First you couldn't say "bomb" on an airplane...

minsue

Gosling
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Posts
22,062
...now your clothes can't speak either, apparently. :rolleyes:

Man kicked off flight for Bush-bashing T-shirt

CANBERRA, Jan 22 - An airline passenger barred from a flight for wearing a T-shirt labeling President Bush a terrorist has threatened legal action against Australia's flag carrier Qantas.

Allen Jasson, 55, an Australian IT expert who lives in Britain, was stopped from boarding a London-bound Qantas flight at Melbourne Airport last Friday for wearing what the airline said was an offensive T-shirt.

Airline staff said the T-shirt of Bush with the tagline "World's number 1 terrorist" could have upset other passengers and demanded it be changed for another.

But Jasson, who had earlier traveled on a Qantas domestic flight wearing the Bush T-shirt, said his right to freedom of speech had been infringed by Qantas.

"I am not prepared to go without the T-shirt. I might forfeit the fare, but I have made up my mind that I would rather stand up for the principle of free speech," Jasson told Australian media on Monday, adding he would seek legal advice.

Qantas issued a statement saying comments made verbally or on a T-shirt which had the potential to offend other travelers or threaten the security of aircraft "will not be tolerated."

I'm wondering where does one draw the line about clothing with the "potential to offend other travelers"? I'm offended by other people's clothing every day, for crying out loud. ;)
 
rgraham666 said:
Morons.

(And how many people on a flight between Melbourne and London would be offended by a Bush bashing T-shirt anyway? :D)
 
minsue said:
Morons.

(And how many people on a flight between Melbourne and London would be offended by a Bush bashing T-shirt anyway? :D)

And how many in the U.S.?

:D
 
Shsssshhhhh - careful guys or they'll shut this forum down.. everyone knows Bush'd rather crack down on innocent people having freedom of thought than anyone who might actually pose a danger to society.

x
V
<wink>
 
Vermilion said:
Shsssshhhhh - careful guys or they'll shut this forum down.. everyone knows Bush'd rather crack down on innocent people having freedom of thought than anyone who might actually pose a danger to society.

x
V
<wink>
Of course he would and yet you can wear a shirt like that on an American flight. So why is Qantas sucking up to Bush? What do they know that we don't? :eek:
 
minsue said:
Of course he would and yet you can wear a shirt like that on an American flight. So why is Qantas sucking up to Bush? What do they know that we don't? :eek:

Well, Australia would be easy to beat up. And good PR could easily inflate the T-shirt into a 'They hate our freedoms' thing.

Maybe they're just being careful. ;)
 
I think they objected to the "World's number 1 terrorist" part of the t-shirt, and it wouldn't have mattered whose picture was on it.

Either that or Quantas heard a rumour america is going to invade australia and they are trying to suck up to the new boss early.

:rose:
 
Teeshirts DO speak!

Well, now, let's be fair. This is not a short flight, and there are a lot of people crammed together on a plane. And while I doubt that such a shirt would incite a riot, it could lead to loud, strident arguments. In a paranoid, claustrophobic space that everyone has to share as civilly as possible for several hours, it isn't completely outrageous to try and minimalize vocal opinions. This isn't a bar or a street corner.

And an airplane is a privately owned space where "Freedom of speech" is not necessarily required by law. Like a restaurant, an airline can require a dress code if it likes.

Consider, as well, if the tee-shirt had said something like "kill all gays!" or something like that. I'd certainly want the airline to keep me from being forced to sit next to someone wearing that kind of teeshirt, loudly (as it were) proclaiming that sort of sentiment.

That is what teeshirts are all about afterall. They *do* tell the world what we're thinking, and they do provoke responses.

Now, of course, if the airline *allowed* that tee-shirt but not the Bush shirt, then we have a different problem. But if they're banning any potentially offensive/aggressively opinionated tees, then I can kinda understand.

It might not show the best judgement, but there is a viable reason behind it.
 
3113 said:
Well, now, let's be fair. This is not a short flight, and there are a lot of people crammed together on a plane. And while I doubt that such a shirt would incite a riot, it could lead to loud, strident arguments. In a paranoid, claustrophobic space that everyone has to share as civilly as possible for several hours, it isn't completely outrageous to try and minimalize vocal opinions. This isn't a bar or a street corner.

And an airplane is a privately owned space where "Freedom of speech" is not necessarily required by law. Like a restaurant, an airline can require a dress code if it likes.

Consider, as well, if the tee-shirt had said something like "kill all gays!" or something like that. I'd certainly want the airline to keep me from being forced to sit next to someone wearing that kind of teeshirt, loudly (as it were) proclaiming that sort of sentiment.

That is what teeshirts are all about afterall. They *do* tell the world what we're thinking, and they do provoke responses.

Now, of course, if the airline *allowed* that tee-shirt but not the Bush shirt, then we have a different problem. But if they're banning any potentially offensive/aggressively opinionated tees, then I can kinda understand.

It might not show the best judgement, but there is a viable reason behind it.



I would agree with that IF it is an explicitly stated policy. If the airline lets passengers KNOW they have a dress code, fine. If not... then there's a problem.
 
You could also be removed if your child pitches a temper tantrum. I'm not really sure where I fall in this debate.

Airline defends removing family from flight
AirTran Airways backs decision to boot parents, toddler for temper tantrum

ORLANDO, Fla. - AirTran Airways on Tuesday defended its decision to remove a Massachusetts couple from a flight after their crying 3-year-old daughter refused to take her seat before takeoff.

AirTran officials said they followed Federal Aviation Administration rules that children age 2 and above must have their own seat and be wearing a seat belt upon takeoff.

"The flight was already delayed 15 minutes and in fairness to the other 112 passengers on the plane, the crew made an operational decision to remove the family," AirTran spokeswoman Judy Graham-Weaver said.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
click here!

Julie and Gerry Kulesza, who were headed home to Boston on Jan. 14 from Fort Myers, said they just needed a little more time to calm their daughter, Elly.

"We weren't given an opportunity to hold her, console her or anything," Julie Kulesza said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

The Kuleszas said they told a flight attendant they had paid for their daughter's seat, but asked whether she could sit in her mother's lap. The request was denied.

She was removed because "she was climbing under the seat and hitting the parents and wouldn't get in her seat" during boarding, Graham-Weaver said.

The Orlando-based carrier reimbursed the family $595.80, the cost of the three tickets, and the Kuleszas flew home the next day.

They also were offered three roundtrip tickets anywhere the airline flies, Graham-Weaver said.

The father said his family would never fly AirTran again.
 
SelenaKittyn said:
I would agree with that IF it is an explicitly stated policy. If the airline lets passengers KNOW they have a dress code, fine. If not... then there's a problem.
Agreed! And you're right, if they didn't inform people ahead of time of their "dress code" then there is a problem.
 
Makes me wanna wear a plain white t-shirt on board ... then whip out my big, fat Sharpie once airborn & decorate it.
 
I can't get too worked up about a political T-shirt. However, there was a girl in the supermarket a few months back with a T-shirt that said, "Tell your boyfirend thanks!" That seems to me like the type of thing that could create a bit of trouble.
 
cloudy said:
You could also be removed if your child pitches a temper tantrum.
I'm so flying Air Tran! :p

The telling point for me is this part: "she was climbing under the seat and hitting the parents and wouldn't get in her seat"

Italics mine there. If a three-year old feels it's prefectly all right to hit her parents, and the parents are powerless to stop her from acting out this way, then there's a problem with the parents and the kid, not with the airline. I think the airline was more than fair in giving the parents 15 extra minutes (plus however long they had prior to that) to settle their kid.

Nor was the airline unreasonable in demanding that the child have her own seat. That's a regulation and they can't go against that.

It's unreasonable to think a kid's not going to be a kid, and both airline and passangers and parents will have to be prepared for kids to be bored, loud, cranky, restless, etc. But the plane cannot break regulations or wait forever on the tarmack while you figure out, a year too late, how to control your kid in such a situation.
 
3113 said:
I'm so flying Air Tran! :p

The telling point for me is this part: "she was climbing under the seat and hitting the parents and wouldn't get in her seat"

Italics mine there. If a three-year old feels it's prefectly all right to hit her parents, and the parents are powerless to stop her from acting out this way, then there's a problem with the parents and the kid, not with the airline. I think the airline was more than fair in giving the parents 15 extra minutes (plus however long they had prior to that) to settle their kid.

Nor was the airline unreasonable in demanding that the child have her own seat. That's a regulation and they can't go against that.

It's unreasonable to think a kid's not going to be a kid, and both airline and passangers and parents will have to be prepared for kids to be bored, loud, cranky, restless, etc. But the plane cannot break regulations or wait forever on the tarmack while you figure out, a year too late, how to control your kid in such a situation.

Yeah, like I said...I'm not sure what side I'm on in that debate. I've had my kids pitch ungodly tantrums out of nowhere, but then, I've been on planes where I've had to listen to screaming kids for what seems like ages, too.
 
Silly Bastard.

minsue said:
...now your clothes can't speak either, apparently. :rolleyes:



I'm wondering where does one draw the line about clothing with the "potential to offend other travelers"? I'm offended by other people's clothing every day, for crying out loud. ;)

This moron could have fed about a hundred starving people with his lost air fare and made his protest work for some one.
 
minsue said:
Of course he would and yet you can wear a shirt like that on an American flight. So why is Qantas sucking up to Bush? What do they know that we don't? :eek:
You just think you can wear a shirt like that on an American flight.
Here's the story.

The political content of these things is what's 'offensive.'

And that underscores that the 'war on terror' is essentially established for political control, not for controlling terrorism.
 
RonClarkeson said:
This moron could have fed about a hundred starving people with his lost air fare and made his protest work for some one.
He could have, if he'd planned to protest. What he did was get on a plane. The situation that followed was created by the political police. He merely reacted to the situation in a manner he felt was honorble, and sued to recover damages.
 
impressive said:
Makes me wanna wear a plain white t-shirt on board ... then whip out my big, fat Sharpie once airborn & decorate it.
Too bad you had to leave the sharpie at the gate as a potentional stabbing weapon.
 
I don't think his freedom of speech was suppressed as Quatas is not a government agency of any kind, it's a private airline and they(Quantas) can deny passage to anyone they choose.

Maybe the gate agent was offended by the t-shirt, it really doesn't matter.
 
minsue said:
I'm wondering where does one draw the line about clothing with the "potential to offend other travelers"?

No hip holster, no Regency-era broadsword worn as a fashion accessory, no low-rider pants showing butt-crack. That should cover it.
 
Lisa Denton said:
I think they objected to the "World's number 1 terrorist" part of the t-shirt, and it wouldn't have mattered whose picture was on it.

That's what it said? Well no wonder, then. Even I find that offensive.

There's just no way Bush is the World's #1 Terrorist! Terrorism takes planning. You can't claim the title just because your screw-ups result in a lot of fatalities.
 
Maybe they (Qantas) were worried about people mobbing that poor man to find out how they could get a t-shirt, too.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
I don't think his freedom of speech was suppressed as Quatas is not a government agency of any kind, it's a private airline and they(Quantas) can deny passage to anyone they choose.
Yer right, it's not a freedom of speech thing. It's a customer's right thing. They sold him a product. Then they chose not to deliver the product. Of course, a well written e.u.l.a or t.o.e gives companies the legal right to be dicks. Excersising that right is still no less dickish.
 
Back
Top