*winces*

[conuly]

Ow, ow, ow, this is just a painful take on the story. And people are agreeing with the silly! MY EYES!

I'm going to go hide now. Excuse me.

Comments

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Um... I'm afraid I actually have to agree with that. The mall where I work does not allow shirts with profanity, bare feet, or roller skates. This is clearly posted, and if you come into the mall with one of those things anyway, you will be asked to leave by security. I've called security to report such things (kids often manage to sneak those godawful roller-sneakers in). If that's the airline's stated policy and they've got it up somewhere, and the woman refused to put a jacket on or change her shirt, then they can make her leave. I doubt it'd be an issue with anyone but her if it weren't for the political commentary involved.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

This is the first I've heard of the story. Unless there are facts not presented there, I have to agree with them.

"Freedom of speech" does not give one the right to be profane on private property when one is asked not to be.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with the post, too- she wasn't booted off for a political statement, it was actually because of profanity. Soutwest Airlines have in their terms and conditions a line stating that yes, they do reserve the right to refuse to let someone fly if they are wearing clothing which is lewd or profane. She agreed to that when she purchased her ticket. All she had to do was turn the T-shirt inside out, and she was obliged to do so if she wanted to fly with them.

[conuly]

But she *did* cover it up.

[conuly]

But she *didn't* refuse to put a jacket on. She covered up the shirt. The jacket (may've been a fleece, something like that) came unbuttoned while she was sleeping. I read this article before.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

So it's therefore a civil rights issue because...?

[conuly]

Because Delta Airlines accepts a lot of insane subsidies from the government. Therefore, the government is paying Delta Airlines to keep people from flying for various reasons, including "we don't like the shirt". And, regardless of what Delta says, we'd have to see proof that most people with 'obscene' shirts were banned from their flights - and not just those whose shirts were against a certain political party. If most people with such shirts are allowed to fly, then we've got some real bias going on - and they've either got to make their policy clearer and more fair, or drop it altogether. We can't just take their word on it that they're being fair.

Additionally, many people are commenting that "passengers had complained". If that were the case, I'd agree more with Delta's position. However, from what I've read, passengers had not, in fact, complained - they just thought it was a dim possibility.

In addition, there seems to be some confusion over the FAA's stand. Delta is claiming that the FAA includes rules about removing people for obscene behaviour or clothing - but the FAA is saying that it's up to the individual airlines. (This is rather like people saying that the health department wants people to wear shoes inside of stores, when the health department in no US state has such a regulation. They could just say they don't want bare feet inside their stores, but they'd rather hide behind mythical health department regulations.)

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/southwest_shirt/?cnn=yes

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

From Southwest's Conditions of Carriage:
"Carrier will refuse to transport, or will remove from an aircraft at any point, any passenger in the following circumstances:...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;"
Whether or not the FAA has a similar rule is a moot point. Selective enforcing of rules is a bad thing, but the rule is an established one and really, she ought to have complied with the conditions that she agreed to on purchasing the ticket. As for passengers not complaining, another condition for denial of carriage is "Any passenger who refuses on request to produce positive identification."- passengers aren't likely to complain over that, or about "Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seat belt fastened;", really. It's up to the airline, not the public.

(speaking of going barefoot, another rule listed is that you must be wearing shoes if you are over five years of age- "Persons who are barefoot and over five (5) years of age, unless caused or necessitated
by a disability;")

[conuly]

And she did. She covered up her shirt, which was they airline had originally requested. To kick her off after that is reprehensible.

[conuly]

Additionally (I hate that word, y'know), I didn't say that Delta's argument was that passengers had complained. I said that 1. I'd agree with Delta more if this had happened and 2. that the argument people are using in agreeing with Delta is that passengers had complained, which is patently untrue.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Okay, if that's the case and they didn't giver her a chance to cover it up again, then that's different.

But the way she sounds like she's being all martyr-y about it makes me rather suspicious.

[(Anonymous)]

How exactly does a shirt (jacket, whatever) just come unbuttoned while sleeping? I don't buy that.

Sorry, but I agree with the posts.

[conuly]

What, that's never happened to you? Because it happens to me *all the damn time*.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Actually, according to the story linked from the libertarian community, people HAD complained--direct quote, "Heasley, a 32-year-old lumber saleswoman, said passengers began complaining[...]"

Supposedly her sweatshirt came off while she was trying to sleep (that one earns a big "Huh?" from me as well--I mean, are you doing acrobatics in your sleep, that a sweatshirt came OFF?) and she refused to turn the t-shirt inside out.

[conuly]

Considering I once lost a pair of underwear in my sleep (well, not lost - just tangled it up so badly that both my legs ended up through the same hole), I can completely believe that her sweatshirt slipped (her words) so that the t-shirt was visible. Especially if it's a large sweatshirt.

Now, the question is - did people, or did they not, complain? I find it hard to believe that many passengers could've seen her shirt, the nature of airplanes being what it is... More research is needed.

[conuly]

True story 'bout the underwear - I'm still not sure how that happened. If anybody has any clues, I'd appreciate it.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Depending on the layout of the plane, lots of people could have seen it--did she board late, so everyone got a good look as she walked down the aisle? Was she seated near the bathroom, so everyone who had to go saw her sitting there as they went toward the restroom? I've never been on a plane myself, so I don't know how they're commonly laid out.

[conuly]

In most planes - and Delta, from what I know, isn't an exception, though I'm not supposed to fly American - there's simply not enough room between your seat and the seat in front of you for anybody walking down the aisle to see *anything*. Boarding late might change that, or constantly walking up and down to go pee, but typically, you can't see the details of somebody's shirt unless you're leaning over to look at it.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

there's simply not enough room between your seat and the seat in front of you for anybody walking down the aisle to see *anything*.

Holy Mary, Mother of God. Remind me never to fly anywhere. (It's THAT cramped?)

I was visualizing it as kind of like a bus, you know? (Did you ride a bus to school, or were you one of the city kids?) You walk down the aisle and you can see that Angie brought her pink purse and Tawny is writing an excuse note from her mother and Todd is wearing his Iron Maiden t-shirt.

[conuly]

(Did you ride a bus to school, or were you one of the city kids?)

Um, both?

They *can* be cramped - by nature, I find they're not, unless you're quite tall, but then the person in front of you always leans their seat back into your face. And once you've got your little table out, and you're sitting down, there's no way the words on your shirt should be visible, even in an aisle seat, to the casual passer-by.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Um, both?

Heh. Remember, I grew up in Smallville. If you lived inside the city limits, you WALKED to school. (The graduating class the year I transferred out had 88 seniors.)

[conuly]

We went to school well outside our district. We did walk - to the bus stop. And we were some of the first people on, too.

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

My best guess would be that for some reason you were trying to change underwear in your sleep. Or something like that. And it ended up funky because you were asleep while doing it. I know that any socks that are on my feet when I go to bed never stay on my feet. And I've attacked posters that are on the wall near my bed.

But we can't rule out the possibility of miniature underwear arranging ninjas that may have attacked you.

[lordalfredhenry.livejournal.com]

Not to be mean but I had the same thing happen to me. I had some roommates (who were straight but in this sense, I wonder if their humor was or not) who later admitted to taking them off so they could take a picture since I was already "partially hanging out" and a "heavy sleeper".

[morganne13.livejournal.com]

I find that just not wearing underwear most of the time makes life a lot less complicated. But yeah...I've lost clothing in my sleep too.

And then there was that one time when I was a lot younger when I still had sleep disorder issues. I sleepwalked to the bathroom and my dad was outside when I came out. Apparently I handed him my panties, muttered something about the math problem on the board and went back to bed. They waited until the next evening to tell me about this.