Man Kicked Off Flight For Shirt Stating, "Broad Fucking City"
22 replies, posted
[QUOTE]ST. LOUIS, Mo. — A college student on a flight from Dallas to Chicago got stranded in St. Louis and wasn’t allowed back on the plane because of the language on his T-shirt.
Daniel Podolsky was wearing a shirt handed out at the South by Southwest Festival that promoted the Comedy Central show “Broad City.” “Broad F*cking City” was printed on the shirt, but the vulgar word was fully spelled out.
Podolsky says his jacket was hiding the shirt when he boarded the flight in Dallas but he took off the jacket during the flight.
When the plane was rerouted and landed in St. Louis because of bad weather in Chicago, he got off the plane to use the restroom. When he tried to re-board, the gate agent stopped him and refused to let him board.
Podolsky told KTVI he would have “gladly” taken steps to remedy the situation had he been given the opportunity, such as turning the shirt inside out or putting his jacket back on. But the video he provided the station tells a different story.
“They talked to you about your shirt?” the airline employee can be heard asking him at the door of the aircraft. Podolsky responds, “They did.”
Then the employee proceeds to give him with several chances to keep his seat on the flight.
(Worker) ”Can you change the shirt?”
(Podolsky) ”Nope.”
(Worker) “Can you put the jacket on and leave it on through the flight?”
(Podolsky) (Inaudible)
(Worker) “Can you put the shirt on inside out?”
(Podolsky) “Nope.”
(Worker) “Is there anything you can do not to display the shirt because at this point we can’t allow you to go.”
(Podolsky) “I have freedom of speech.”
[/QUOTE] [url]http://wgntv.com/2015/03/24/man-kicked-off-southwest-flight-over-language-on-t-shirt/[/url]
I am sorry if this is too much from the article.
[editline]25th March 2015[/editline]
"I have freedom of speech." Hahhahahaha
I don't think that quite counts as freedom of speech like he's thinking.
Kinda a dumb ass thing to even worry about honestly.
It is a t-shirt who cares? Unless it said something like "Hitler did nothing wrong" i could see taking offense. But it is just a cuss word, clearly it wasn't an issue while he was on the plane to begin with so why make it into one now?
[URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2578560/"]It's a good show.[/URL]
[QUOTE](8) Comfort and Safety. Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members:
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/corporate-commitments/contract-of-carriage.pdf"]There you go.[/URL] Sure we might like to think that "fucking" is not really offensive, but I imagine a Roth test would say otherwise:
[QUOTE]The phrase "patently offensive" first appeared in Roth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public. The Roth standard outlined what is to be considered obscene and thus not under First Amendment protection.[/QUOTE]
So no, you don't have freedom of speech. Fuck off.
[B]EDIT:[/B] Obviously nobody is going to be arrested for wearing a shirt like that but you can't honestly say that Southwest has to respect your non-right to freedom of speech. It's their plane, you don't have a right to board it if you break their rules.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47396908]or patently offensive.[/QUOTE]
Seems exploitable as all hell.
Having an offensive shirt is a pretty stupid reason to not allow someone to get back on a plane they paid hundreds of dollars to ride. However, the guy is pretty stupid too for not just turning his shirt inside out and sucking it up. I hope he enjoyed his freedoms while he watched his plane home fly away.
[QUOTE=MR-X;47396887]Kinda a dumb ass thing to even worry about honestly.
It is a t-shirt who cares? Unless it said something like "Hitler did nothing wrong" i could see taking offense. But it is just a cuss word, clearly it wasn't an issue while he was on the plane to begin with so why make it into one now?[/QUOTE]
If you [B][I]actually read[/I][/B] the article, he had it covered up at first. Then REFUSED to take it off/ cover it up/ flip the shirt inside out.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47396875]I don't think that quite counts as freedom of speech like he's thinking.[/QUOTE]
Absoloutely doesn't, the Airline isn't the government.
I was expecting one of those vulgar Engrish shirts often found in non-English speaking countries. The ones that say stuff like "FUCK MY DAY" or "SHITTY GRANDPA" and such.
What's worse is he lied and said he was willing to turn the shirt inside out, and then in the video he supplied the conversation made it clear he said the exact opposite.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;47396888][URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2578560/"]It's a good show.[/URL][/QUOTE]
yes. pretty funny. saw it t a Friends house and i was hooked
Reminds me of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California"]Cohen v. California[/URL].
Lol once he's sitting on the plane who is even going to see it? Jesus christ some people are fucked in the head.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47396908][URL="https://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/corporate-commitments/contract-of-carriage.pdf"]There you go.[/URL] Sure we might like to think that "fucking" is not really offensive, but I imagine a Roth test would say otherwise:
So no, you don't have freedom of speech. Fuck off.
[B]EDIT:[/B] Obviously nobody is going to be arrested for wearing a shirt like that but you can't honestly say that Southwest has to respect your non-right to freedom of speech. It's their plane, you don't have a right to board it if you break their rules.[/QUOTE]
The Roth test has since been overturned as a "standard" for Freedom of Speech. Currently FoS is classified as protecting anything intellectually, artistically, politically, religiously or otherwise significant. The obscenity standard was abused numerous times against "obscene" publications, like Hustler or a famous men's wrestling magazine that was clearly a vehicle for softcore gay porn.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California[/URL]
This case is the one the superceeded it with the so-called Three Pronged Standard.
[quote]
whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[14]
[/quote]
He might find protection on the grounds that "Fuck" is not considered obscene or distasteful in a gross way, though he will have to reach to give it some merit, and probably fails in the face of his implicit contract with the Airline service provider.
So he is right, there are probably some judges at some levels who believe he's protected by the First.
Yeah, Roth test shouldn't by any means revoke your freedom of speech. You're trying to board a privately owned aircraft, though, so they have every right to tell you to fuck off if wearing offensive shirts is against their ToS.
[QUOTE=heyeyeyey;47397352]Lol once he's sitting on the plane who is even going to see it? Jesus christ some people are fucked in the head.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, particularly the person who couldn't realize all he had to do is cover up the shirt.
Just because you don't think 'fucking' is that bad, doesn't mean people want their 5 year olds reading it and repeating it
you guys are missing the point here. of course they have a right to arbitrarily decide his shirt is too offensive for their flight and deny him passage, but they also have a right to wear underwear on their heads and sing row your boat while twerking. it's idiotic to do either.
[editline]26th March 2015[/editline]
actually i might want to see that second one
[QUOTE=Mattk50;47397689]you guys are missing the point here. of course they have a right to arbitrarily decide his shirt is too offensive for their flight and deny him passage, but they also have a right to wear underwear on their heads and sing row your boat while twerking. it's idiotic to do either.
[editline]26th March 2015[/editline]
actually i might want to see that second one[/QUOTE]
Obviously, you missed the point where he was violating the airline's policy and refused to make a simple fix. Furthermore, he had the audacity to claim it was violating his freedom of speech and claim innocence in the matter. The only idiotic thing in this story is the person wearing the shirt in question.
[QUOTE=Heisenburgers;47396854]
"I have freedom of speech." Hahhahahaha[/QUOTE]
Can't tell you how many times I've heard that one when moderating game servers or forums. It seems people think they have a right to other people's private property. It oddly comes from the most bigoted people. Most of the time when I've heard that its generally because the person I muted/kicked was being racist in a big way.
Stuff like this kinda makes me glad that i don't live in the US... this is ridiculous, suspending someone for a fucking SHIRT :v:
really weird that so many people try to use the free speech argument as a shield yet they dont actually understand what it is.
basically he tried to be a smartass and missed his flight for it, then he threw his toys out the pram and made himself look more of an ass on news sites considering what he said didnt line up with the video he gave them at all.
you might think its stupid, maybe it is, but at the end of the day they are well within their rights to make those kinds of rules and they were reasonable in giving him a chance to sort it out.
[quote]The First Amendment protects citizens from government restrictions on free expression. It is inapplicable to situations in which a private party restricts another’s speech. A private employer, for example, may forbid its employees from sharing the company’s trade secrets. Still, those employees enjoy First Amendment protections with respect to government action.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;47397402]The Roth test has since been overturned as a "standard" for Freedom of Speech. Currently FoS is classified as protecting anything intellectually, artistically, politically, religiously or otherwise significant. The obscenity standard was abused numerous times against "obscene" publications, like Hustler or a famous men's wrestling magazine that was clearly a vehicle for softcore gay porn.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California[/URL]
This case is the one the superceeded it with the so-called Three Pronged Standard.
He might find protection on the grounds that "Fuck" is not considered obscene or distasteful in a gross way, though he will have to reach to give it some merit, and probably fails in the face of his implicit contract with the Airline service provider.
So he is right, there are probably some judges at some levels who believe he's protected by the First.[/QUOTE]
no judge would believe he's protected by the first amendment unless Southwest airlines suddenly got purchased by the federal government
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.