"JIMinFL" wrote in message
link.net...
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html

Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations regarding how
its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on the
airline's private property.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:55:58 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations regarding
how its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on the
airline's private property.

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.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:55:58 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations regarding
how its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on the
airline's private property.

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.

Not all speech is protected under all circumstances.

"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:55:58 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations
regarding
how its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on
the
airline's private property.

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.

Not all speech is protected under all circumstances.

A "public accomodation" is still private property, and the owners have
the right to set standards.......otherwise you would not be able to have
dress codes etc.........as usual the liebrals are barking up the wrong tree

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:24:43 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


A "public accomodation" is still private property, and the owners have
the right to set standards.......otherwise you would not be able to have
dress codes etc.........as usual the liebrals are barking up the wrong
tree

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.

And, yes, airlines are "private property", but they are also "public
accommodations" and if you think the government has no say in how they are
used, you are just plain wrong.

"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.

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.

Eisboch

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.

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.

Eisboch wrote:
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.


Which is as it should be, assuming that one trusts the courts to follow
community standards.


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.


Personally, I don't care who gets offended. But the over use of
profanity shows a small vocabulary, and it's unpleasant to listen to...
or to see plastered in large print in a public place.

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.


Or they're insecure and want to attract attention to themselves.

However, it is certainly a free speech issue, and a community standards
issue. It should be pointed out that any time political opinions are
supressed, it doesn't matter why. And any time one person loses freedom
of speech, we all lose it.

Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and
cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying
'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression
regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish
partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our
gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple.

As a matter of community standards of behavior, that's entirely a
different kettle of fish. It's entirely up to you if you vote to outlaw
Pepsi T-shirts because you like Coke, or Rolling Stones T-shirts because
you like the Beatles. It's dumb & intolerant, but it's pretty much
standard human nature. And that's why we need to draw the line carefully
about protecting free speech.

DSK

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:55:58 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Your freedon of speech ends when you move from your property or public
property to someone's private property.

The airline is private property, being that it is not owned by the/a
government, and the airline can make the rules and regulations regarding
how its customers present themselves and conduct themselves while on the
airline's private property.

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?