(03-13-2022, 06:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Horse [BLEEP].
(03-13-2022, 05:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You do not have a Constitutional right to display any message on an airplane.
Absurd. If they make up a rule on the fly it's discrimination. You should all be pissed about this but since you agree with the censorship of that particular message you refuse accept that protecting him is also protecting yourselves.
Does a passenger have the inherent right to display any message or engage in any behavior or speech, not specifically prohibited by a pre-existing rule?
(03-14-2022, 11:52 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2022, 06:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Horse [BLEEP].
Absurd. If they make up a rule on the fly it's discrimination. You should all be pissed about this but since you agree with the censorship of that particular message you refuse accept that protecting him is also protecting yourselves.
Does a passenger have the inherent right to display any message or engage in any behavior or speech, not specifically prohibited by a pre-existing rule?
Does the crew member have the right to fabricate a rule out of whole cloth because he or she is personally offended by the politics of the person? Does the crew member have the right to flat out lie to the person to avoid it looking like a petty personal attack? To lie about FAA rules that don't exist to enforce their personal perspective on the customer? Does that apply when the company, Delta, said it was not a problem or a rule or a regulation and such a message about Trump was just fine too?
I get it, you guys are all in favor of censorship as long as you agree with the censor. The thing is, one day you won't be, you'll be the censored. And then who will stick up for you?
(03-14-2022, 12:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2022, 11:52 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Does a passenger have the inherent right to display any message or engage in any behavior or speech, not specifically prohibited by a pre-existing rule?
Does the crew member have the right to fabricate a rule out of whole cloth because he or she is personally offended by the politics of the person? Does the crew member have the right to flat out lie to the person to avoid it looking like a petty personal attack? To lie about FAA rules that don't exist to enforce their personal perspective on the customer? Does that apply when the company, Delta, said it was not a problem or a rule or a regulation and such a message about Trump was just fine too?
I get it, you guys are all in favor of censorship as long as you agree with the censor. The thing is, one day you won't be, you'll be the censored. And then who will stick up for you?
I'm pretty sure that those FAA rules do exist and that they give wide latitude to flight crews to eliminate disruptions.
(03-14-2022, 01:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2022, 12:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Does the crew member have the right to fabricate a rule out of whole cloth because he or she is personally offended by the politics of the person? Does the crew member have the right to flat out lie to the person to avoid it looking like a petty personal attack? To lie about FAA rules that don't exist to enforce their personal perspective on the customer? Does that apply when the company, Delta, said it was not a problem or a rule or a regulation and such a message about Trump was just fine too?
I get it, you guys are all in favor of censorship as long as you agree with the censor. The thing is, one day you won't be, you'll be the censored. And then who will stick up for you?
I'm pretty sure that those FAA rules do exist and that they give wide latitude to flight crews to eliminate disruptions.
Just remember, the boots you lick today are the boots that will stomp your face tomorrow.
This is an easy fix. Corporations can moderate down to the local governing authority. If you're in Jacksonville, and profanity is not allowed on shirts, Delta can tell someone to take the shirt off that says [BLEEP] Joe Biden. If you're in Los Angeles and it's illegal to disparage gay marriage, companies can refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message. Same with Big Tech. We don't need companies to tell us what we can and can't do. Let people make the law at the most local level, and if it goes against the constitution, it can be challenged in court. Conservatives need to move past this idea that business can do whatever they want. That made sense in a free market. It doesn't make sense when corporations are global and have aligned themselves with the government for profit.
Trying to imagine the response here if a flight attendant tossed a vagina hat wearer a few years back on her way to DC.
(03-14-2022, 09:21 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Trying to imagine the response here if a flight attendant tossed a vagina hat wearer a few years back on her way to DC.
I would oppose that too.
I have no problems with censoring vulgarity. I draw the line and implied vulgarity. If a feminist wants to wear a pink hat with cat ears, go ahead. If she's wearing a hat that says the word [BLEEP], maybe that's a bit vulgar. If a Trump supporter wears a shirt that says let's go brandon, who cares. If he's wearing one that says [BLEEP] Joe Biden, that's probably over the line. You can draw an objective line at vulgarity. You can't do that with implied vulgarity.
Businesses shouldn't be regulating thought. Again, in a true free market, I wouldn't care. However, we don't live in that world anymore. You people shouldn't be constantly ceding your power to these institutions.
(03-14-2022, 12:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2022, 11:52 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Does a passenger have the inherent right to display any message or engage in any behavior or speech, not specifically prohibited by a pre-existing rule?
Does the crew member have the right to fabricate a rule out of whole cloth because he or she is personally offended by the politics of the person? Does the crew member have the right to flat out lie to the person to avoid it looking like a petty personal attack? To lie about FAA rules that don't exist to enforce their personal perspective on the customer? Does that apply when the company, Delta, said it was not a problem or a rule or a regulation and such a message about Trump was just fine too?
I get it, you guys are all in favor of censorship as long as you agree with the censor. The thing is, one day you won't be, you'll be the censored. And then who will stick up for you?
Taking your response in reverse order, why do you conclude I am in support of censorship? The above was my first post in this thread. It presented a single and fairly simple question and did not express any personal opinion.
To answer your questions, no, the crew member doesn't have the right to fabricate a rule or lie about it.
From the article, it is unclear which part of the "F*** Joe Biden" was deemed to be offensive. Was it the "F***" or the fact that is was directed at Biden? If the sweatshirt had read "F*** You", would it have generated the same reaction, which brings us back to my original question.
Does a passenger have the inherent right to display any message or engage in any behavior or speech, not specifically prohibited by a pre-existing rule?
(03-13-2022, 05:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2022, 05:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If there's no rule and one is made specifically for you when you are exercising a Constitutional right that is pure unadulterated discrimination.
You do not have a Constitutional right to display any message on an airplane.
Actually, yes you do. It's called the first amendment.
(03-14-2022, 10:59 PM)navyjagfan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2022, 05:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You do not have a Constitutional right to display any message on an airplane.
Actually, yes you do. It's called the first amendment.
No, you don't. Even the First Amendment has limits.
Why do people have to be so antagonist? If you're going to "stir the pot" then be ready for the consequences. Whether they are fair or legal is not my point. My point is why stir the dang pot? There is not one person on an airplane, in a grocery store, or anywhere else who I care to share my opinion with on various political topics. Especially on clothing, a hat or a mask. And I don't care about their opinion. They're certainly free to wear their opinions on full display but should expect a reaction that is not necessary in their favor.
And vulgarity is not the best way to prove a point unless your point is to 'shock' people.
(03-14-2022, 10:59 PM)navyjagfan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2022, 05:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You do not have a Constitutional right to display any message on an airplane.
Actually, yes you do. It's called the first amendment.
Yes, but you can also be asked to leave what is essentially private property.
You have every right to ask someone to leave your house if they wear anything you don't approve of, even if they think it is appropriate.
(03-14-2022, 10:59 PM)navyjagfan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2022, 05:21 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You do not have a Constitutional right to display any message on an airplane.
Actually, yes you do. It's called the first amendment.
The First Amendment does not apply to a case like that. Maybe you should read it.
"The government shall make no law..." The First Amendment applies to the government, not to Delta Airlines. Delta has no obligation to allow anything they don't want to allow.
Imagine if you were in a movie theater watching a movie and some guy stands up and starts shouting political slogans. Does he have a First Amendment right to do that, or does the theater have the right to throw him out?
(03-14-2022, 10:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I have no problems with censoring vulgarity. I draw the line and implied vulgarity. If a feminist wants to wear a pink hat with cat ears, go ahead. If she's wearing a hat that says the word [BLEEP], maybe that's a bit vulgar. If a Trump supporter wears a shirt that says let's go brandon, who cares. If he's wearing one that says [BLEEP] Joe Biden, that's probably over the line. You can draw an objective line at vulgarity. You can't do that with implied vulgarity.
Businesses shouldn't be regulating thought. Again, in a true free market, I wouldn't care. However, we don't live in that world anymore. You people shouldn't be constantly ceding your power to these institutions.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but the business in question, Delta Airlines, was not regulating thought. They were regulating speech. They have a perfect right to do that.
(03-14-2022, 11:18 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Why do people have to be so antagonist? If you're going to "stir the pot" then be ready for the consequences. Whether they are fair or legal is not my point. My point is why stir the dang pot? There is not one person on an airplane, in a grocery store, or anywhere else who I care to share my opinion with on various political topics. Especially on clothing, a hat or a mask. And I don't care about their opinion. They're certainly free to wear their opinions on full display but should expect a reaction that is not necessary in their favor.
And vulgarity is not the best way to prove a point unless your point is to 'shock' people.
I agree 100%
(03-15-2022, 05:20 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2022, 10:59 PM)navyjagfan Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, yes you do. It's called the first amendment.
The First Amendment does not apply to a case like that. Maybe you should read it.
"The government shall make no law..." The First Amendment applies to the government, not to Delta Airlines. Delta has no obligation to allow anything they don't want to allow.
Imagine if you were in a movie theater watching a movie and some guy stands up and starts shouting political slogans. Does he have a First Amendment right to do that, or does the theater have the right to throw him out?
(03-14-2022, 10:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I have no problems with censoring vulgarity. I draw the line and implied vulgarity. If a feminist wants to wear a pink hat with cat ears, go ahead. If she's wearing a hat that says the word [BLEEP], maybe that's a bit vulgar. If a Trump supporter wears a shirt that says let's go brandon, who cares. If he's wearing one that says [BLEEP] Joe Biden, that's probably over the line. You can draw an objective line at vulgarity. You can't do that with implied vulgarity.
Businesses shouldn't be regulating thought. Again, in a true free market, I wouldn't care. However, we don't live in that world anymore. You people shouldn't be constantly ceding your power to these institutions.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but the business in question, Delta Airlines, was not regulating thought. They were regulating speech. They have a perfect right to do that.
Bad analogy.
The rules are clearly posted everywhere. Please be silent for the rest of the patrons.
If the guy stood up on the airplane and started screaming [BLEEP] JOE BIDEN AND [BLEEP] ANYONE THAT VOTED FOR HIM.. yes, boot him off, he's causing a disturbance.
He didn't even belabor the point, he just complied.
All the liberals are missing the point. What would have happened if Delta kicks someone off the plane for wearing something about Trump? What about other private businesses? Didn't liberals get a bakery shutdown because they didn't want to bake a cake? Isn't it a private business, private property? Delta discriminated against him for his political beliefs.
Delta has a contract with him. He didn't violate those terms, therefore Delta is solely in the wrong. If they have terms in place that don't allow certain things and he violated those, he would be in the wrong. There is no question about this.
(03-15-2022, 05:20 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2022, 10:59 PM)navyjagfan Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, yes you do. It's called the first amendment.
The First Amendment does not apply to a case like that. Maybe you should read it.
"The government shall make no law..." The First Amendment applies to the government, not to Delta Airlines. Delta has no obligation to allow anything they don't want to allow.
Imagine if you were in a movie theater watching a movie and some guy stands up and starts shouting political slogans. Does he have a First Amendment right to do that, or does the theater have the right to throw him out?
(03-14-2022, 10:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I have no problems with censoring vulgarity. I draw the line and implied vulgarity. If a feminist wants to wear a pink hat with cat ears, go ahead. If she's wearing a hat that says the word [BLEEP], maybe that's a bit vulgar. If a Trump supporter wears a shirt that says let's go brandon, who cares. If he's wearing one that says [BLEEP] Joe Biden, that's probably over the line. You can draw an objective line at vulgarity. You can't do that with implied vulgarity.
Businesses shouldn't be regulating thought. Again, in a true free market, I wouldn't care. However, we don't live in that world anymore. You people shouldn't be constantly ceding your power to these institutions.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but the business in question, Delta Airlines, was not regulating thought. They were regulating speech. They have a perfect right to do that.
Lol, the Delta Karen told him it was an FAA regulation. What is the FAA again?
(03-15-2022, 12:05 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]All the liberals are missing the point. What would have happened if Delta kicks someone off the plane for wearing something about Trump? What about other private businesses? Didn't liberals get a bakery shutdown because they didn't want to bake a cake? Isn't it a private business, private property? Delta discriminated against him for his political beliefs.
Delta has a contract with him. He didn't violate those terms, therefore Delta is solely in the wrong. If they have terms in place that don't allow certain things and he violated those, he would be in the wrong. There is no question about this.
That is speculation on your part. Putting aside the question of whether Delta was justified or not, we don't know if the passenger's removal was for an insult to Biden, or for vulgarity in the insult. Had the words been "Let's go Brandon", I would agree that the motive was purely political.