a springboard to discuss a slightly larger issue that was implicated by it.

But "Fuck" on a t-shirt ain't a disruption, and anyone claiming thusly is a fool both personally and politically.

I don't think I am a fool for believing that this could be a disruption (theoretically). Unlike you, who loves the idea of a liberal democracy that supports tolerance of diverse points of view, I actually am willing to consider and tolerate other people's arguments without resorting to namecalling.
posted by Falconetti at 4:51 PM on October 11, 2005

dios: Last time I checked, though, the offering of prepaid services under any kind of common carrier type agreement didn't have any effect at all on the ability to establish standards regarding offensive clothing.

Yeah? When was that exactly? Last time I checked, which was a couple of days ago, it did. In fact, the very specific conditions under which a carrier can refuse to carry someone seem to make up a rather large part of the contracts of carriage of the airlines. Perhaps you mean to say that they are free to establish said standards by way of adding some language on that subject in the appropriate place in the relevant contract, which in fact someone has done for Southwest. So, there you have it. I suppose this makes them a slightly less "common" carrier than those whose contracts lack such conditions.

Can I sue the airline if they show "Meet the Fockers" as my in-flight film?

I plan to sue this thread number 45788 for its inexplicable, annoying, and highly offensive failure to include the phrase "contract of carriage" before now.
posted by sfenders at 5:01 PM on October 11, 2005

"That's absurd. I have the right to fuck (consenting) people up the ass - should I be able to do it on the plane, right there in the aisle? Assuming I don't get santorum on the carpet, and I'm not blocking the cart, how am I infringing on anyone else's rights by doing so?"
It's your example. I don't think you're infringing on anyone else's rights. Go for it.
"Rights imply duties. For me to have a right to do something, you have to have a duty to allow me to do that."
You're confused on the issue of how rights imply duties. And you're starting from a position where nothing is allowed unless there's the consent of those around. Which is a) a very weird set of first principles, and b) totally wrong with regard to the notion of rights.
posted by klangklangston at 5:04 PM on October 11, 2005

"Your characterization of how people can exert their inalienable rights finds no support in the US Constitution though, but you very well may believe that the interpretation of the constitution is incorrect or that it should be written differently. That's OK too."
Appeal to authority. The Constitution limits our government. If that's not germane for me (you arguing that it's private business), then it's not germane for you (can't cite as authority).
Further, I'm arguing that rights exist any time that you're dealing with another person (you can extend it to when there's only one person but that becomes truly absurd to argue pro or con on), even when it's a corporation. I'm not sure why you're so eager to sign over rights to another group of people, and why you think that corporations are somehow exempt from discussions of rights. Perhaps you fundamentally misunderstand both your government and the philosophies it's based upon.
posted by klangklangston at 5:07 PM on October 11, 2005

Last time I checked, which was a couple of days ago, it did.

OH SNAP!
posted by mrgrimm at 5:12 PM on October 11, 2005

"I don't think I am a fool for believing that this could be a disruption (theoretically). Unlike you, who loves the idea of a liberal democracy that supports tolerance of diverse points of view, I actually am willing to consider and tolerate other people's arguments without resorting to namecalling."
Well, what would you call someone who assumes that a word written on a shirt somehow "disrupts" a flight? An unvoiced explitive? Even though you'd be wrong, I could see arguing that the shirt "I am a terrorist" could be disruptive. But "Meet the Fuckers"? What would you call someone who asserts that because their head is wet, it must be raining, without a cloud in the sky? I'm sorry if you feel put down and your self-esteem is injured by my calling you a fool, but people have fought and died for ephemeral notions on freedom and giving them up because the slogan on the shirt was dumb and you think that your Aunt Sadie might have huffed uncomfortably under her breath had she been there, well, that's a foolish point of view.
My insistence on freedom might be naive, but I'd rather be a naive dreamer than a conventional fool.
posted by klangklangston at 5:13 PM on October 11, 2005

Also,
posted by Falconetti at 5:17 PM on October 11, 2005

I get offended by the Meet the fOckers movie...mmmm...Had I been wearing that, would have anyone complained?

Also, does the airline have these rules of proper attire written and/or explained to you before you purchase your ticket?
posted by the biscuit man at 5:22 PM on October 11, 2005

It's your example. I don't think you're infringing on anyone else's rights. Go for it.

Would it be ok for me to do it in your dining room, then?

You're confused on the issue of how rights imply duties. And you're starting from a position where nothing is allowed unless there's the consent of those around. Which is a) a very weird set of first principles, and b) totally wrong with regard to the notion of rights.

I don't think I'm confused at all about how rights imply duties. If you were entirely alone in the world, you would be free to do whatever you wanted. You are not, however, so your actions are constrained by what others will allow.

The "notion of rights" as you describe it, is not quite so simple as you make out. Are you referring to "natural rights" - those granted by God? (Because that's really the only justification for positing the existence of natural rights.)

I'm not sure why you're so eager to sign over rights to another group of people, and why you think that corporations are somehow exempt from discussions of rights. Perhaps you fundamentally misunderstand both your government and the philosophies it's based upon.

I don't see anyone signing over rights here. You're free to not use the services of a company if you disagree with how they do business. Corporations are generally exempt from discussions of rights, to the same extent that any non-governmental entity is generally exempt from discussions of rights. Perhaps you fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the government, citizens, and corporations.

My insistence on freedom might be naive, but I'd rather be a naive dreamer than a conventional fool.

Your insistence on freedom is misplaced. I, too, insist on freedom from my government. However, I don't insist that everyone else have a duty to accept whatever I want, because that would interfere with their freedoms. Finally, being a naive dreamer and a conventional fool aren't mutually exclusive.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:26 PM on October 11, 2005

"Would it be ok for me to do it in your dining room, then?"
When are you coming over? If you'd like, I'll even fuck you in the ass.
"I don't think I'm confused at all about how rights imply duties. If you were entirely alone in the world, you would be free to do whatever you wanted. You are not, however, so your actions are constrained by what others will allow."
Then it's not a "right," it's a privilege.

"The "notion of rights" as you describe it, is not quite so simple as you make out. Are you referring to "natural rights" - those granted by God? (Because that's really the only justification for positing the existence of natural rights.)"
Or you can argue that we have these rights based on our existence in a state of nature, or by the basic level of freedom accorded by common humanity, or rationality, or several other arguments. Or even that the source of rights is immaterial once we've met another person. It was a nice try to derail into a criticism of Lockian theology though.
posted by klangklangston at 5:36 PM on October 11, 2005

Ignore that stray also.

The Constitution limits our government. If that's not germane for me (you arguing that it's private business), then it's not germane for you (can't cite as authority).

Fine, I cite it unequivocally as authority, which means your view of rights is untenable under the US Constitution and you are ignorantly wrong. I only meant to imply that the Constitution is not the end all and be all of life and if you were stating you disagreed with it, then that is still a valid arguement.

I'm sorry if you feel put down and your self-esteem is injured by my calling you a fool, but people have fought and died...

Blah, blah, blah. That is a nice chestnut, that those brave soldiers died for my freedoms. Too bad you didn't have a waving flag animated gif. My feelings are not hurt and my self-esteem is fine, I was only pointing out that someone who seems to so vehemently believe in the greatness of liberal democracy, which is characterized by governmental tolerance of a plurality of viewpoints, would cherish those virtues so much that you would clutch them at your breast and live them out in your day-to-day interactions. You made the point that our rights seem to transcend the limitations of the constitution, not me.

The kind of people who wear shirts with vulgar sayings in inappropriate places are the same as trolls who shit in threads. They should be granted tolerance in the private arena to some degree, but once they cross the line (as judged by public opinion, like the consensus of Metafilter members on Bevets or as judged by the person or company that controls the space, like Matt) they should be kicked off the flight (or banninated).

I say totally offensive and vulgar things in coversations all the time, when I am with my friends. I don't shout it out in the middle of a restaurant though because I understand that simple decency is often more important than exercising the dubious right to make a spectacle of myself.

Your absolutist view on these matters are (1) legally wrong, (2) morally wrong, and (3) imply you have the same maturity level as a 15 year old shopping at Hot Topic to freak out the squares. You also imply by your absolutism that you believe in a natural rights theory, which brings with it a whole host of other issues.
posted by Falconetti at 5:37 PM on October 11, 2005

I am with me & my monkey on this one.

Maybe that makes me irrational. I don't care. I kind of like decorum.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:44 PM on October 11, 2005

"I don't see anyone signing over rights here. You're free to not use the services of a company if you disagree with how they do business. Corporations are generally exempt from discussions of rights, to the same extent that any non-governmental entity is generally exempt from discussions of rights. Perhaps you fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the government, citizens, and corporations."
Not at all. You're signing over some of your rights when you enter into a contract with a business, though not all of them. In this case, the right to express yourself is cut short by the threat of coercive force, backed by the government, for non-compliance (you will be forcibly ejected from the plane and brought up on charges).
Further, the argument that somehow corporations are exempt from the discussion of rights is hilariously ignorant. I recommend that you attempt to infringe upon the property rights of a corporation and trot that out. And while you can say that our conventions of conversation do not tend toward a discussion of how corporations are limiting our rights, that's because you lack both a historical context (rights of corporations versus the public have been hotly debated throughout modern history) and because you're coming from unquestioned assumptions of the limits of your rights and the powers of the corporations around you. Arguing that rights have nothing to do with corporations is both short-sighted and irrational, as it does not represent your best interests.
And while you can continue to trot out some sense of a Rousseauian "General Will" which determines which rights shall be enjoyed, that's a fundamental justification for an authoritarian system.
"However, I don't insist that everyone else have a duty to accept whatever I want, because that would interfere with their freedoms. "
I'm sorry, you haven't spelled out what freedom "Meet the Fuckers" interferes with. If you argue that it's the right of the corporation to dispose with their property as they choose, you're again arguing for the corporate to be valued over the personal. And with the utilitarian metric of harm here, I'm going to have to say that it's better for the corporation to ignore the clothing choices of passengers than it is for them to haul people off planes for wearing shirts that might not be popular.
posted by klangklangston at 5:49 PM on October 11, 2005

"I was only pointing out that someone who seems to so vehemently believe in the greatness of liberal democracy, which is characterized by governmental tolerance of a plurality of viewpoints, would cherish those virtues so much that you would clutch them at your breast and live them out in your day-to-day interactions."
The value of tolerance comes in having ideas heard, not having them praised. By calling you a fool, I am clutching those values to my chest: you've made a foolish argument, and it is my right and duty in this marketplace of ideas to see it devalued.
"Your absolutist view on these matters are (1) legally wrong, (2) morally wrong, and (3) imply you have the same maturity level as a 15 year old shopping at Hot Topic to freak out the squares. You also imply by your absolutism that you believe in a natural rights theory, which brings with it a whole host of other issues."
Your reading of my views is a) literally wrong (I already noted that I'm not an absolutist), b) intellectually wrong (which may be my fault for not making them simpler), and c) implies that you are the type of person who loudly decries personal insults until it's your turn to make them.
Hey, if you want to argue that it's morally wrong to wear a shirt that says "fuck" on an airline, do so. Don't just attempt to state by fiat that my views are "morally incorrect." And if you can cite where I've made an argument based on the laws of this country, I'd like to see that. I don't believe that I have, but you have this amazing reading comprehension that allows you to see things that I didn't write, so perhaps you can cite for me the comment.
And while it may be immature to call you a fool for making a foolish argument, it certainly can't be any more mature to counter that through arguing that I should be shopping at Hot Topic. If you want to ride a high horse about maturity, you should make sure that you can reach the stirrups.
posted by klangklangston at 5:57 PM on October 11, 2005

In this case, the right to express yourself is cut short by the threat of coercive force, backed by the government, for non-compliance (you will be forcibly ejected from the plane and brought up on charges).

Who brought her up on charges? No one, if you read the article. And if the government did charge her, then all those rights you are talking about would flow into the situation and I would agree with you fully. Fortunately, that is not the case here. HAve you thought this all along?

I'm sorry, you haven't spelled out what freedom "Meet the Fuckers" interferes with.

I know this isn't addressed to me, but "Meet the Fuckers" interferes with no freedoms at all, because talking about freedoms is for the most part a moot point when you are within a nongovernmental, private sphere (with expections, like racial discrimination). Are you working within the context of constitutional rights or some other source of rights?
posted by Falconetti at 5:59 PM on October 11, 2005

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Lift yourselves up, my brothers and sisters of the earth! Put beneath your feet all fears, all qualms, all hesitancies! Lift yourselves up! Come forth, free and joyous, by night and day, to do your will; for ``There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.' Lift yourselves up! Walk forth with us in Light and Life and Love and Liberty, taking our pleasure as Kings and Queens in Heaven and on Earth, and wear your "Meet the Fuckers" t-shirts where you please! For they are fuckers, and you must tell the world.

Go on, go on in thy might; and let no man make thee afraid.

Love is the law, love under will.
posted by sfenders at 6:03 PM on October 11, 2005