It could happen to you.
 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:11:55 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

Try reading for content, I never said they couldn't set standards. I
said they are limited in the rules they can set. If the airline wanted
to ban the wearing of all tee-shirts, that would probably be legally
acceptable, business suicide, but legally acceptable. But that's not
what they did now, is it? They refused service to someone who was
wearing a particular tee-shirt, a tee-shirt that clearly was making a
political statement, a tee-shirt that is *probably* protected speech.
Very subjective, and, IMO that is where the problem lies.



The tee-shirt printing made a political statement, which is fine, but also
included a profanity that, to social standards supported by numerous court
findings, is not fine in a public venue. I did a long google on this one.
In every case that I found where a person who was refused entry or service
because of a printed profanity on their clothing, who then filed a civil
complaint to protect their " right to free expression" --- lost.

I can believe that. There is a difference when obscenity is involved. To
compound the problem, in my reading, some have asterisks placed. While
"Meet the Folkers" is clearly OK, is "Meet the F**kers"? Beats me, and to
be honest, I haven't been able to definitively find what the tee-shirt
actually said.

Practically, it is a common sense issue to me. Profanity is not shocking
or particularly offensive to me personally, however I don't think it is
appropriate around young children, my wife or others who may be influenced
or offended.

Nor do I, and the woman had options. She could have worn tee-shirt inside
out, and remained on the plane. In some ways, she chose to make this an
issue. Personally, I wouldn't have worn the tee-shirt, but then again, I
wouldn't have complained about her wearing either.

I also think that those who wear items like this in public places are self
absorbed with little respect for others or for standards of social
behavior.

Agreed, but . . . Freedom of Speech isn't important for speech that fits
into "standards of social behavior", it is important for speech that does
not.

It could happen to you.
 

wrote in message
...
Would you all feel the same way if it was one of those Monica white
mustache "got cum" T shirts?

This is the first time I have heard about those T-shirts.

It could happen to you.
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:32:16 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


A airline is considered a "public accommodation", not "private
property", and they are limited in the rules they can set. If you think
not, think if an airline can refuse boarding because of race. The
question is one of obscenity. My guess is, as obnoxious as she may have
been, it *is* probably protected speech.

If everytime someone with purple hair walks into my business he robs me
then what I am I to do? Keep letting people with purple hair into my
business?

Depends on the business, but if it's one of public accommodation,
restaurant, bars, hotels, theaters, and such, you better hire
better security, because you can't ban an entire class of people. And
let's be honest, not every purple haired person has robbed you. I know
quite a few purple haired people that are fine, upstanding, hard-working
Americans.

There are some workout centers in my area that don't allow a certain class
of people. Would you like to join me in demonstrating against them?

It could happen to you.
 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:35:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Depends on the business, but if it's one of public accommodation,
restaurant, bars, hotels, theaters, and such, you better hire better
security, because you can't ban an entire class of people. And let's
be honest, not every purple haired person has robbed you. I know quite
a few purple haired people that are fine, upstanding, hard-working
Americans.

There are some workout centers in my area that don't allow a certain class
of people. Would you like to join me in demonstrating against them?

Wouldn't let you in, huh? ;-) I'm not a lawyer, but I would suspect you
are talking about workout centers that have a membership, as in a "club".
They would be under a completely different standard. An example:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/...gay.boyscouts/

It could happen to you.
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:35:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Depends on the business, but if it's one of public accommodation,
restaurant, bars, hotels, theaters, and such, you better hire better
security, because you can't ban an entire class of people. And let's
be honest, not every purple haired person has robbed you. I know quite
a few purple haired people that are fine, upstanding, hard-working
Americans.

There are some workout centers in my area that don't allow a certain
class
of people. Would you like to join me in demonstrating against them?

Wouldn't let you in, huh? ;-) I'm not a lawyer, but I would suspect you
are talking about workout centers that have a membership, as in a "club".
They would be under a completely different standard. An example:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/...gay.boyscouts/

Nice try. These businesses refuse to let me use their facilities.

It could happen to you.
 

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:37:30 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Fascinating subject isn't it?

And not an easy one. The courts have been dealing with variations of this
for years.

I think back to when I can first identify thoughts expressed in a fashion
that normally would be considered offensive - boot camp. I had experience
with "blue" language through various coaches and the occasional bout of
faux concern about something or the other, but that was the first time I
had ever run into it as an art form.

Later on, when I went to NCO School, I learned that it is indeed an art
form and has it's place in settings other than public. Believe this or
not, even since that time I have refrained, or tried mightily to, not
swear in public. My wife actually swears more than I do.

Having said that, I do use substitutes, but I honestly try to refrain from
doing that also.

It is a personal choice because it's way too easy to, as jps might put it,
to ****ing this or f'ing that. It lacks a certain panache if you will - a
lack of wit or understanding of basic social rules.

It also loses it's effect. Some people use f* as an common adjective,
becoming more than trite in it's application. But, a well placed F***,
from someone who rarely if ever cusses, will get your attention.


I find it interesting that a person like the one described wearing the
T-shirt is most likely disdainful of a "red-neck" or "southern hick" who
most likely wouldn't be caught dead wearing something like that in public.
:) This same person probably feels that the Confederate Battle Flag is
offensive, yet doesn't feel that her T-shirt is offensive in any way.

It truly is a matter of perspective and POV.

What I find fascinating, is how easily our stands on issues can change
because of POV. For instance, if it was Clinton's face, not Bush's, the
issues would be the same, but would our various positions? It's sometimes
quite telling about the quality of a politician, do they remain consistent
on the issues, regardless of their POV.

It could happen to you.
 

On 9 Oct 2005 20:51:13 -0700, wrote:


PocoLoco wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 19:50:32 -0700, wrote:


PocoLoco wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 18:51:21 -0700, wrote:


PocoLoco wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 17:41:45 -0700, wrote:


PocoLoco wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 12:25:42 -0700, wrote:


JIMinFL wrote:
"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:18:54 GMT, "JIMinFL" wrote:

Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html


Maybe she'd have been kicked off if she were wearing the same shirt with
Kerry/Edwards on it? Ever think of that?

I'll bet she would have, but it wouldn't happen. Trash talk is a liberal
Democrat thing.


It's easy enough to see evidence of that in this NG. All the right
wingers are so polite, well mannered, unconfrontational. None of them
would ever troll a thread like this through a boating NG, just to get
his/her rocks off on dissing
a "Bush Basher"......

I think none of the conservatives were as crude as your comment above. But,
you've had some good examples with another name caller in the group.

--

You think none of the conservatives would ever troll a thread like this
through a boating NG, just to get his/her rocks off by dissing "Bush
bashers"?

ROTFLAMO

I would just *swear* that is exactly what happened here. :-)

But then again I could be wrong, as one of the polite, well-mannered,
non-trash talking conservatives responded to my comments (that included
an opinion that the woman was "wrong" to wear that shirt) with a charge
that I'm morally deficient.
Probably too morally deficient to recognize a polite, constructive,
conciliatory
post when I see one.

Oddball set of standards you guys use over there in Rightieville.

Most folks were discussing the wording on the gal's T-shirt, Chuck, not 'getting
their rocks off'. You're quickly approaching the Harry/Kevin modus operandi.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan


Excellent technique, John. When you can't counter the basic argument,
object to the verbiage used in a single phrase. Conclude with a
derogatory personal comment.
Of course, this hasn't been effective in a couple of thousand years of
debating issues- but any port in a storm, I suppose.

My original post to you was about your choice of verbiage in your single phrase.
Why do you consider a persons disapproval of a 'F...er' T-shirt 'right
wingers...getting their rocks off'? Do you not think there are some left wing
moms and dads who would find that shirt offensive?

Sounds a little crude to me.

--
John H


The shirt was very crude and offensive.

Follow the thread, please.

First post: A known right-winger describing the problem as one of "Bush
Bashing."

A following post: Same right-winger comments that "trash talk" is the
sole domain of liberals.

The intent of the OP was not to complain about the language on the
shirt, but to gloat that a "Bush basher" had been kicked off a plane.

Throwing out the 'right wingers...getting their rocks off' was also crude and
offensive.

I know you have better means to get your point across than falling into the same
pattern as some of the other 'characters' here.

--
John H

Every time we cruise to up to Port Townsend, my wife picks up a chunk
of granite or two from a beach up there. Souveniers, if you will. First
thing we do when we get back to the dock in Seattle and begin unloading
he boat is to get those rocks off. How could that be offensive? :-)

You're *both* right-wingers??

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

It could happen to you.
 

"Bryan" wrote in message
.. .

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



I think it perfectly appropriate to wear clothing that says
F*ck Bush, if one feels like doing that.


And the mudrats on your plane were simply exercising their right to
free
speech and expression.

So what's the problem?

Eisboch

Also, you don't have to look at a tee-shirt; it is easy enough to avoid.

Not necessarily so.

You cannot avoid the damned noise these brats made. I would have stuck
one
of the parents and both kids in the rest room after an hour of non-stop
whining and crying.

Even before I had kids of my own, I was sympathetic to the parents of
children who had difficulty flying. I was never sympathetic to cranky old
men who interact socially as if they had to carry a mouthful of tart lemon
wherever they go. I'm sorry you had a rough flight. I'm also sorry for
the
parents of the crying children who probably had a rougher flight based on
your description.


Harry is just proving how tolerant he is...............LMAO

It could happen to you.
 

Harry Krause wrote:


Perhaps if you bathed...

There was a case reported in the news up here last month concerning a
man who wanted to join a ladies fitness club. He claimed their refusal
to let him join violated his human rights.
Maybe Bertie just wanted to hang out with the girls.

It could happen to you.
 

The tee-shirt printing made a political statement, which is fine, but also
included a profanity that, to social standards supported by numerous court
findings, is not fine in a public venue. I did a long google on this one.
In every case that I found where a person who was refused entry or service
because of a printed profanity on their clothing, who then filed a civil
complaint to protect their " right to free expression" --- lost.

Practically, it is a common sense issue to me. Profanity is not shocking or
particularly offensive to me personally, however I don't think it is
appropriate around young children, my wife or others who may be influenced
or offended.

I also think that those who wear items like this in public places are self
absorbed with little respect for others or for standards of social behavior.


Personally, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment -
best one I've read in this thread.