Australian News Filter

January 21, 2007 8:37 PM

What is it with airlines and tee-shirts? Australian carrier Qantas is now getting in on the action with a passenger refused a flight because the airline deemed his shirt to be offensive. This is similar to another case. Previously mentioned.
posted by mattoxic (64 comments total)

only the paranoid survive?
posted by infini at 8:40 PM on January 21, 2007

"To be fair to Qantas, they have said I can take another flight if I don't wear the T-shirt but I am not prepared to go without the T-shirt," he said.

"I might forfeit the [$2500] fare but I have made up my mind that I would rather stand up for the principle of free speech."

Sounds like he chose not to fly Qantas when given the choice.
posted by Frank Grimes at 8:53 PM on January 21, 2007

Well, the Constitution gives him a right to free speech.

Oh wait, no it doesn't.
posted by wilful at 8:57 PM on January 21, 2007

Reading from a prepared statement, a Qantas spokesman said: "Whether made verbally or on a T-shirt, comments with the potential to offend other customers or threaten the security of a Qantas group aircraft will not be tolerated."

Comments with the potential to threaten the security of the aircraft? Ok, then.
posted by dreamsign at 9:05 PM on January 21, 2007

potential risk = actual harm
posted by brandz at 9:06 PM on January 21, 2007

dreamsign, why did you miss "offend other customers"?
posted by wilful at 9:08 PM on January 21, 2007

What is it with airlines and tee-shirts?

What is it with people thinking that wearing a "shocking" t-shirt is an effective way of protesting anything?

See also.
posted by pdb at 9:11 PM on January 21, 2007

So Australia doesn’t have freedom of speech but it does have freedom from being offended?
posted by Tenuki at 9:17 PM on January 21, 2007

wilful, or where the constitution gives the customer a right to remain unoffended?

its not just racism either... perhaps this incident should have been included in the FPP, just to make sure the knee jerk reactions to terrorism didnt dominate the comments. could it be that [drumroll, please] "POST 9-11", airline staff are getting a little too drunk on their power
posted by mano at 9:17 PM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

hell, i'm offended by crying babies. BAN!
posted by brandz at 9:19 PM on January 21, 2007

dreamsign, why did you miss "offend other customers"?

You're missing a subject in that sentence. It doesn't say "People making comments with the potential to offend, or who threaten the security..." Read it again. It says:

comments with the potential to offend other customers or threaten the security of a Qantas group aircraft will not be tolerated

ie: the comments are doing the offending or threatening.

Maybe just mis-speaking, but telling, how they attempt to conflate two very different levels of problem.
posted by dreamsign at 9:21 PM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

Puerile yes, but "shocking" I doubt.
posted by mattoxic at 9:21 PM on January 21, 2007

pdb:

perhaps we should all just wear completely plain, functional clothing (as defined by you)?

and activists take note! pdb has put you on notice that the only successful tactics for social change are those that avoid any confrontation or feather-ruffling. can those witty and sardonic protest slogans and quit that depressing talk about death and war and pain and suffering. hand out chocolates and seek the common ground with people that hate you (maybe you hate yourself sometimes, thats a great ice-breaker!).
posted by mano at 9:26 PM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

I guess getting offended at all the pro-Christianity shit fellow fliers wear like those stupid crosses wouldn't be treated the same.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:28 PM on January 21, 2007 [3 favorites]

The term is security theatre. So much cheaper and easier than actual security.
posted by motty at 9:38 PM on January 21, 2007 [2 favorites]

If you find me wearing a stupid message/protest T-shirt at the age of 55, shoot me.
posted by LoriFLA at 9:45 PM on January 21, 2007

So Australia doesn’t have freedom of speech but it does have freedom from being offended?

I'd put it more like: Australia doesn't have freedom of speech, but does have contract law, so when Qantas write their fine print (basically R.O.A.R.), it has a chance of sticking, grandstanders or no grandstanders.
posted by pompomtom at 9:52 PM on January 21, 2007

If you find me wearing a stupid message/protest T-shirt at the age of 55, shoot me.
posted by LoriFLA at 12:45 AM EST on January 22 [+]

[!]
Why? What's age got to do with it? I wore my "1-20-09" shirt to the dentist and got a huge, positive reaction.
posted by etaoin at 9:54 PM on January 21, 2007

Unless Australia has different laws than the US, a private company has the right to refuse service based on their Terms of Service. In this case they felt a t-shirt was offensive and they kicked a guy. dreamsign made an effort at parse the criteria for the kick, and I think he/she has it right.

I don't agree with Qantas, and I think this is a battle better left unfought, but by my read, they were within their rights. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. (Unless Qantas is a government run airline, in which case, ignore my entire argument...)

What should be considered here is that the guy got on an airplane with a shirt that he knew would piss people off. I'm all for civil disobedience, and if he was only trying to make a statement, then Yay! He succeeded. But if he was actually planning on going from Point A to Point B, he should have used better judgment.

In 2002, my buddy flew up from Texas to spend Christmas with the Wife and I. He is a tattooed, pierced phenomenon who was planning on hitching his airline ride back wearing a shirt that just read "terrorist". I laughed, because the idea of how people would react to it was funny, then I explained to him how going through several layers of security... Probing security, only to be not allowed to fly would probably be no fun. And the iconoclast himself decided to pack the shirt in his checked luggage.

Don't get me wrong. I hate that this is what we have come to. I despise that, god forbid, I walk into an airport with a funny t-shirt or forget that I'm carrying a pocket knife or even just a pair of nail shears, that I will get the stink eye, and be pulled out of line. But I'm pragmatic enough to know that nothing I do or say will change it. When a terrorist finally uses a shipping container to blow something up in the USA, maybe the everyone will stop being so obsessed with "safe" air travel, but until then, if you knowingly try to piss off the people in the gate, I can't emphasize with your plight.
posted by quin at 9:56 PM on January 21, 2007

The term is security theatre.

What an appropriate term. And completely accurate. If QANTAS is cracking down on offensive T-shirt wearers, then they must really be on top of things. No stone unturned and all that... I'm sure their PR thinks of news articles such as this as good publicity.
posted by kisch mokusch at 9:57 PM on January 21, 2007

the thing is, the bans only go one way. If you get on a flight wearing a rah-rah-rah Go USA! shirt, do you risk gettting thrown off? Or anti-French crap? Or pro-Rush Limbaugh? I doubt it. Why is only one side offended?
posted by etaoin at 9:59 PM on January 21, 2007

forget that I'm carrying a pocket knife

Then there was the time a few years ago I left my job at a warehouse and went straight to a Boston concert. With my boxcutter in my pocket. Though that night is probably best forgotten.
posted by IronLizard at 9:59 PM on January 21, 2007

On a US domestic flight recently (DFW to LAX), a man sitting near me was pulled aside by a flight attendant and asked to remove his apparently thrift-store mechanic's shirt that had a small patch on the breast reading "Aircraft Maintenance."

Security theater is right. You have people being forced to throw out pies while air cargo is not screened. At all.

Meanwhile, we're all forced to spend another $3 on 3.4 ounces of toothpaste. Or combine the contents of a laptop bag and a purse because the two items, though smaller than most single items, exceed the arbitrary carry on item limit.

Thankfully my girlfriend and I managed to smuggle some (fake) cream cheese across the skies. Take that, TSA!
posted by rafter at 10:16 PM on January 21, 2007

forget that I'm carrying a pocket knife

This has always been a thorn in my side, I lost a hundred dollar custom Spyderco seeing a friend off to the gate in the mid-90's. She was more important to me than the knife, so I let it go, but to this day it bugs me. At that time I couldn't imagine that a knife would be a threat to an airplane. [yeah, I was wrong], but back then, it was (and to me, still is) just an everyday work tool.

I don't fly anymore. Just out of principle.

And for other knife geeks in the thread, it taught me a valuable lesson, a $100 knife is often as good as a $40 knife. Now I carry a CRKT. Good steel, quality designers [Kit Carson]. I've been very pleased. Just don't try to board a plane with one.
posted by quin at 10:30 PM on January 21, 2007

Why is only one side offended?

You're assuming someone was offended. I doubt they were. What does that actually mean anyway...offended? Have you ever been offended by something you read on a piece of clothing? How does it feel to be offended by words; I'm unsure because I don't think I've ever felt that particular emotion.

Well maybe that's not really true. I've seen bumper stickers that have pissed me off before; "Australia, love it or leave it!", "Make organic fertilizer; shoot a Greenie!" etc. But if I saw that printed on someone's T-shirt as they were boarding a plane, I'd just pray I was sitting in the seat behind them so I could knee them in the back occasionally and try to get my orange juice in their hair. I wouldn't be "offended" and want them removed from the flight.

QANTAS are just overreacting. Which of the following T-shirts do you think would also get you banned?

Osama Bin Laden = Terrorist
Osama Bin Laden = Real Nice Guy
Me = Not Terrorist
I'm with Terrorist (with an arrow pointing to the left)
I Love Puppies (written in Arabic)
posted by Jimbob at 10:37 PM on January 21, 2007

Incidentally, I just saw an Mr. Bean Laden t-shirt that I liked very much in Bali. (along with 1001 "Fuck The Terrorists" t-shirts, worn by many working in the tourist trade)
posted by dreamsign at 10:42 PM on January 21, 2007

I lost a hundred dollar custom Spyderco seeing a friend off to the gate in the mid-90's

Helpful tip: Most airports have a shipping kiosk where you can mail your knife to yourself for $5 or so. I've done that several times. It also cost me about 15 minutes of walking, so it's not always an option if you're cutting it close on your flight.
posted by agropyron at 10:50 PM on January 21, 2007

If you accept the possibility that it's cool to use fear as a sociological motivating factor? That makes one a terror-ist in my book, cuz you be isting to terror. If terror be your ist, you ist be into terror. I don't care what your T-Shirt says. For the record, anyone with a gun scares the fuck out of me, so I classify anyone carrying a gun as a terrorist.

If I were to get a shirt with a picture of a gun on it that also said "Kill them all and let Allah sort them out" would I then be branded a terrorist? ...Cool!

Oh. By the way. FIRE! RUN! FORGET ABOUT THE MOVIE IT SUCKS ANYWAY! SAVE YOURSELVES!
posted by ZachsMind at 10:56 PM on January 21, 2007

I'm with Terrorist (with an arrow pointing to the left)

You making them Jimbob? Put me down for one.
posted by pompomtom at 11:12 PM on January 21, 2007

Two points:

Firstly, when did the US Constitution start applying to an Australian airline, flying between Australia and London?

Second, from the Qantas terms and conditions of travel (I snipped some irrelevant ones):

10.1 Refusal of Carriage
Even if you have a ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:

* if carrying you or your baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health or any person in the aircraft in danger or at risk
* if carrying you or your baggage may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
* because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security
* if your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it
* if you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger


Assuming that he didn't make threats against the aircraft, or fail to provide adequate ID etc, which of these rules did he break? Their own rules say nothing about "comments with the potential to offend other customers", they say they will only refuse to carry someone when doing so might "materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft" .

Big difference, IMHO.
posted by Infinite Jest at 11:13 PM on January 21, 2007

I'm really confused as to why "offending customers" is in the same league as being a "threat to security".
posted by Target Practice at 11:27 PM on January 21, 2007

Anyone involved with Patriot Act/"Anti Terrorism" legislation and policies should be hanged by the angry mob, obviously, but would it be so much to ask that people dress better when they travel?

Nothing extra fancy, but maybe something that covers your limbs to a degree -- long pants? -- and maybe some shoes? Would a basic non-logo button-up shirt like you're expected to wear to work or church or whatever be such a hassle? Could your mom maybe do better than some fleece sweats that make it about halfway north of her ass? Could Dad maybe not wear a armless trademarked sports jersey? Also, would a shower kill you before getting on the flight? Flying is not fun these days and it hasn't been "glamorous" for 30 years or so, but passengers could sure improve a grim experience by showing a little bit of personal dignity.

I'm also all for strangling any Aircraft Crew that hassles anyone for breastfeeding or listening to an iPod or reading the Koran or whatever, but it would still be much more pleasant to fly with passengers who had some self respect and respect for their fellow passengers.
posted by kenlayne at 11:32 PM on January 21, 2007

that "relating to the safety or security of the aircraft" is pretty important, Infinite Jest. In other words, it can't just be Because I Told You So.

I think they would argue "materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft", however. Which means that, yes, that t-shirt might greatly upset other passengers. You being A-rab might upset another passenger. Or black. Or wearing a Christian cross, as someone above said (never trust anyone who believes in an afterlife), etc.. A giant loophole.
posted by dreamsign at 11:40 PM on January 21, 2007

The problem isn't offensive t-shirts, it's easily offended people. There's nothing legally (or apparently in Qantas terms and conditions) stopping me from painting "fuck you" all over my body and boarding an aircraft. It just has no genuine "risk" or "threat" associated with it.

Although, when choosing between $2500 and your t-shirt, perhaps it would be best to turn it inside out and fight the matter through the legal system later.
posted by tehloki at 11:41 PM on January 21, 2007

Kenlayne:

Why should you dress for "work or ... church or whatever" just to get from A to B? And what do you have against bare limbs? And logos?

The "cover your arse-crack" and "take a shower" whinges I can understand, but the rest just seems weird.
posted by robcorr at 11:47 PM on January 21, 2007

This is as good a place as any to mention Casual Disobedience, run by a Mefite (not me).
posted by spaceman_spiff at 11:50 PM on January 21, 2007

Osama Bin Laden = Terrorist
Osama Bin Laden = Real Nice Guy
Me = Not Terrorist
I'm with Terrorist (with an arrow pointing to the left)
I Love Puppies (written in Arabic)

The first four use either the word "terrorist" or a wellknown name associated with terrorism. Stupid to wear that in an airport, just like using the phrase "I'm not smuggling anything" when crossing the US/Canada border. Or painting "fuck you" all over your body. Why should those people have to work in those conditions? The words allude to a threat. Why should the question of such a threat be alluded to in a rather rigid and anonymous context, an air flight, where people are trapped in a little metal box together. I'm sure if there was a rash of shootings associated with Bible-thumpings, a prominent christian cross plus Bible and/or muttered prayers would be similarly discouraged. It's not about free speech. It's fire in a crowded theatre, but worse, because you can walk out of a theatre. Not so an airplane.

Restaurants say "No shirt, no shoes, no service." This is just banning a certain kind of shirt for an even better reason. SHeesh. Because they are threatening words from anonymous strangers in a situation in which the participants have little personal control.
posted by Listener at 11:52 PM on January 21, 2007

"It's one of the reasons that I now live in the UK."

Bless him. He's in for a shock when he finds out...
posted by vbfg at 11:59 PM on January 21, 2007

Oh for god’s sake—this is what happens when you have idiots in the White House who have no respect whatsoever for free speech and the right to protest this war in whatever way they find appropriate.
Do you think this would’ve been an issue ten years ago if someone would’ve gotten onto an airplane flight wearing a Bill Clinton shirt which said—Blow me!
posted by hadjiboy at 12:00 AM on January 22, 2007

Heh. MeFi's current "101 Free Games" thread might have something for us here.

Airport Security: The Game
Here's a Flash game that mocks the absurdity of airport security by putting you in charge of checking and removing weapons of mass destruction -- you know, like pants.

Listener, do you have the foggiest what "fire in a crowded theatre" is all about? If you think this is about preventing mass panic, then I can't see the benefit in fostering an environment where a political statement or a scrap of writing in another language is some kind of threat.
posted by dreamsign at 12:04 AM on January 22, 2007

You just CAN'T yell "movie" in a crowded firehouse. Sheesh, you people.
posted by The Deej at 12:25 AM on January 22, 2007

Exactly, dreamsign; if a shirt like this causes "mass panic", then the people who panic are the one's who pose a safety risk, and whos mental state should cause them to be rejected from the flight, as per QANTAS's rules.
posted by Jimbob at 12:27 AM on January 22, 2007

I am incredibily offended by the following things:

1. Bush, untrimmed
2. how many people breathe smells yet they dress Prada or whatnot. And spinach in their teeths.
3. a list so long you could wrap US national deficit in it.

I expect other people to be even worse then me, but what logically follows is a number of permutations that prolly approaches +infinitum ....we wouldn't be flying AT ALL if we were to fly only with the people that isn't offended by any minute detail.

And a friggin t-shirt with GW depicted a teh terrorist isn't going to harm , but the brains of the people who voted him, TWICE, IN A ROW.

So what is the real threat ? NOT the t-shirt, but the idiots who would complain about the t-shirt instead of just fly for the love of @#[!]

The term is security theatre.

Motty got the point first. It's all about make-believe we are actually tought muthefuckas, it's gangsta shit + wrestling + jingoism all packed in a nice phat FU that you are going to pay because it is done for your securitaeh !
posted by elpapacito at 2:09 AM on January 22, 2007

Just saw the bloke on tv. Seemed a twat. I'm all for not letting people who I think seem a twat fly.
posted by pompomtom at 4:50 AM on January 22, 2007

If you find me wearing a stupid message/protest T-shirt at the age of 55, shoot me.
posted by LoriFLA at 12:45 AM EST on January 22

[!]
Why? What's age got to do with it? I wore my "1-20-09" shirt to the dentist and got a huge, positive reaction. posted by etaoin at 12:54 AM EST on January 22

etaoin, I would of probably gotten a kick out of your T-shirt, and I didn't mean to imply that 55 is old. It isn't. I suppose age doesn't have anything to do with it, but I've never liked logos or legible clothing. Ever since my mother delivered my forgotten lunch to my kindergarten classroom in her "Who Gives a Damn Who Shot JR?" T-shirt, I've had a bad taste in my mouth for them.

I don't wish to have people reading my shirt all day, especially on a flight. Free speech or not, you're asking for a hassle when you choose to wear a controversial message on your back in an airport. I am certainly not offended by these shirts. I think it's ridiculous that this man was questioned over a T-shirt, but he must of known that it wasn't going to fly. I hope he does take legal action. I am interested in the outcome.
posted by LoriFLA at 5:50 AM on January 22, 2007

Mr Jasson said he risked missing his chance of permanent residency if he spent more than two months out of Britain.

Well, if he missed it because he knowingly wore a T-shirt he knew to be controversial, I have no sympathy for him.

But the Adelaide-born former Melbourne resident said he was seeking legal advice to challenge the airline's policy and recover costs.

I understand the rights of expression and all that, but what is the loss to *him* if he wears a different shirt? Did he *have* to wear that shirt every time he flew? Personally, I just don't have sympathy for the guy. It's like the siblings in the back seat of a car on a long trip that are told, "stay on your own side of the seat" then one puts his hand as close to the middle of the seat as possible just to piss the other one off. Technically, the first sibling didn't break the rule set by the parent, but why even push it to the limit? What does someone gain in such a situation?
posted by Doohickie at 7:47 AM on January 22, 2007

It bugs me when people use "free speech rights" when dealing with companies/private forums/whatever that aren't directly government run.

All this translates to for me is someone is denied a flight because they couldn't be a jerk.
posted by samsara at 8:15 AM on January 22, 2007

I have a T-shirt with a disgruntled-looking Marvin the Martian on it, beside text that reads "You're making me angry, VERY ANGRY!"

I once wore this shirt on a multi-hop flight across the US. So I dealt with quite a few security people on that trip. And it seemed like every one of them commented on the shirt. They all loved it. They'd all say things like "Wow, I love that shirt! I wish I could wear that to work every day!"

And I wonder what that says about the life and times of airport and airline security people. Being mad all the time can't be good for them, good for security, good for passengers, or good for business. I expect it contributes to stupid incidents like this.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:29 AM on January 22, 2007

Doohickie: I understand the rights of expression and all that, but what is the loss to *him* if he wears a different shirt?

Suppose an airline decides they don't like the color blue. Suppose that airline forces all its passengers who happen to be wearing blue to change into something else right there at the airport. What is the loss to the passengers if they have to wear different clothes?

It's like the siblings in the back seat of a car on a long trip that are told, "stay on your own side of the seat" then one puts his hand as close to the middle of the seat as possible just to piss the other one off. Technically, the first sibling didn't break the rule set by the parent, but why even push it to the limit? What does someone gain in such a situation?

Why not apply that standard to the airline, instead of to the airline's paying customer? Technically, the airline isn't doing anything illegal by preventing this guy from flying with the shirt, but why even push it to the limit? What does the airline (or anyone, for that matter) gain in such a situation?
posted by Western Infidels at 8:45 AM on January 22, 2007

On my way back from a knitting tradeshow in San Diego, I got pulled out of line because a teensy tiny lipgloss (that apparently met their criteria for "liquid") set off the screeener.

Sharp pointy objects all over the place in my purse? No problem. Solid wooden portable loom with lots of suspicious-looking attachments? No problem. Tiny lipgloss? Problem. They put it in a ziploc baggie for me and sent me on my way. Wow, I feel so much more secure, don't you?

Frankly, I'm tired of security theatre.

Especially because some TSA asshole stole a copy of one of my books from my checked luggage on the way there. No, I'm not kidding. I had one copy of each book I've written along for the tradeshow and some subhuman TSA checker stole one. You want ninth circle of hell? Try calling the TSA to complain.

"Well, did you check the lost and found at the airport?"

"What part of this don't you understand? It was stolen from my checked baggage!"
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:03 AM on January 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh my god! This is complete madness...where are we going to draw the line? Where has free speech gone?
posted by watercressprincess at 9:40 AM on January 22, 2007

Doohickie said: I understand the rights of expression and all that, but what is the loss to *him* if he wears a different shirt?

Western Infidels replied: Suppose an airline decides they don't like the color blue.

Suppose they did. They would lose a bunch of business. So they won't. Part of my issue, the way I read this, is that he was trying to provoke the airline into a reaction he could start a lawsuit over. Okay, it looks like he will get his test case. I bet he loses if it goes to court.

Personally, I don't think there is any problem with an airline refusing service to someone who actively pursues a strong political or social agenda on a flight. The security threat is real, to the airline, if they are worried that someone else might strongly object to Jasson's shirt and start a tussel on the aircraft.

I see this as similar to airlines having a right to abridge individual rights to get on a plane by searching everyone's personal belongings. Anything they feel will potentially disrupt the flight is fair game.

If Jasson decided to get up on the plane and make a political speech about the evils of Bush, he could expect to be removed from the plane if it hadn't departed yet, or be detained on arrival if it had.
posted by Doohickie at 10:06 AM on January 22, 2007

I don't wish to have people reading my shirt all day, especially on a flight. Free speech or not, you're asking for a hassle when you choose to wear a controversial message on your back in an airport. I am certainly not offended by these shirts. I think it's ridiculous that this man was questioned over a T-shirt, but he must of known that it wasn't going to fly. I hope he does take legal action. I am interested in the outcome.
posted by LoriFLA at 5:50 AM PST on Janua

Hi, Lori, thanks for the reply. And I agree--if you wear a protest shirt to the airport, you should expect hassles. It's wrong, it's stupid, a lawsuit should stop them (the excuse that some passengers MIGHT Be offended--since when do others get to decide what people wear?) And yeah, wearing a t-shirt in your 50s may seem dopey but I think people are doing it in the absence of better venues. I liked your story about your mother and cringe with you. at least she wasn't wearing stupid sloans on the butt of her shorts!
posted by etaoin at 10:39 AM on January 22, 2007

The security threat is real, to the airline, if they are worried that someone else might strongly object to Jasson's shirt and start a tussel on the aircraft.

I've been way more offended at people's LOOK HOW CHRISTIAN I AM shirts than anyone is likely to get at this guy's "#1 Terrorist" outfit, and yet I have never freaked out on a plane. If the airline is truly worried that someone else might make trouble over some guy's shirt, then someone else ought to be the one to pay for the trouble they make, just as soon as they actually make it. Assuming, of course, that this is really about potential trouble (suuuure, because somebody's going to start a brawl on an airplane, all over a stupid political t-shirt you could see anywhere on the street), and not about airline lackeys lording their power over others.

As for the "oh, well, he should have known better, he should expect this kind of treatment" argument: maybe he should have expected it, but that doesn't make it OK. Nothing offends me more than the idea that people ought to bend over for petty tyranny. Yes, I'll take my shoes off, let people look through my luggage, and participate in all 1001 Mandatory Humiliation Exercises before being allowed on the plane. I do it because that's security as we've chosen to run it, and everybody else has to do it along with me. On the other hand, selectively removing people's "offensive" t-shirts (as etaoin points out, it's funny how only certain things are ever deemed "offensive") has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with petty politics. Good on him for telling QANTAS to fuck off.
posted by vorfeed at 11:06 AM on January 22, 2007 [2 favorites]

1001 Mandatory Humiliation Exercises before being allowed on the plane.

Oh man, you don't want to know which cavity should be mandatorily examined :O !
posted by elpapacito at 11:10 AM on January 22, 2007

Oh for god’s sake—this is what happens when you have idiots in the White House who have no respect whatsoever for free speech and the right to protest this war in whatever way they find appropriate.

Read the post. This does not involve the United States at all.
posted by oaf at 11:40 AM on January 22, 2007

Doohickie: Suppose they did. They would lose a bunch of business. So they won't.

Think about this a second. Why would the airline lose a bunch of business? Because the passengers wouldn't like it? Why wouldn't they like it? Perhaps the passengers might feel that the policy was costing them something, even if the cost wasn't monetary?

Personally, I don't think there is any problem with an airline refusing service to someone who actively pursues a strong political or social agenda on a flight. The security threat is real, to the airline, if they are worried that someone else might strongly object to Jasson's shirt and start a tussel on the aircraft.

As vorfeed points out, it would be the ticking-time-bomb passenger, the unhinged and violent person likely to start a fistfight over a t-shirt, who would be the security problem. How could you ever transport such a person in safety? Why, any little thing might set him off.

Does wearing a t-shirt really count as "active" pursuit of a "strong" political agenda? What if he was carrying a magazine with a similar design or sentiment on the cover? Would that be the same? What if he read a document with a similar sentiment on his laptop during the flight? What if his silent political message was part of a tattoo instead of a t-shirt?
posted by Western Infidels at 11:51 AM on January 22, 2007

Possible new slogan:

Qantas: We Find U Offensive.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:56 AM on January 22, 2007

It bugs me when people use "free speech rights" when dealing with companies/private forums/whatever that aren't directly government run.

It bugs me when people don't understand that Freedom of Speech is an innate human right that can just as easily be violated by corporations and other non-government organizations as it can be by governments. Back when libertarianism (Note: Little "l") was first developed, governments were the only organizations powerful enough to have a monopoly on tyranny. A lot of us believe this is no longer the case or, at least, recognize that there's a growing potential for corporate takeover. Historically, it's happened before. (Think: Italy) Note the policy influence of Halliburton or the RIAA, or the raw mercenary influence of Blackwater. Or the individual power that a private school holds over their pupils. Or the potential tangled, hopeless mess of your life that can be created by identity theft or malicious credit reporting, since more and more landlords and employers use credit as a first filter for eligibility.

The belief that government is the only organization with enough power to limit human rights becomes more and more outmoded as traditional public services and public spaces are privatized. How many corporations own the vast, vast majority of mass communications in the US and the world right now? 20? No, wait, that article was from 1987. Try Five. You can post your ideas to your blog all you want, but without the influence and power garnered by public and formerly public spaces, all you've got is a circle jerk with you and your already likeminded blogger friends.

Besides, we're not just talking about free speech. We're also talking about discrimination. (In their own words, it was the fact that the speech was in arabic that was most suspect. Presumably, they would be less likely to stop someone who has "We will not be silenced," written in French or English or Italian on their t-shirt) I dunno about Australia, but in the US there was a little thing called the Civil Rights Movement that led to laws that ban organizations from discrimination based on race, gender, pregnancy, national origin, religion, disability, citizenship status, and age.
posted by Skwirl at 3:55 PM on January 22, 2007 [3 favorites]

You rule, skwirl.

Metafilter is full of people who are quick to jump on the "free speech only applies to government" bandwagon. These people have a very depauperate, legalistic understanding of "free speech".
posted by Jimbob at 6:06 PM on January 22, 2007

Were I a woman, I'd wear a "george bush is a terrorist" T-shirt to the airport, just to watch people's sudden increase in uneasiness when i took it off and shook my tits around, while singing "which do you prefer?"
posted by tehloki at 11:01 PM on January 22, 2007

Coming out of lurker status for this one. (disclosure: I work in the industry and feel passionately about this)

First, don't necessarily confuse airline employees with TSA, or another country's equivalent. When security is notified by another customer, or pulls someone out of line, that is going on with little input from the airline. If they're denied boarding by TSA, the best an airline could do is refund their tickets (which is unlikely).

That being said, airlines also have a responsibility to their customers as well. From a legal standpoint, it might be argued that wearing an inflammatory tee-shirt may not be covered by first amendment rights, citing the potential for Imminent lawless action.

On the ground, there isn't such an issue, but at 30,000 feet, in a pressurized cabin full of nervous people, and only a handful of flight attendants to maintain order, the potential for another customer reacting poorly and causing an incident might not be worth the risk. Inflight personal are generally required to follow-up any security concerns presented by a passenger, and depending on the severity of the concern, or the reaction it might incite in the cabin, they may question passengers, or even divert the plane causing delays for all passengers.

From a business standpoint then, ejecting a person wearing an inflammatory shirt before boarding is akin to doing the same for an inebriated, observed unhealthy, or unruly passenger. If the potential is raised that if a person boarding the plane may cause the need for a diversion, the airline is generally within their rights to deny boarding. Diverting planes costs money.

Generally, it's not the airlines or security you're offending by wearing the shirt, they probably understand (and in many cases, appreciate) the joke, message, or sentiment expressed. Their concern is for the 100 or more OTHER yahoos you'll soon be presenting that shirt to as a captive audience.
posted by KnitWit at 5:36 AM on January 23, 2007

Hi. My name is Mongo Nikol. These threads interest me for a couple of reasons, however, for the most part I only follow them for one reason. I am waiting for the day when Satan ceases to exist. Do I mean this metaphorically? Yes, I and by, "Satan ceases to exist," I mean when all of us can begin having fun.

Don't I mean "having fun again"? Well, I would, but truthfully I am unable to remember what this having fun thing was all about. The memories seem like figments of my imagination. Somewhere inside me is the awareness that this reality is the wrong one, and a good one exists. But my knowledge of this is imperfect, so I rely on intuition.

How else can I explain what has happened in the world since that fateful day in 1998?
posted by mongonikol at 10:52 AM on January 23, 2007

errr, what happened in 1998?
posted by tehloki at 2:46 AM on January 24, 2007