T-shirt woman kicked off Southwest flight to sue

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
Does the uninformed babble never end?? I'm amazed that a group of
well-respected individuals were able to come together in support of
you having a role in moderating what was a great newsgroup. It's just
a huge joke. Oh well, at least it gives you something to do.


Did YOU volunteer to rescusitate the news group ? Did you particiapte in
the discussions with the NAN group ? Did you volunteer to spend your
time to approve incoming messages and update the newsgroup charter and
operating guidelines ?

For your information, misc.transport-air-industry was about to be
formally destroyed because of lack of activity and previous moderators
having never left a forwarding address where they could be contacted.
Blame them for skipping town without telling anyone and leaving the
newsgroup in a state of limbo for years.

In the early discussions with the other 2 moderiators and Jorhn R Levine
who graciously provides the moderating software, I made it very clear
that it was up to them to decide if it was OK for me to help or not.

Not happy with my contributions to the misc.transport.air-industry ?
Complain to the moderating group. You feel you could do a better job ?
Just apply to be a moderator and I will gladly bow out if it means more
people would contribute.


But uif nobody is there to keep misc.transport.,air-industry alive,
you'll be stuck in rec.travel.air reading greg morrow's dialogue with
himself about his fetishes.

Maxx. wrote:
GW Chimpzilla wrote:

If Southwest mentions they have a dress code on the back of their ticket,
perhaps they'll win this lawsuit. Otherwise, they're going to have to pay.

Their dress code is clearly stated in their "Contract of Carriage" on
their web site. T-shirt woman should quit while she's ahead.

And exactly what is the "dress code" clearly stated?

That a passenger must not wear a printed T-shirt? That a passenger
must not be naked? Or something else -- if so, what is it?

Enquiring mind want to know.

-- Bob.

Their dress code is clearly stated in their "Contract of Carriage" on
their web site. T-shirt woman should quit while she's ahead.

And exactly what is the "dress code" clearly stated?

Page 10 of WN's conditions of carriage, conveniently available on
their web site, has a laundry list of reasons they can refuse to
transport you, starting with

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive,
offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is
lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;

They'd probably argue that her shirt was patently offensive. Who knows
what a court would say.

R's,
John

John R. Levine wrote:
Their dress code is clearly stated in their "Contract of Carriage" on
their web site. T-shirt woman should quit while she's ahead.

And exactly what is the "dress code" clearly stated?

Page 10 of WN's conditions of carriage, conveniently available on
their web site, has a laundry list of reasons they can refuse to
transport you, starting with

(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive,
offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent,

That part if obviously NOT the dress code. :-)

or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;

The burden of PROOF will be on the airline! From the description
of the incident, it did not appear to be lwed or sbscene.

It was probably offensive to some Republicans and humorless fans
of Bush top members of his gang, but the T-shirt is nothing more
than political humor, IMHO.

Besides, for those who still remember the Fokker and Meserschidmt
fighter plane jokes of WWII, her shirt might be referring to that
Fokker. Who knows?

-- Bob.

They'd probably argue that her shirt was patently offensive. Who knows
what a court would say.

R's,
John

Reef Fish wrote:


Besides, for those who still remember the Fokker and Meserschidmt
fighter plane jokes of WWII, her shirt might be referring to that
Fokker. Who knows?

Let's not forget that famous red Fokker triplane from WW1

rk wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Nancy Young wrote:
Yes, she chose to *leave* ... she can't sue when she volunteered to leave.

Why not? "Leave or I'll shoot you."

No one threatened to shoot her, physically harm her, or even threaten her.

If you have any evidence that someone threatened to shoot her, I'd be
interesting in seeing that.

Me too. But since nobody claimed that and there's been no reports to that
effect, I doubt we will.

The point is that leaving voluntarily doesn't mean there wasn't some sort of
coercion, or a set of unacceptable choices of which leaving was the least
troublesome.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 37 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Hong Kong; Macau; Amsterdam; Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

"krw" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

That's not true either. There are limits to everything. You have the
freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, but if you express yourself
in a manner that's not peaceful, you can be arrested and such arrests
are totally legal.

Sure. The point is that *congress* cannot make a law limiting speech, but
it
can make laws restricting actions. Sometimes the need for one overrides
the
other. SCotUS constantly paints this edge.

OTOH, the first amendment, in itself, doesn't preclude the states from
making
such laws. It *certainly* doesn't apply to individuals. Very little of
the
constitution restricts individuals (13th amendment noted).


Right. Whatever the details, the restriction/limiting in this case is being
done by Southhwest Airlines, in their private property. The plaintiff will
have to prove that she was faced with a discriminatory denial of public
accommodation (on a common carrier).

In article 1128807249.6d8a3f87742d856d81fde6a4d2d5d07f@teran ews,
JRDelirio \(Jose Diaz\) wrote:

Right. Whatever the details, the restriction/limiting in this case is being
done by Southhwest Airlines, in their private property. The plaintiff will
have to prove that she was faced with a discriminatory denial of public
accommodation (on a common carrier).

That will be harder to do if her shirt actually had the word "****" on
it, since to any reasonable person, that will certainly be regarded as
grounds to refuse service to her.

The detail I have not seen spelled out, is whether her shirt actually
said "****", because if it only said "F*ck" or "Fock", she has a case.

james wrote:
In article 1128807249.6d8a3f87742d856d81fde6a4d2d5d07f@teran ews,
JRDelirio \(Jose Diaz\) wrote:


Right. Whatever the details, the restriction/limiting in this case is being
done by Southhwest Airlines, in their private property. The plaintiff will
have to prove that she was faced with a discriminatory denial of public
accommodation (on a common carrier).


That will be harder to do if her shirt actually had the word "****" on
it, since to any reasonable person, that will certainly be regarded as
grounds to refuse service to her.

The detail I have not seen spelled out, is whether her shirt actually
said "****", because if it only said "F*ck" or "Fock", she has a case.

It said ****ER

In article ,
mrtravel wrote:

It said ****ER

Too bad for her. That's unacceptable and it has nothing at all to do
with her political statement. There's no room for her to make any kind
of a case at all. Now if it had been a t-shirt from Skinny Dick's
Halfway Inn, or "Homeland Security: Defending America since 1492" or
something along those lines, I'd be on her side. But a T-shirt that
says "****" in a place like an airport terminal, by itself, can disturb
the peace. "Mommy why does that lady's shirt say a bad word?"