The shirt breeds hate...That is it's point....It is unacceptable and since I agree w/ Southwest 100%. Besides that she was asked to turn it inside out and would not...That is why she was asked to leave the plane...

The facts,

Jason

Actually, if you read the news article carefully you will see that it says she already made one concession to the airline when the other close-minded passengers initially complained. She offered to cover herself up with a blanket, but when she fell asleep the blanket slipped and her shirt was visible again.

What this means to me is that the close-minded, complaining passengers decided to complain again, thus prompting Southwest to ask her to turn her shirt inside out. At this point I'm sure the woman decided that enough was enough and refused, which was her right. I'm sure that if she had complied the close-minded, boneheaded idiots who were doing the complaining would then have found yet another "offensive" thing about the woman's clothing and would not have stopped complaining until she was removed from the plane.

What's next? Forcing all people wearing turbans or a yarmulke to remove them because they are "offensive" to other passengers?

Speaking as your Wisconsin representative I thought I would just mention that Wauwatosa is generally a more 'upscale' community. And by 'upscale' I mean that's where the wealthy people tend to live. If that means anything...

I don't know why she is filing a lawsuit, since she chose to leave:

"When the sweatshirt slipped while she was trying to sleep, she was ordered to wear her T-shirt inside-out or leave. The couple chose to leave."

Maybe if she would have stood by her principles of freedom and stayed on the plane, then she could have actually made a statement. Instead she gave in to social pressures and left. Who knows, maybe then the government would have gotten involved with airport security staff to forceibly remove her from the plane. Then she'd have a respectible reason to go to court!

I think the shirt is fairly funny, but I can see where other people might not enjoy reading "fuck" emblazoned on the passenger. The article doesn't make it clear (to me) whether the people were objecting to the political language or the use of objectionable phrases. Do the offended passengers also have a right not to view such things?

Just a FYI, I had an almost similar experience at a recent Labor Day cookout, wearing a shirt that says something like I BET YOU'LL VOTE NEXT TIME, YOU DAMNED HIPPY! with Bush's face on the front. I think you just need to gauge the crowd...

Any parents of young children here?

Were there any children on the plane? If you are a parent of a 6-10 year old the last thing you want to hear is..."Daddy what does 'Fucker' mean?". In most public situations when you see something offense you can leave with your children. On a plan you can't leave. Southwest did the right thing

I'm going to have to agree with Steve Kremer. As the parent of three children under the age of 10, but all whom can read, I think that wearing a shirt with large letters reading MEET THE FUCKERS (not "Fockers" as you write in the blog) is very inappropriate -- doubly so when it includes pictures of our president.

Now, I happen to personally agree with the shirt, but I think that the woman wearing the shirt showed a complete disregard for her fellow passengers. I'm betting that if the shirt read MEET THE IDIOTS it would not have created a stir, but the offensiveness is in the language. Does freedom of expression allow one to be continually offensive in close quarters? Could I wear a shirt reading THE WOMAN NEXT TO ME IS A REAL CUNT and really expect that I have the right to wear it in an enclosed public space among people I don't know?

Right on, Cameron. I totally agree with your column.

Another thing people should remember is the rule of community standards: what's offensive to one person may not be offensive to another.

This isn't about politics, but profanity, hypersensitivity and the general weakness of American character.

First of all, if you board a commercial airline in this country you can be assured that there will be someone on it who is offended by the word FUCKERS regardless of its political message. You can also be assured that if you board a plane with an anti-Bush t-shirt, someone will be offended by it.

But you know, I know and the whole world knows, that this had to do with the word "Fuckers" (not "Fockers" as you reported it in spite of the picture on your website saying "Fuckers"). That is where the offense was taken. Maybe someone didn't want their six-year-old asking about that t-shirt. Maybe they were republican. Maybe not. But if you can't see why someone would be offended by the word "Fuckers," then you're an idiot.

SWA would never ask someone with an anti-Bush t-shirt to cover it up if it didn't have the word "Fuckers" on it.

Because Americans have grown so hyper-sensitive, it's turned air travel into a glass menagerie where emergency situations occur at the slightest provocation. This isn't like the pilot radioed down to Sacramento: "MAYDAY! MAYDAY! WE GOT A POLITICAL DISSIDENT ON BOARD!" Lorrie Heasley was treated like any drunk and disorderly passenger. She was given simple instructions for how to avoid trouble and didn't. The FAA makes pilots land planes prematurely when that happens.

Which brings us to Lorrie Heasley. If this inconsiderate BITCH made my plane land prematurely because she was having a protest march on it, I'd want to kick her severed head across a runway. Not because I like Bush (in fact, I hate him), but because air travel is already a big enough pain in the ass without some stupid cunt like Lorrie Heasley fucking it up worse than it already is.

Your Jesus analogy is equally short-sighted. If you're offended by people wearing crosses, why don't you just wear a t-shirt on your next transcontinental flight that says "Christ is Coming -- UP MY ASS!" and see how far that gets you.

Hey Cam. Love your work, but I think Ed makes some very good points.

My three year old has just become aware of letters and loves to spell out (especially to an audience) letters she recognises. Which might have made taking a trip with Lorrie absolutely hilarious for me because I have no problem with profanity. However my daughter's grandparents, preschool and the parents of her classmates would take serious issue with me allowing her to bring home an experience which included learning such a word and then I'd have to work out how to explain human nature: how some people are easy-going but others are... well, not. And not just about words but about politics and race and religion and sex (did I cover it all?) but mostly WORDS because in a hyper-sensitive, politically-correct culture that's one area where everyone has the power to offend, even as a 3 year old. Gee, you know, DIVERSITY and TOLERANCE are concepts we find so difficult to embrace as adults, how could I hope to explain it to a small child?

I, on the other hand, think it all plays out much like an episode of South Park. The only bit missing is where someone has to volunteer to be eaten because the plane had to make an unscheduled stop and the catering was inadequate, etc, etc. Absolutely bloody hilarious. Laughed my arse off. Oops. Sorry if I offended anybody...

PS if they didn't like the t-shirt why did they keep looking at her chest?????

This discussion is very interesting, and while I can sympathize with the parents, their position also raises an intrinsically disturbing possibility: the idea that there desire to filter what their children see creates a pretext for limiting my rights in public areas. (Actually, these days it seems like the opposite is a bigger problem: an epidemic of terribly behaved children whose parents have no shame about inflicting them on others in public spaces...but I digress). Should my freedom of expression be limited by what one does not want to explain to one's children?

As a side note, its interesting how this goes nowadays in America: we are well into the midst of a second baby boom, authored by baby boomer parents (the children being the so-called 'Echo Boomers'). Now, these people, in their youth, didn't give a damn how they behaved in public when my (slightly older than baby boom) parents tried to raise me as a 'Baby Bust' kid born at the dawn of the Seventies. But now that they have children.. Its this really interesting social shift that began in the Eighties: those who helped to sanctify outrageous anti-social public behavior themselves became outraged once their own kids could be tainted by it (and were able to put teeth to it because, along with being hypocrites, they were a huge social, cultural and political force by dint of the sheer size of their cohort). (Note that this is not a commentary on anyone here: I have no idea of any of your backgrounds. Just a general reflection on the social scene.)

That said, to a certain extent EdB. is right: flying has generally speaking become a truly oppressive experience, and she as an adult should be aware of the environment before she enters it. There are lots of things that are incontrovertibly a right on the ground but cease to be so in the air. Sooner or later Americans are going get so turned off by this that there will be a realistic market for alternative approaches to travel.

What if it were one of those "I'm with Stupid" t-shirts?

I would guess that this person believes in political/social correctness, except if it pertains to President Bush. Although I am a registered Democrat I believe a lot of this stuff has gone to far. Could you imagine if at the time when Clinton was President this "t" would have appeared. Or if the "n" word or "I'm sitting next to a MF" appeared on a plane or anywhere. Let's disagree. Hate is for terrorists. I don't have a blog. I got your address from "The Weblog Handbook" by Rebecca Blood.