Thursday, October 06, 2005

It's Boycott Time, yo!

I used to fly Southwest airlines a lot. It was a cheap and easy way for me to get up and down the East Coast back when I lived there. Sure, it's like a Greyhound bus with wings, cramped and uncomfortable, but it's cheap and the flight attendents crack jokes on the intercom. After watching some episodes of the reality show about them, I really lost a great deal of respect watching how they overbook their flights screwing ticketed passengers over every episode, then making it even more difficult to travel once the customers started getting justifiably irate. But given the chance, I'd probably still have flown with them if it was an inexpensive option for me. But then I read this article:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title "Meet the Fockers."
Southwest does not accept email, but they can be reached at 214-792-4223, Mon - Fri, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm CT.

27 Comments:

Blogger James said...

Doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you would boycott a business that follows their own rules.

Southwest's Customer Contract of Carriage states that: "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" may be denied boarding.

So as any normal person can see, according to the terms agreed to by the woman when she purchased a ticket, she was denied boarding for violation of those rules.

10/12/2005 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Their own rule sucks and goes against the first amendment. And she was not denied boarding but kicked off the plane mid flight. Did they give her the opportunity to change her shirt or cover up the offensive language? Did anybody tell her about this rule before letting her on a plane to begin with? Thanks for being an apologist for a lousy corporate policy.

10/12/2005 11:30:00 AM  
Anonymous sfletcher said...

Their own rule sucks and goes against the first amendment.

Try reading the 1st Amendment...

What's the very first word?

How does this apply to the corporate policy of SWA?


And she was not denied boarding but kicked off the plane mid flight.

Mid-flight??!! Hope they gave her a parachute...

Did they give her the opportunity to change her shirt or cover up the offensive language?

Besides not having read the Bill of Rights, you also obviously didn't read the article...

--Heasley told the newspaper that she agreed to cover her shirt with a sweatshirt, but it slipped as she slept. After she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave, she and her husband chose to leave, the paper said.--

Three sentences... three idiotic statements- you batted 1.000!

Turing Word: "dmbnnaj" - which looks enough like "dumbass" that I thought it was funny(and appropriate)...

10/13/2005 03:39:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Sfletcher, if government can't control your speech, why should some private corporation be able to? The fact that they can is only more proof that corporate power is far too strong. The mid-flight thing referred to her being kicked off before boarding her connecting flight. And maybe I didn't read the whole article, but this is still a case of corporate fascism.

PS: Fuck you and your smug little attitude. I wonder if you'd be so OK with this if she got kicked off for wearing an anti-Clinton shirt.

10/13/2005 07:02:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

Did they give her the opportunity to change her shirt or cover up the offensive language?

YES, read the article...

Did anybody tell her about this rule before letting her on a plane to begin with?

You are expected, when purchasing the ticket to read the Terms and Policies before you purchase the ticket. By buying a ticket, you are agreeing to abide by the rules set forth by said terms and policies. If you break those rules you can be asked to leave the flight, or be denied boarding.

"Their own rule sucks and goes against the first amendment."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No where in the United States Constitution does it deny the right of a business entity, the ability to deny you service because of your speech, behavior, or apparel.

You may not like that, but it's a FACT.

"The fact that they can is only more proof that corporate power is far too strong."

So we should sue the pants off of any business that has a "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" sign in their window... because it's a violation of their freedom to express themselves? Sue companies that do not allow their employees to wear jewelry while at work? It's simple, it's a policy, you've paid for the privilege of using this company’s service, and therefore you must follow their rules.

Oh, and I love the use of profanity, it shows a level of maturity, often displayed by people without a grasp of basic communication skills.

10/13/2005 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Wow, just another right winger making excuses for corporate America to stifle the rights of private citizens with all the smugness and arrogance and lame analogies to be expected. And I'll use whatever the fuck language I feel like. It's my fucking blog.

10/13/2005 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

I didn't say you had to stop, I just find it amusing that we're supposed to take you seriously when you use such language.

Find me evidence that shows that Southwest is ACTUALLY violating her Freedom of Speech, I challenge you to find me any corporate law, that shows they cannot deny boarding for vulgar language.

BTW, please explain how a corporation cannot deny you boarding for displaying the F-bomb, yet a federal agency can keep you from declaring it on TV or Radio or in Print.

10/13/2005 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

When have I ever been expected to be taken seriously by Bush suppoters? It's not like I take any of you seriously. I'm quite happy cracking jokes at your expense and preaching to the choir.

If Southwest has a policy that will not let her fly if she has a certain word on her shirt, that is a violation of her free speech. I don't think that the FCC should be able to tell you what to say either, but I'm no constitutional scholar so I don't know how it is that they legally are able to regulate what is said on public airwaves.

And I honestly wonder if you would be so OK with this if the shirt had a picture of Bill Clinton on it instead of Bush and his gang. My guess is that we'd be hearing all sorts of the usual right wing professional victimology about how the big bad libs are keeping you down.

10/13/2005 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

"And I honestly wonder if you would be so OK with this if the shirt had a picture of Bill Clinton on it instead of Bush and his gang."

I would be 100% FOR her being kicked off that flight. I do not feel it is publicly appropriate to display such language. You are in a public place, and thus, there are children who do not need to read such things.

"When have I ever been expected to be taken seriously by Bush supporters?"

I voted for the man, but he has not done what I voted for him to do, therefore I do not "support" him as I would someone that accurately represented my beliefs. Verify first, and then jump to conclusions.

"If Southwest has a policy that will not let her fly if she has a certain word on her shirt, that is a violation of her free speech.

No it is not, your right to speak freely is restricted in that the GOVERNMENT cannot silence your beliefs that is IT.

Southwest Airlines, even though it is a corporation, still has the right, by their not being a government agency, in a capitalist society... to deny service based on anything that violates their policies. You may think they suck, and they very well could suck, but unless you are on the board of directors you can't change them.
The analogies I used were not lame, they are just as legal as Southwest's policy; "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 may be denied boarding."

By your logic, we should enact legal structures that would deny all businesses the right to serve who they wish, which violates their freedom to do business in a free market economy. As a privately owned business, Southwest is allowed to do business with anyone they wish, and can deny service to anyone who is in violation of their company policy.

Try walking into a gay bar wearing a shirt that will offend the bar owners customers and see how long you reside within the confines of their property, THEN try to sue said company for violating your freedoms.

10/13/2005 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Do you really think you're going to change my mind here? I have a problem with a corporation telling a person that they can't wear a certain t-shirt. No matter how long winded your excuses for their right to do so are, I still have a problem with that.

Would you prefer that I referred to you as a right winger or a conservative rather than a Bush supporter? All of the above are not expected to take me very seriously, and vice versa.

10/13/2005 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

"Would you prefer that I referred to you as a right winger or a conservative rather than a Bush supporter?"

Actually, I would prefer you refer to me as James. I consider myself to be a libertarian with a conservative lean.

10/13/2005 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Ahhhh, a libertarian, or as I like to think of them, republicans who like to smoke pot and read scifi. So you voted for Bush because you hoped he'd privatize everything, huh? I can count on one hand the libertarians that I have any respect for, and given your defense of the "liberties" of corporations over the liberties of a private citizen, I don't think you're going to be one of them.

10/14/2005 06:46:00 AM  
Anonymous sfletcher said...

Sfletcher, if government can't control your speech, why should some private corporation be able to?

There is NO private corporation that can control 'my speech'... but, they are also not required to do anything to support it. If I feel differently, I can buy my own airline.

The fact that they can is only more proof that corporate power is far too strong.

What the f*ck is 'too strong'? If you voluntarily choose to buy that ticket, you have agreed to follow the rules... if you don't like it, you go somewhere else! That way, that 'corporation' can not prevent you from exercizing your rights to free speech.

Would you consider yourself 'too strong' if the airline was forced to accomodate you against their wishes?

And maybe I didn't read the whole article, but this is still a case of corporate fascism.

Look up 'fascism' in the dictionary, moron- you apparently have no clue...(Hint: fascism tends to involve... government! When you can show me any gov't intervention in this situation, then you can talk about fascism...)

Fuck you and your smug little attitude. I wonder if you'd be so OK with this if she got kicked off for wearing an anti-Clinton shirt.

Yes, I would! Just because Slick Willy sexually harassed a 22 yr old subordinate employee into using her genitals as a humidor for his deviant sexual gratification does not mean that a company cannot enforce whatever dress code that they choose to adopt...

That's what is wrong with you clueless leftists... you are so deep into your echo chambers and hatred of GWB that you cannot distinguish the differences in any other political philosophies...

I've had 4 chances in my life to vote for a President named "Bush"--- I'm 0-4.

I read science fiction.
I smoke pot.
Perhaps you should also... maybe you'd get a clue!

10/14/2005 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Fred said...

Jacob Hornberger's take on the incident is available at http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger62.html

10/15/2005 07:08:00 AM  
Blogger Fred said...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger62.html

Let's see if that works.

10/15/2005 07:10:00 AM  
Blogger Fred said...

/hornberger62.html

is supposed to be at the end of the url.

10/15/2005 07:11:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

sfletcher, I read scifi and smoke pot too. I obviously don't have a problem with those parts of libertarianism. It's the republican part I tend to have a problem with. Outside of the few libertarians who I do respect, many of you are nothing but a bunch of republicans who somehow think that you're cooler because you're "not really" republicans, yet you vote for the republicans, and you take their sick economics and go even further with them. And for like the millionth time in this thread, nothing any of you say is going to make me change my mind about it being completely fucked up for a corporation to censor a woman.

10/17/2005 06:25:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

"And for like the millionth time in this thread, nothing any of you say is going to make me change my mind about it being completely fucked up for a corporation to censor a woman."

I've heard you say this like a million times but you've never explained just WHY you think this.

What would you have them and other companies do that are put in this situation? Do people have a right to fly? Are we as citizens and business owners, supposed to allow everything that could happen, or be worn, or said, occurr simply on the basis that we don't want to offend anyone?

I've never heard your reasoning behind your dislike of 'the rules'.

10/18/2005 03:01:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Geez louise, you sure do feel strongly about corporations having more rights than people! Isn't my reason for being against this obvious? I feel that people's rights to express themselves are more important than a company's right to pass arbitrary rules that regulate those rights. People don't have a right to not be offended.

Now what I've got to know is out of all of my posts, what is it about this one that has you coming back and beating the dead horse over and over and over again?. Is defending corporatate policy something that you find more important than the way our troops are being treated by our government after they've been sent to be maimed in Iraq over Bush's lies? Or do you just think that's fine and dandy because Haliburton is making hefty profits?

10/18/2005 07:08:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

An oil company making a profit at the expense of others (happening or not) is not even remotely comparable to refusing service to an individual for violation of your terms of service.

I honestly want to know what you think would be a better solution than letting the individual, or corporation (otherwise known as private business) run themselves?

I keep coming back because I just don't get, how someone can be so against the very foundation of what makes our commerce work the way it does. I hate to burst your bubble, but joe schmoe's barber shop, does the SAME THING that companies like Apple Computers, Southwest Airlines, and CBS do, because the system our government is founded on, allows for it.

Are you against Capitalism? Against, a free market? I just want to know what's making this deep seated hatred for the companies that make your life convenient comes from.

10/18/2005 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

James, you're getting a tad overdramatic about all of this. I have a problem with corporations stiffling the rights of people to freely express themselves. Why do you think that the rights of a company are more important than the rights of an individual? And why out of everything that I have posted on this blog are you so passionate about this one particular issue that you continue to run up against a brick wall over it? Are you Southwest's CEO?

10/18/2005 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger Rambler Joe Snitty said...

Did you see that T-Shirt Hell is offering to provide alternate transportation free of charge for anyone kicked off a flight (only) for wearing one of their t-shirts?

10/18/2005 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Rambler, that's awsome!

10/18/2005 11:38:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

"Why do you think that the rights of a company are more important than the rights of an individual?"

I don't, I think our individual rights to express ourselves are what make us who we are, BUT I ALSO know that we live in a country where the government has no power to tell anyone they HAVE to do business with Company A, or that Company A HAS to do business with any one individual.

The reason I chose this topic to discuss, is that out of all of the posts on this blog (of which most go undiscussed) this one was the only one based entirely on pure ignorance and assumptions. Out of every blog I have read that discussed the topic, this is the ONLY one siding with the individual. I just thought I'd stop in and say hello.

10/18/2005 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Wow, a lot of other bloggers are incredibly lame if they're siding with the corporation rather than the individual.

10/18/2005 08:21:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

Personal opinion (albeit a lonely one)

10/20/2005 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Sneaking in after this is gone from the front page to try to get the last word?

By the way, I've got a newer post about Walmart. Perhaps you'd like to defend their rights to have miserable labor practices. I can't wait to hear it!

10/20/2005 01:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home