Close Topic Options

Man Thrown Off Jet For Bush T-shirt - Page 2

User Archvic, Airline Security is covered in detail within the Travel Board. This Topic is covering the T-shirt issue only.

T-shirt Bush Jet Thrown Man

Please, testing the waters? When I go to the airport, my goal is to get to my destination. When I had problems and delays because I forgot and had a pair of scissors in my carry-on, the next flight I made sure they were packed in the check-on luggage. When I was in line, I made sure not to complain too much about security and use the word bomb. I got to my desitination. My personal opinion on the TSA cannot be written here or probably in the mature section, but I did not emblaze it on a t-shirt and try to get through security. I made it to my destination. I like a quote from P.J. O'Rourke:

This guy had to remove his shirt on a previous flight. Other than the purpose to get caught and tell his airport horrors to someone with a pen or microphone, what was his purpose in chosing that shirt? He made it past the inspectors...good for him...one step closer to the destination. However, that wasn't enough. He had to "show" it to a airline worker and ask about it. Also, it seems that this is the only shirt he has to fly with since it is the only one he has been wearing to the airport.

Obviously, this is a passionate guy. He is willing to use his right to free speech at the risk of not being allowed on the plane. Should he sit next to a "undercover" passenger that is equally as passionate about his/her country and chief and a argument breakout or even worse a fight at 35,000ft that requires the flight be landed early (and they will land at a earlier destination for either reason), what do the other "hostages" of his freedom of speech get besides a delay to their destination? They bought tickets that said the flight was going to leave at this time and that they were scheduled to arrive at that time and had expectations too. Why is it they should suffer for this guys freedom of speech? If he doesn't wear his t-shirt, a clash of ideologies at 35,000ft is almost certainly avoided, since we rarely talk much to the strangers around us on a flight.

This almost as logical as wearing a "Cop Killer" t-shirt to the police station and expecting cordial and equal treatment.

He utilized his freedom of speech and paid a minor price for it (I am sure he can still use the ticket, he just couldn't fly that day). Now if he is really going to make a strong stance, he should demand to fly in that shirt and he won't use the ticket until he can fly in his favorite t-shirt. He should get routinely thrown off of planes to show us the way. He could go one better and get through the crack security forces with it in his carry-on and then change in the bathroom, while on the plane! He would be soooo clever and circumvent the entire pro GWB/Blair airline axis of mediocracy. The best part is...if he did that...I am sure he could get by with it. That is unless he would take the microphone on the plane and ask the passengers and crew how they liked his shirt after he changed. However, since he had this 15 minutes of microphone and pen time, we all know that this is probably the last we will hear of Jasson and getting to his destination really wasn't "that" important to him anyway.

Man Thrown Off Jet For Bush T-shirt History & Civil Business Politics

Vincenzo,

I have no doubt that this gentleman wanted to get to London, he was racing back there to get a permanent residency visa or something of that nature. But, if anyone tries to remove my basic human right of freedom of speech, than I too will defy those small minded idiots. My grandfather didn't fight in a war so that over zealous, power tripping gate-keepers could tell me what I should or should not say. But that is beside the point.

Yet again the guy was wearing a t-shirt, a T-SHIRT. He wasn't making a nuisance of himself. He went to the gate and thought he would ask them if it was alright to wear that shirt in a bid to prove how ridiculous the last situation was. If you are curious about something then you ask, especially if something very bizarre happened to you last time. If he was desperate to campaign than he would have done so in a more effective and boisterous way.

A t-shirt is vastly different from a pair of scissors so I fail to understand how you can compare the two. I even think banning scissors is a bit extreme but I accept it. There are no signs or announcements in the airport that say you cannot wear a t-shirt that might offend staunch republicans. There is plenty of warnings about making verbal comments that could be deemed a security threat.

I think this is being very overdramatic about the whole situation. Is there anything in this story to suggest the guy was actively campaigning or harassing other people? How many times do you talk to anyone you don't know on a flight let alone argue with them? How many times does an argument on a plane lead to an early landing?

Yet again this is completely incorrect. This might come as a surprise to you, although it shouldn't anymore, but more people in Australia would be supporting someone who hated Bush than against them. Bush is very, very unpopular in Australia. He is what we consider a massive thorn in our Prime Ministers backside. Bush is hated everywhere, even in his own country. This t-shirt is not that offensive, just like a Bin Laden one.

Do you honestly believe this guy is out to get Bush? Bush has killed his own political career. Mate, he wore a t-shirt, his freedom of speech was clearly impeded and he is not happy about it. Aren't you American? Aren't you guys suppose to be the champions of free speech? Or is that only free speech that doesn't offend your sensitivities?

This whole story illustrates the ridiculous lengths that airlines are going to in the name of security. Nobody in Australia likes Bush, it's unlikely to offend anyone. But in today's politically correct, paranoid, fearful of terrorists because Bush says so, litigious society, our basic human rights come second to utter stupidity and scaremongering.

To me that is the crime.

Page 2 T-shirt Bush Jet Thrown Man

I don't understand why some of you are focusing on the guy and not the actual fact, so what if he did it for the purpose to make a point? The fact that an airline would say such thing and ask him such a thing is the real issue here not whether the guy did it on purpose or not, because let's face it if the guy had a shirt with Saddam or Hitler on it and the same statement written nobody would have asked him anything at all.

T-shirt Bush Jet Thrown Man

I think the issue here is freedom of speech vs safety of many. The safety of many is first to me. If a quarrel breaks out due to a shirt slogan mid flight what would the result be?

The airline merely said please remove it (I would thing covering it up would have been acceptable also.). Even offered a later flight if he needed to buy a shirt or retrieve one from some where. If the airline fears a violent reaction from other passengers on the plane due to words on a shirt then a clear public warning should be given when a ticket is purchased. Warning potential passengers not to wear political statements on their clothing. That way it is fair to all ie no supporting or down playing another country, its leader or anothers political view.

Imagine walking into an airport with an open grave on it and bodies being dumped into it and underneath a quick question "Was Hitler was right?".

Foremost what happened to common sense? There are ways and means to make ones point heard by others. I ask is a tee shirt in a plane the best way?

Man Thrown Off Jet For Bush T-shirt

I am actually focusing on the facts. The fact is that Qantas or for that matter most airlines are private and not public holdings. It is like your house or if you are a store owner. In your house, you can deny people that have Pro-GWB t-shirts if you want. You can actually deny people entry into your store unless they wear shoes. The fact is that the airlines are allowed to determine who they want to sevice and who they don't...basically, air flight is not a freedom. At least in the US, airlines can leagally decide to allow anti-Bin Laden t-shirts and not allow anti-GWB t-shirts. Now is it in a airlines best interest economically to do so? That is the question that they have to answer.

This issue is really about 2 things: the airlines rights and the right to freedom of speech. The airline is concerned with safety and the satisfaction of their customers. About a year ago a woman wore a shirt that most of Australia would appreciate:

https://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-...8563036552.html

Now she was allowed to board the flight with the agreement that she keep the shirt covered. She did not keep her part of the bargain and there were complaints about the shirt. Let's say that 3 people complained. Should Southwest airlines run the risk of losing 3 peoples business for 1 persons right to free speech in their airplanes? Airlines are also concerned with safety and that is what happened on the Qantas flight. I don't like arguments in my house and go to whatever efforts I want to as long as I am not breaking a law in order to make them not happen...so can Qantas. I have tried to find it on the net, but have been unsuccessful. However, most airlines do have rules on clothing that is permissable on a flight. It is vague and basically says that they can deny boarding if you are wearing clothing that might be offensive to others. This woman's was obscene and offended people. Southwest was totally justified in kicking her off the flight. There was no lawsuit either...as was threatened. If everyone in Australia hates GWB and only Australian's fly Qantas and the airline hates GWB too, then they are within their right to allow boarding.

As my father and every generation before him have faught for the US, they were keenly aware of the freedom of speech and do not appreciate the means as to which it has been perverted today. In my father's mind, a t-shirt was a t-shirt and not a noble political stance.

The freedom of speech and this t-shirt are interesting. People believe that freedom of speech means that they can say anything they want to and believe that the constitution supports this. The constitution states that Congress will enact no law restricting freedom of speech. Congress doesn't enact these laws. Those laws are enacted by the Judicial and the Executive branches of government in the US. Here are a list of a few things that obstruct your freedoms to speech:

You cannot threaten another with bodily harm (that's assault).
You cannot scream out your windows after midnight (that's disturbing the peace).
You cannot discuss with friends how you will defraud a bank (that's conspiracy).
You cannot show adult material where children can see (that's exploitation, abuse...).
You cannot write your message on a public wall without permission (vandalism).
You cannot tell lies about another (libel and slander).
You cannot publish military or governmental secrets (treason).
You cannot speak of a subject if a judge has imposed a gag order (comtempt).
You cannot swear too much at a ball game (obscenity).
You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (that's the crime of incitement).
You cannot engage in otherwise acceptable behavior on a discussion board (such as this) if the owner of the board prohibits it. Yes, JB can legally kick me off if I say "prohibits."
You cannot wear your own clothes in a school if a uniform is mandated.
You cannot give away your company's secrets.
You cannot insult your boss and not expect to be fired.
...the list goes on and on...

Are the above bad restrictions on freedom of speech?


You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is a key message. The airline are using their rights to ensure the safety of all the other customers from incitement. The potential issues that could occur from the confrontational t-shirt. I can honestly say that I would have talked to the person wearing such a shirt if I were sitting next to him. Many Americans such as myself are proud of our country. We do understand that the Statue of Liberty and GWB are symbols of our country regardless of our political stance on them and we would engage this guy in a discussion. I do concider myself adult enough to handle the conversation, but how many are? People today are killed because they "cut someone off" in traffic with their car. We have had a semi-heated conversation about the t-shirt and we are all thousands of miles away from each other. It just furthers the suggestion that there "could" be problems in the air and that the airlines are not willing to take that risk which is within their rights on their planes. An emergency landing at another airport or a delayed departure that causes a missed connection create a lot of unhappy customers and with the airlines not raking in the profits, they cannot afford those types of situations.

Basically, it is like discrimination, which is also legal except in certain cases which there are laws.