Guy kicked off WN DAL-MDW flight for wearing shirt with 4-letter word
Mar 28, 2015, 10:25 am
#31
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA EXP, DL-Plat, WN-CP | Hotels: Choice-Gld, IHG-Plt, Rad-Gld, HH-Dia, Hyatt-Glob, Marriott-LtPlt
Posts: 2,889
Why don't you post the word? Oh, right FT bans profanity too. So, that begs the question of why you participate in the forums here if you think it is akin to Iran to impose such a ban?
Mar 28, 2015, 10:33 am
#32
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,525
Given the videos this clown shot and quickly shipped off to a TV station, I have to wonder if this whole thing was staged. Perhaps I'm just out of date, but it is not my first reaction to start recording everything in the day that goes wrong. It reminds me of the Hooters waitress who retained a lawyer right after she was escorted off a SAN-LAS flight a few years ago for being underclad.
Mar 28, 2015, 12:04 pm
#34
Join Date: Jul 2014
Programs: United MileagePlus: 1K
Posts: 62
Is it possible the GA didn't think of the show when she saw the shirt? I know I didn't when I read the article till it was pointed out. I originally thought it was a reference to going around a sleeping with a bunch of women.
Mar 28, 2015, 11:33 pm
#36
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: BKK/So Cal
Programs: AA ExecPlat
Posts: 30
&
&
Always amazed to read the voluntary private policing of public political correctness. America is scheduled for the same personal freedoms that Iran grants its citizens ... the second amendment has just slowed down this transition a whole lot.
I think airlines should have the right to deny anyone transport their employees find to be no match. Be it for the wrong height, weight, gender, age, or costume ... they should jus be fully liable for doing so.
The airline did not honour a ticket of a passenger who was not unruly, did not incite sedition or unrest, displayed no hate speech, and incentivised no disruptive actions. Under such circumstances, 'offensive' is just code speak for "I don't like you, get lost!".
&
Always amazed to read the voluntary private policing of public political correctness. America is scheduled for the same personal freedoms that Iran grants its citizens ... the second amendment has just slowed down this transition a whole lot.
I think airlines should have the right to deny anyone transport their employees find to be no match. Be it for the wrong height, weight, gender, age, or costume ... they should jus be fully liable for doing so.
The airline did not honour a ticket of a passenger who was not unruly, did not incite sedition or unrest, displayed no hate speech, and incentivised no disruptive actions. Under such circumstances, 'offensive' is just code speak for "I don't like you, get lost!".
Well put. Another supression of expresssion by non-government actors. The usual legal recourse is not in play and social media are often the sole outlet for this nonsense. The airlines response is as telling as the actions of their agent, basically, "Move along now, nothing to see here".
Mar 29, 2015, 6:15 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Good for the crew. Freedom of speech is not unconditional. Can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Can't have little kids that know how to read asking their mom "why does that shirt have a bad word on it?" It's just common sense.
Although you know what they say: Common Sense Isn't.
Although you know what they say: Common Sense Isn't.
Mar 29, 2015, 6:19 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
What if you had bought a ticket and they asked you to take off your American flag T, your Jesus Allah Jewish star T, your Ron Paul t or your Hillary T?
The guy may be rude and not too bright, but once you start empowering people to mess with people somewhat arbitrarily, you will get a country you don't like very much.
The guy may be rude and not too bright, but once you start empowering people to mess with people somewhat arbitrarily, you will get a country you don't like very much.
That's not the case here. The use of the "F" word in a t-shirt is clearly over the line. The other stuff is not. I would suggest wearing an Islamic shirt praising Allah should be treated the same was as wearing a Christian "Praise God" shirt. That is, you can ban the Muslim shirt unless you ban similar religious shirts. If WN ever did that, i would expect a lawsuit, and I would expect a settlement or a win for the person suing WN.........and, I would agree.
Mar 29, 2015, 6:22 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Well put. Another supression of expresssion by non-government actors. The usual legal recourse is not in play and social media are often the sole outlet for this nonsense. The airlines response is as telling as the actions of their agent, basically, "Move along now, nothing to see here".
Last edited by mvoight; Mar 29, 2015 at 6:29 am
Mar 29, 2015, 2:24 pm
#40
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: From: PWM
Programs: United GS, Fairmont Platinum,SPG LTPlat, Hilton Diamond, MarriottGold..like the rest of the world
Posts: 4,401
I don't think most of the folks here have any interest in censorship but virtually all of us find offensive the wearing of foul language on one's clothing in the most public of fora. I don't want my kindergarteners subject to this stuff nor does virtually anyone else. You're welcome to disagree, but I suspect you'll find yourself in the extreme minority here.
Mar 29, 2015, 3:12 pm
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,189
I guess this makes sense that even when 99.5% of the greater populace can come to a consensus agreement on a topic such as this, there will always be that 00.5% that will still defend it, such as above.
I don't think most of the folks here have any interest in censorship but virtually all of us find offensive the wearing of foul language on one's clothing in the most public of fora. I don't want my kindergarteners subject to this stuff nor does virtually anyone else. You're welcome to disagree, but I suspect you'll find yourself in the extreme minority here.
I don't think most of the folks here have any interest in censorship but virtually all of us find offensive the wearing of foul language on one's clothing in the most public of fora. I don't want my kindergarteners subject to this stuff nor does virtually anyone else. You're welcome to disagree, but I suspect you'll find yourself in the extreme minority here.
I think it is short sighted to cheer on amoral corporations to deny service to people based on low level employees making a decision.
..... My kids saw that plastered on shirts and billboards when they were younger. I found it offensive, but it is just a brand. Should I be empowered to deny service to people wearing that brand?
This is a tacky world. I don't think Southwest is the best or last line of defense.
Mar 29, 2015, 3:15 pm
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,189
The more battles they create, the more they lose.
Mar 29, 2015, 5:27 pm
#43
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: American and Southwest. Hilton and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 6,459
deleted.
I apologize for bringing politics into the conversation. I will leave this thread alone.
I apologize for bringing politics into the conversation. I will leave this thread alone.
Last edited by lougord99; Mar 29, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Mar 29, 2015, 8:46 pm
#44
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Probably. I don't know that the profane shirt wearers of America have endured such systemic abuse as to be deserving of special government protection. I think it's kinda silly to be concerned with a shirt enough to deny service; then again, we don't know whether other customers were bothered or the context here. In any event, it's a dumb place to make a stand for the 'freedom' to be profane, particularly when one apparently has a poor grasp of what 'freedom of speech' consists of to begin with.