-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/woman_with_inappropriate_t_shirt_kicked_off_plane -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
357 U.S. 116 (1958) (U.S. Supreme Court)
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.
Airlines are not 'Private businesses' they're 'Common Carriers'
Boynton v. Virginia, 1960, is closer, it was concerned with equal protection for travelers on common carriers.
"... All of these things show that this terminal building, with its grounds, constituted one project for a single purpose, and that was to serve passengers of one or more bus companies - certainly Trailways' passengers. The restaurant area was specifically designed and built into the structure from the beginning to fill the needs of bus passengers in this "up-to-date, modern bus terminal." Whoever may have had technical title or immediate control of the details of the various activities in the terminal, such as waiting-room seating, furnishing of schedule information, ticket sales, and restaurant service, they were all geared to the service of bus companies and their passengers, even though local people who might happen to come into the terminal or its restaurant might also be accommodated. Thus we have a well-coordinated and smoothly functioning plan for continuous cooperative transportation services between the terminal, the restaurant and buses like Trailways that made stopovers there. All of this evidence plus Trailways' use on this occasion shows that Trailways was not utilizing the terminal and restaurant services merely on a sporadic or occasional basis. This bus terminal plainly was just as essential and necessary, and as available for that matter, to passengers and carriers like Trailways that used it, as though such carriers [364 U.S. 454, 463] had legal title and complete control over all of its activities. 3Interstate passengers have to eat, and the very terms of the lease of the built-in restaurant space in this terminal constitute a recognition of the essential need of interstate passengers to be able to get food conveniently on their journey and an undertaking by the restaurant to fulfill that need. Such passengers in transit on a paid interstate Trailways journey had a right to expect that this essential transportation food service voluntarily provided for them under such circumstances would be rendered without discrimination prohibited by the Interstate Commerce Act. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, petitioner had a federal right to remain in the white portion of the restaurant. He was there under "authority of law" - the Interstate Commerce Act - and it was error for the Supreme Court of Virginia to affirm his conviction...
Section 216 (d) of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 316 (d) provides in part:
"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier by motor vehicle engaged in interstate or foreign commerce to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person . . . in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular person . . . to any unjust discrimination or any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . ."
The bottom line is that the carrier accepted her fare and carried her. Common carriers are subject to the equal protection clause under the Interstate Commerce Act, they may not arbitrarily discriminate against their paying passengers.
Holding her to a standard of behaviour is not discrimination. No way, no how.
I'm really amazed at how much hate the left has.
Her right to travel was not denied. She was allowed to travel, provided she was properly attired. She chose not to cover her shirt and thus also chose not to travel.
Another way of seeing this: she has a right to travel, but her shirt doesn't.
Sigh... Boynton v. Virginia, "... passengers in transit on a paid interstate Trailways journey had a right to expect that this essential transportation food service voluntarily provided for them under such circumstances would be rendered without discrimination prohibited by the Interstate Commerce Act. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, petitioner had a federal right to remain in the white portion of the restaurant. He was there under "authority of law" - the Interstate Commerce Act - and it was error for the Supreme Court of Virginia to affirm his conviction..."
...a standard of behavior... She was sitting in her assigned seat, dressed in a fashion legal in every state of the union.
I'm really amazed that quoting federal statutes and court decisions is construed as hate. Or perhaps you're talking about the kind of venom spewed by guys like Rush Limbotomy, and Jerry Falwell?
I was against Bill Clinton but he was still the president and didn't get that kind of stuff.
Looks like Ryan is back to grace us with his ugly presence.
Thanks for proving my point Ryan.
The Patriot act certainly cleared up that issue, wouldn't you say?
I'm not. Quit projecting.
I don't call you ugly, do I?
No you don't. You just act like an ass. I don't call you ugly either though so I'm not sure why you would bring this up. I did say that you bring an ugly presence to this site. Understand the difference?
It appears that the railroad wouldn't serve a black person in the restaurant car.
Calling an apple a banana doesn't make it one.
Why are you so full of hate, likwidshoe? I don't call you ugly, do I?
There's the hate right there.
I just think it's in bad taste to wear such things in general public. I only wear my "Fuck the Casinos" t-shirt to rock concerts, Hash Bash, etc.
What if we all get tee shirts that say "F... Lorrie Heasley" What if we all wore them in her neighborhood. That would be hateful. Being offended by the juvenile hateful thing she wore isn't hateful. On the news she looked like an adult but ..... who knows these days.
I sure don't recall any part of it making it illegal to bring a gun on a plane, or carry around explosives. (The former was already illegal, and as far as I know it's still not technically illegal to have TNT on your person in principle, though there are amount and location restrictions and permit requirements... all of which, AFAIK, pre-date PATRIOT.)
I'd like to invoke the Volokh Conspiracy PATRIOT Act rule, and require all allusions to PATRTIOT be accompanied with a specific citation.
I think that fits the genre I was refering to.
What a waste of bandwidth. How many times do I have to post the same text before everyone reads it?
Section 216 (d) of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 316 (d) provides in part:
"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier by motor vehicle engaged in interstate or foreign commerce to make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person . . . in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular person . . . to any unjust discrimination or any unjust or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever . . . ."
There's the law. One of the cases I cited was a complete red herring, my honest error, and I fixed it in less than an hour. The other applies specifically, in that the carrier, and the full force of the state of Virginia, was found to have violated the statute. Specifically they violated this part of the statute:
Do those words, in any way, suggest that the statute applies only to discrimination based on ideology or race?
Please note the bolded words.
Is asking a woman to cover her obscene shirt unjust? Is it an undue request? Is it unreasonable for Southwest Airlines to maintain order on their flights by requiring that persons wearing inflamatory clothing change?
I don't think so. And I think any fair minded judge would agree.
This isn't even a discrimination issue. The woman would have been allowed on the plane had she simply complied with the airline's request as to her shirt. She didn't, so she was ejected.
If anything its a free speech issue, but even that is weak. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to exercise it wherever you want. Protesters, for instance, cannot sit on my front lawn without my permission. Dim-witted twits like the one described above cannot wear obscene t-shirts on private airline jets without the blessing of the private airline.
Cuz I've seen those before, and they're pretty cool.
I'd have to say that there was nothing 'unjust' about this discrimination.
Why is 'discrimination' considered such a bad word?
Also, does it make a difference
Plain and simple, Southwest is a private business with private shareholders.
that Southwest has accepted federal bailout in the past?
It seems to me that if you accept money from the state, you implicitly agree to whatever nannying the state wants to do.
That's not automatic. For instance, were I to get a federal-backed loan for my home I wouldn't have to adhere to federal equality laws as to who I do and do not admit into it.
If the federal government, when giving the money to the airline, put provisions on it then you'd be correct.
Listen, the bottom line of this issue is this: Yes the woman has a right to wear that t-shirt. But Southwest airlines also has a right to eject people who are disrupting their flights. All citizens of this country, for instance, have a right to protest. They do not, however, have the right to protest in the aisles of Southwest Airlines flights.
The flight attendants felt this woman's shirt was causing a disturbance among the passengers. They asked her to cover it. She didn't fully comply, she was ejected. There was no discrimination here.
Dave, you specificaly (someone who claims to be a libertarian and once said that capitalism cures all ills) should understand this.
Interesting that you made the point about protesting in the aisles of the airline. According to the story, she was in her seat. Perhaps there was some wingnut foaming at the mouth in the aisle?
I've not been able to find a more detailed description of this event but I have to wonder what precipitated the problem.
Were other passengers offended by the shirt? did they make a fuss, forcing the issue to the steward?
Was she seated next to someone who couldn't keep his eyes to himself?
Was this a decision made by a single fussy old steward, acting on her own volition?
If a mob, or even an individual, loudly take offense with someone who's quietly sleeping in her seat, while dressed in fashion legal in every state of the union, who exactly is failing to conform to a standard of behavior?
The thing that makes this especially absurd is that it would be almost impossible for most of the passengers to even see this logo unless they stopped by her chair and peered at her breasts. I'll admit than men mostly can't help this behavior, but there are lots of times I would have liked to have something like "Fuck off and take the dick you rode in on with you!" written across my breasts, in hopes it would have more impact than my wedding ring and disgusted attitude.
Is it just men who always believe that anonymous people on the internet are males, or is that true across the board?
Does it matter? Southwest Airlines is backing the decision to eject her from the plane, and they certainly have the right to regulate decorum on their property.
And you know that the logo was only visible unless people were gawking at her breasts because...you were there?
As it is, if you say something that Limbough didn't say first, you're branded as a leftist, commie pinko, arab loving asswipe. Once you're seen as a woman, you're not even an asswipe anymore, just a feminazi, a form of life beneath notice. (Except of course for the shirtfront)
You've sure got plenty of assumptions.
Maybe they are sending you a message.
I can't figure out how to sign him out and me in
Carol
I've actually spent quite a lot of time in airplanes and have never had a problem reading the t-shirts of people walking by me in the aisle.
Not that it really matters. Is Southwest Airlines deemed the shirt a disturbance to their flight then it was a disturbance and they had every right to eject her. Its as plain and simple as that. You stated that the shirt she wore would have been acceptable in any court house in this country. I'd submit that you're right (except in the court room itself where most judges would probably ask her to change, as they routinely do with anyone wearing obscene clothing) but would also point out that while free expression statements are almost always acceptable on public property you're talking about a whole 'nother ball game when you're on private property.
I guess I don't typically give a thought to the gender of who is posting here. Unless that gender is obvious with the name. I certainly didn't give much of a thought to yours.
Rob your original post said she was asleep in her seat when she was told to leave. She was not in the aisle, so it had to be an immediate seatmate or someone standing in the aisle next to her who was creating the disturbance.
Obviously someone who is sleeping in an airline seat is not creating a disturbance, barring loud snoring perhaps ;-}
No I didn't. Twice I've said it was legal in every state, but as you say her free speech would be protected just as well in courthouses, police precincts and of course, common carriers.
I refuse to quote it again, even you've quoted the statute. The private property argument is bogus, the making a disturbance argument is bogus. The only question subject to debate here is whether they were specifically discriminating against her, or if they consistently excluded anyone wearing shirts with obscene or political content. Now if they could prove that the week before they threw of someone wearing this shirt, then they might have an argument. ">http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/Political-t-shirts/shirtpages/FUCK-LIBERALS-T-shirt-Political-T-shirts.htm
I'm certain that if this woman sued and it went to court that it would be thrown out. But whatever. There's no convincing you, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
P.S. no matter what anyone says...I am not Michael Moore's Bitch...
well back to my free healthcare, igloo, and inferior economy...
Later