TXAGFAN said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Can we all agree that if this dude wore a F*** Trump hoodie back in 2017 not only would he not be hassled but likely applauded by fellow liberal dip****s. If you can't see that double standard you are as blind as a f***ing bat.

---

We don't have a fraction of the merch you all do.

Obama had a bit with the hope/change stuff, but nothing compared to FJB/MAGA.

---

Y'all certainly had tons of ***** hats, baby Trump blimps and other assorted props that I can't recall ever being used as justification to deny someone's passage on an airline or any other mode of transport. Nice deflection though.

---

Some pink beanies at a couple events and some weird protest "art" triggered you? If someone wearing a certain color beanie is a problem that seems like a YOU problem and I don't think those trump balloons would fit on any flight I've been on recently.

---

Give me a break and now I know why folks on here don't engage you. I didn't even comment on celebrities yelling f*** Trump to thunderous applause, holding up a severed head of Trump, and conducting nightly Caesar plays where Trump gets repeatedly stabbed on stage. Yet chants of Let's Go Brandon are treated as the most vulgar and vile thing ever uttered. Get off your high horse…and also don't bother responding, you're now on permanent ignore.

Prosperdick said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Can we all agree that if this dude wore a F*** Trump hoodie back in 2017 not only would he not be hassled but likely applauded by fellow liberal dip****s. If you can't see that double standard you are as blind as a f***ing bat.

---

We don't have a fraction of the merch you all do.

Obama had a bit with the hope/change stuff, but nothing compared to FJB/MAGA.

---

Y'all certainly had tons of ***** hats, baby Trump blimps and other assorted props that I can't recall ever being used as justification to deny someone's passage on an airline or any other mode of transport. Nice deflection though.

---

The left has every media outlet, every night show host, all social media platforms, and the entertainment industry…but the right dominates the meme and t shirt world. Fair exchange.

GenericAggie said:

---

Companies have the right to not have him fly. I don't see the problem

---

If they are genuinely a private company, yes. The airlines take way too much public money, depend on federal law enforcement etc to claim that status anymore.

TXAGFAN said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

I'm not arguing with someone who has zero understanding of our right to free speech, have a good one.

---

Another ad hominem attack. You again provide no explanation for your comment on my knowledge of free speech.

---

I am commenting on accuracy of your statements, like your understanding of "public" entities/spaces and free speech. That's not an ad hom attack.

---

And how are you determining the accuracy? Cause you are quite wrong in these areas... as in not even close.

In before the dip**** statists who try and claim 'private company' yet don't understand being a private company doesn't give you a pass to circumvent the constitution. Or at least it used to be that way.

Whirligigs said:

---

In before the dip**** statists who try and claim 'private company' yet don't understand being a private company doesn't give you a pass to circumvent the constitution. Or at least it used to be that way.

---

Whatever you say.

Here's a tweet from his buddy.

My friend eventually took it off, as shown in the video, and was then kicked off for "no mask" even though he had it. Make up your mind bud.

— KAOTIK MEDIA (@KaotikMedia) March 10, 2022

Just like I said, he was removed for not wearing a mask. Forget your feelings on the topic of masks, they're a federal requirement.

There's more to this video than what you were seeing and can't wait till another passenger posts what happened before this. The gate supervisor doesn't just show up on a plane as the first course of action.

Also, all this nonsense about if he broke Delta's policy:

Quote:

---

8) When the passenger's conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers.

---

I don't know how we define "offense" around here (I'm offensive for existing, but "**** Biden" is ok), but I think my deceased grandma would have found a sweatshirt that said "****" is offensive. So between that and the mask and whatever happened before video started is why he got kicked off.

His tiktok is Jauneil51603 and he made it home on American after he was bounced by delta and ticket refunded. Funny enough his videos confirm no mask, was told he violated their policy, etc. No surprise, American who he bought a ticket home with required him to remove sweatshirt before they would sell him a ticket or fly as they have similar policies and contract of carriage language

Whirligigs said:

---

In before the dip**** statists who try and claim 'private company' yet don't understand being a private company doesn't give you a pass to circumvent the constitution. Or at least it used to be that way.

---

So much fail here.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

These companies need to start getting sued for breach of contract not allowing someone to fly. Bumping someone from a flight for overbooking and not getting them on another flight within 4 hours entitles the passenger to 4x the ticket cost. Needs to be more for discretionary **** like this.

---

wouldn't it be like cafes or any business that posts "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

fka ftc said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

I didn't say half of the **** in this post and you're completely wrong on a couple items. Go search for cake in the forum search with my user name, you're going to be devastated when you read my many posts on that subject.

No one is proposing a political criteria to fly. I'm guessing this individual was asked to get off plane for being disruptive or not following directions, not just because he was wearing a goofy sweatshirt. Props to gate agent/supervisor for getting him off flight and avoiding having to deplane all the passengers. For example, he's not wearing his mask in video. I don't wear one in daily life, but it's a federal mandate and he could have been removed for that alone.

---

You could have said stuff and be just as "tough". And I can state a point without attributing ever part of that point to you personally, which would be an ad hominem attack.

I do not go an "research" anyone's posting history. That seems lame. You do not have a conversation with a person then go back and check their conversation history on a variety of topics over the years. Again, that smells of cancel culture ideologies.

Back to your response. If he was asked to remove his shirt or any reference to his shirt led to escalation by the airline worker is WRONG.

He is in a public space and has a right to free speech. You think its not a public space? then see mask mandates you referenced.

---

Do you believe an airplane is "public space"? If so, why?

Additionally, what does the concept of free speech have to do with the airline in this instance?

Edit- for the second question I am assuming you mean the concept of "free speech" as defined in the Constitution and not a non-Constitutional/abstract concept of free speech.

fka ftc said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

I'm not arguing with someone who has zero understanding of our right to free speech, have a good one.

---

Another ad hominem attack. You again provide no explanation for your comment on my knowledge of free speech.

---

I am commenting on accuracy of your statements, like your understanding of "public" entities/spaces and free speech. That's not an ad hom attack.

---

And how are you determining the accuracy? Cause you are quite wrong in these areas... as in not even close.

---

Could you explain what he is wrong about and reference your claims, please? I ask because I am curious about your definitions of public/private space.

If you have an article of clothing with obscenities on it…you're trash and deserve to be taken to the dumpster.

thirdcoast said:

---

If it was "F" or "FJB" or "let's go brandon" I would be outraged. But unless it's an adults only flight, private biz should be able to exclude profane attire.

It's also an outer garment that can be easily removed to comply.

---

So you're cool with this being selectively enforced? Because that's exactly what's happening.

Well hello, Keef.

So flight attendants on individual flights are now the arbitrators of what is and isn't offensive.... that's good to know we gave this power to determine what free speech is allowed to the waitresses in the sky.

Agzonfire said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

If it was "F" or "FJB" or "let's go brandon" I would be outraged. But unless it's an adults only flight, private biz should be able to exclude profane attire.

It's also an outer garment that can be easily removed to comply.

---

So you're cool with this being selectively enforced? Because that's exactly what's happening.

---

Are you saying only conservatives Are being targeted by airlines specifically because of their beliefs? If so, do you believe are all of these instances are political in nature?

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2021/07/09/american-airlines-bars-woman-bodybuilder-from-dfw-to-miami-flight-for-offensive-clothing/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4wbggw/turns-out-airlines-will-kick-you-off-planes-for-having-the-word-****-on-your-shirt-if-they-feel-like-it-456

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9437801/Two-time-cancer-survivor-humiliated-American-Airlines-employee-f-cancer-sweatshirt.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/alaska-airlines-video-tiktok-top-b1895623.html

cypress-ag said:

---

So flight attendants on individual flights are now the arbitrators of what is and isn't offensive.... that's good to know we gave this power to determine what free speech is allowed to the waitresses in the sky.

---

How does the constitutional concept of free speech apply to this interaction?

duroc said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

These companies need to start getting sued for breach of contract not allowing someone to fly. Bumping someone from a flight for overbooking and not getting them on another flight within 4 hours entitles the passenger to 4x the ticket cost. Needs to be more for discretionary **** like this.

---

wouldn't it be like cafes or any business that posts "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

---

I mean, i guess. If the cafe took your money, gave you a full cup of coffee and then took back the coffee right out of your hand and didnt give you your money back, you would say that's ok and just a private corp doing whatever it wants?

No. I am as libertarian as they come and that's silly. Not to mention with something like flights where real damages occur by them not holding up their end of the bargain after taking payment.

This is a broken promise in exchange of goods and services. This guy needs to sue the brakes off them.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

duroc said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

These companies need to start getting sued for breach of contract not allowing someone to fly. Bumping someone from a flight for overbooking and not getting them on another flight within 4 hours entitles the passenger to 4x the ticket cost. Needs to be more for discretionary **** like this.

---

wouldn't it be like cafes or any business that posts "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

---

I mean, i guess. If the cafe took your money, gave you a full cup of coffee and then took back the coffee right out of your hand and didnt give you your money back, you would say that's ok and just a private corp doing whatever it wants?

No. I am as libertarian as they come and that's silly. Not to mention with something like flights where real damages occur by them not holding up their end of the bargain after taking payment.

This is a broken promise in exchange of goods and services. This guy needs to sue the brakes off them.

---

What do you believe he would be able to sue for?

He agreed to the airlines contract of carriage when he paid for the tickets and boarded the flight.

https://www.delta.com/us/en/legal/contract-of-carriage-dgr

Specifically, Rule 7, paragraph E, sub-paragraphs 1, 3, and 8.

https://www.delta.com/us/en/legal/contract-of-carriage-dgr/#7re

As a believer in the libertarian ideology, are you saying it is ok for a customer to break the terms of a contract and then receive compensation from a private company for doing so?

Gaius Rufus said:

---

cypress-ag said:

---

So flight attendants on individual flights are now the arbitrators of what is and isn't offensive.... that's good to know we gave this power to determine what free speech is allowed to the waitresses in the sky.

---

How does the constitutional concept of free speech apply to this interaction?

---

That they get to decide that this shirt offends. All this didn't happen before 2020 and now it's just accepted? I see things I don't match my views but don'tget my drawers in a knot. Can I object to RBG shirt wearing people or people with Obama shirts?

Quote:

---

Brotha shoulda turned it inside out and have BLM on it then see what happens?

---

This is the answer. Gotta show the world the double standard. Take the same flight wearning a "F*** Trump" and see if it has to come off.

Yep
They like Sleepy Joe in the heavily unionized airline industry.

Quote:

---

That they get to decide that this shirt offends. All this didn't happen before 2020 and now it's just accepted?

---

People were kicked off flights for "offensive" shirts before 2020

Quote:

---

I see things I don't match my views but don'tget my drawers in a knot. Can I object to RBG shirt wearing people or people with Obama shirts?

---

Yes. You are free to not do business with them. Twitter mafia will come after you, but you still don't have to associate with those people

This is a dumb troll job.

It's not that it is FJB but it is the F word spelled out. If I had kids on the plane, I'd want him kicked off too no matter what the message was for having that word, that large.

cypress-ag said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

cypress-ag said:

---

So flight attendants on individual flights are now the arbitrators of what is and isn't offensive.... that's good to know we gave this power to determine what free speech is allowed to the waitresses in the sky.

---

How does the constitutional concept of free speech apply to this interaction?

---

That they get to decide that this shirt offends. All this didn't happen before 2020 and now it's just accepted? I see things I don't match my views but don'tget my drawers in a knot. Can I object to RBG shirt wearing people or people with Obama shirts?

---

First, airlines have removed individuals for clothing they deemed offensive prior to 2020. Here is a similar instance from 2015.

https://www.vice.com/da/article/4wbggw/turns-out-airlines-will-kick-you-off-planes-for-having-the-word-****-on-your-shirt-if-they-feel-like-it-456

Second, you can personally object to anybody wearing any type of clothing you want (I'm not sure what this has to do with this situation, though).

Third, this doesn't answer my question of how the Constitutional concept of free speech is relevant to this interaction. It was a private company, not the government, that chose to refuse service to a paying customer because he did not fulfill the contract he agreed to.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

Brotha shoulda turned it inside out and have BLM on it then see what happens?

---

This is the answer. Gotta show the world the double standard. Take the same flight wearning a "F*** Trump" and see if it has to come off.

---

Like these instances?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/woman-wearing-a-black-lives-1396979771088950.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABYivgRn9SOBOP73kFzOuUr7q4XiE1BxQWi0CBo7zi9TxJr3HtRYlJ59DBdExcclKPCQ36a7oaJBMkPtfmeSRQc78Nl085vZx6BywEmr9POiTP-CC0Zfn8Xz3_CnoPTtVBQloUeOJqP4PRis8RfI7Wbc7E0iK0gv7O4O1-QISp11

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1257766/blm-activist-kicked-flight-wearing-fk-police-mask/

In that yahoo link the girl's blm tshirt had nothing to do with her removal..... This is what the girl said, "Cezanne hypothesizes that her T-shirt likely had something to do with her removal."

the second link is similar to the first..... The word, "F***" is the issue. If the hoodie had said, "PH*** Biden" all should have fit inside Delta's dress code.

yeah dont wear shirts that say ****

easy rule

IndividualFreedom said:

---

In that yahoo link the girl's blm tshirt had nothing to do with her removal..... This is what the girl said, "Cezanne hypothesizes that her T-shirt likely had something to do with her removal."

the second link is similar to the first..... The word, "F***" is the issue. If the hoodie had said, "PH*** Biden" all should have fit inside Delta's dress code.

---

And that is different than the OP in this thread how?

Gaius Rufus said:

---

cypress-ag said:

---

So flight attendants on individual flights are now the arbitrators of what is and isn't offensive.... that's good to know we gave this power to determine what free speech is allowed to the waitresses in the sky.

---

How does the constitutional concept of free speech apply to this interaction?

---

Pretty sure the US Constitution is always applicable, no?

The F word is covered by free speech. And as long as he is not inciting a riot or violence then he should be able to wear the shirt. See Cohen v California (https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/295/cohen-v-california).

Delta is not a private company. Where do people get this? Add to that they offer a federally regulated transportation service that is supposed to be available to all persons regardless of race, color or creed - something about a Civil Rights Act and such.

You have the right to refuse service to a customer for certain reasons. A couple of words someone may not agree with should not be one of those reasons.

Just to cover off on face masks, there will be suits on how these mandates violates an individuals civil rights and ultimately I believe they will prevail. We do not live under Taliban rule no matter how much libs want that to be so and as such face coverings should not be mandated at any time.

Quote:

---

And that is different than the OP in this thread how?

---

The cussing on the clothing.

He should be kicked off. Kids are around.

I swear no one cares about protecting child innocence anymore... from pedophilic content in schools, to social media stars, to broadcast tv ads, to Ags cussing their heads off during games.

GeorgiAg said:

---

This is a dumb troll job.

It's not that it is FJB but it is the F word spelled out. If I had kids on the plane, I'd want him kicked off too no matter what the message was for having that word, that large.

---

I have kids and I wouldn't worry about it, but I'm not raising the next generation's poosays, either.

Scared of a word? LOL

CowboyGirl said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Companies have the right to not have him fly. I don't see the problem

---

If they don't have a policy that says that, I do not believe they can. At least not without facing repercussions.

---

Delta's Contract of Carriage, Rule 7(E) includes a series of reasons why they may refuse to transport a passenger. The last item on the list states:

8) When the passenger's conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers.

This is probably enough to cover them, although it is still crazy to kick him off after he removed the sweatshirt.

---

Probably correct but the application of this policy is not uniform. There are countless examples that they have handled differently. That is where the problem lies.

I have seen kids that are melting down before the flight fly. I have had a women with the absolute worst body odor next to me on a flight from London to Dallas. I complained before the flight and they did nothing.

The first amendment is always applicable in terms of preventing government from prior restraint of speech, or punishing speech.

And while delta may be a publicly traded company, it is still a "private company" as far as the first amendment is concerned because it is not the government.

Delta, and just about every company, is bound by certain civil rights laws that require them to not discriminate on the basis of race sex religion etc. but those laws do not make delta a state actor as far as the first amendment is concerned. they can lawfully "discriminate" against you based on speech that would be protected by first amendment, such as the F word on a shirt.