corl737
Veteran
- Jun 13, 2005
- 565
- 6
The national headlines all rant about Southwest Airlines requesting a passenger to remove a t-shirt containing blatant obscenities. "A violation of free speech" some media outlets trumpeted! Yet not a single news source ever printed the actual word. Instead, they referred to the word as “Focker with a strategically changed vowel†or used some other cryptic method. If no one in the media is willing to risk publishing the word why should it be considered appropriate to display in bold print on a t-shirt? The application of this word was intended to incite strong emotional responses, not a ideal event to have happen inside a metal tube flying 30,000 feet above the ground.
I fully support Southwest Airlines response to Ms.Heasley's actions. When presented with a potentially explosive situation they remained reasonable. They gave Ms. Heasley the option of removing the offensive garment. She is not a victim. Ms. Heasley is not a poster child for the First Amendment rights. Southwest did not throw her off the airplane. She is no more than an adult who made a conscious decision to continue her unacceptable public display of blatant obscenities and chose driving over flying.
I fully support Southwest Airlines response to Ms.Heasley's actions. When presented with a potentially explosive situation they remained reasonable. They gave Ms. Heasley the option of removing the offensive garment. She is not a victim. Ms. Heasley is not a poster child for the First Amendment rights. Southwest did not throw her off the airplane. She is no more than an adult who made a conscious decision to continue her unacceptable public display of blatant obscenities and chose driving over flying.