Whether a t-shirt calling for the execution of journalists or using a choice expletive to describe the President of the United States, where should an airline draw the line in permissible onboard attire?
A man boarded a United flight from Los Angeles to Boston yesterday wearing a shirt stating:
Rope. Tree. Journalist.
Some Assembly Required.
Horrible, isn’t it? While such a slogan may play into the fearmongering of demagogues, calling for the murder of anyone is offensive…disgustingly offensive.
My brother is on a @united flight from LA to Boston and saw this guy boarding with a shirt that reads “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.” #thread pic.twitter.com/MWy5HnDxzI
— Jessica Sidman (@jsidman) October 11, 2019
A passenger complained, stating he “didn’t want one passenger threatening to kill other passengers.” After flight attendants conferred with the captain, security boarded the plane…to explain to the offended passenger that they could not do anything about the t-shirt, but he was welcome to take another flight.
United’s dress code policy allows for the removal of passengers “who are barefoot or not properly clothed”.
Gary Leff thinks “not properly clothed” means not properly covered, but I read it as a the same broader catch-all provision that both American and Delta have.
American Airlines’ dress code policy prohibits “offensive” clothing but does not define offensive.
Dress appropriately; bare feet or offensive clothing aren’t allowed.
Meanwhile, Delta reserves the right to remove passengers:
When the passenger’s conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers.
Again, “offense” is not defined and annoyance + offense creates a very malleable policy.
When Is The Line Crossed?
I thought about discussing how the U.S. Supreme Court has wrestled with what is obscene and what is not. The First Amendment does not apply to United Airlines, a private company, yet such discussion is instructive in trying to probe where the line should be drawn.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter because whether something “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” is also ultimately very arbitrary.
It’s up to airlines to define what crosses the lines and what does not. As convenient as it is to take a “I know when I see it” approach to what is impermissible, that really leaves passengers in a difficult position.
I’m sure Aubrey O’Day sincerely believed her message of “F— Trump” was a proper and valid statement of political expression. I’m also sure the man flying to Boston yesterday sincerely believes that mainstream journalism in the United States is an enemy to the people.
> Read More: Undressing A “Celebrity” Claim American Airlines Forced Her To Undress In Front Of Cabin
And frankly I am so internally divided to the point where I want to throw up my hands and become even more cynical.
I find both shirts vulgar and inappropriate. Using foul language or calling for murder should have no place in our public discourse.
But they do. We live in the world we do, not the world we want. And frankly, my mind has been so desensitized in this culture that my reaction to coarse language and death threats is just to look away rather than become offended at the jejune levels of civility.
There is no bright line of right and wrong when we live in a post-modern culture in which the internet and social media has made it easier than ever for everyone to create a god in their own image and construct a subjective reality with blinders to any divergent viewpoints.
Ok, I’ll step off my soapbox.
Airlines Should Be Clear
I just hate the loose language airlines use in restricting onboard clothing. Wherever airlines decide to draw the line, they should be clear about it. Which swear words are permitted and which ones are not? Can a shirt advocate for death or bodily harm? What about obscene images or words which resemble bad words? (French Connection United Kingdom, anyone?).
I say better to have clearly defined rules (which still would likely leave gray areas) than a vast gray area of uncertainty.
CONCLUSION
Are people who wear shirts that upset others rude and inconsiderate or are people who are offended too easily offended? Who knows….
That’s why we need clearer standards…so it doesn’t matter who is offended and who is not. Because right now, what goes and what doesn’t is up to the arbitrary whim of the gate agent, flight attendant, or captain.
Precisely showing how United’s code DIFFERS from American’s which says they’ll remove for ‘offensive’ clothing suggests United’s contract does NOT permit doing so, rather than suggesting it does. American says they’ll remove for offensive clothing. United’s does not. If you think they should, then they should update the CoC.
In a first amendment context surely “F— Trump” is protected (see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)) but that’s neither here nor there for this matter.
I’m not arguing United should not allow that shirt, only that it should be clearer in what is acceptable. We read United’s COC in two different ways. I’ll ask United for clarification.
I’d distinguish Cohen from this case in that United Airlines is a private corporation while Cohen dealt with how a state could proscribe free speech.
[redacted by admin] liberals. Anyone should be able to wear that shirt or any saying WATHEVER. Constitution allows that as carry guns
@ Jonas
The First Amendment only applies to government restrictions on speech. As a private company, United is free to ban whatever speech it wants for any reason it sees fit. Maybe you should try reading the Constitution before talking about what it does and doesn’t protect.
Also the Constitution says nothing about an unlimited individual right to own and carry arms. That only happened in 2008 when activist judges decided to upend over 200 years of legal understanding of the 2 nd amendment to read in the individual right to bear arms.
Except 2 weeks prior to this incident UA *did* remove a passenger for clothing. And that clothing didn’t advocate for harm to another.
Those pesky journalists, always bothering us with facts. Threatening people for reporting facts shows a massive fear of the truth. Psychology aside, having death threats on your clothing is obviously grounds for denial of boarding.
Ever heard of Lyon’ Brian Williams from NBC News?
Lol ever heard of FILLINTHEBLANK at Fox News?
Matthew,
I’m always surprised at those who think wearing these types of clothing out in public is somehow appropriate. Regardless of your political persuasion, dress like an adult, and you can expect to be treated as one.
Pretty simple, no?
“This video obtained by ABC News appears to show the fury of the Turkish attack on the border town.”
“Except, the video ABC played, appears to be from a nighttime machine gun event at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky. “
They report plenty of things that aren’t factual.
This shirt is promoting lynching. It’s inappropriate regardless of the person being symbolically lynched. He should’ve been asked to change his shirt or asked to deplane. While this shirt is undoubtedly political and we can probably draw a fairly accurate conclusion as to where the wearer falls on the political spectrum given recent events, the same template of “inappropriate” clothing could be applied just as easily to someone/something apolitical.
While certainly inappropriate, had this shirt replaced the word Journalist with Trump – this would have been celebrated. The wearer would have been given a 1st amendment pass, hailed as a hero of the common man, the media in it’s typically hypocritical screeching would have suggested the wearer run for President in 2020 and would have spent the next 2 weeks joining panels on CNN and NBC. What a sad time for journalism.
Once again the inclusive addicted to outrage crowd attempts to gin up some division. Hypocrites,
Like every shill, you started your article with a false equivalency.
No, calling the president an expletive is not the same as threatening someone.
But again, no surprise coming from you.
You are the very definition of the problem. Both statements are uncivil. That’s the only comparison I made.
Good reply, Matt…all one can do
Well said!
Not that it matters because it’s still offensive I thought Aubrey O’Day shirt just said f#@k. Nothing more. Nothing about Trump. This is the first time I’ve read this and it’s been reported by a lot of other media. Nothing about Trump. Are you sue on this?
Again not that it matters it’s a rude and obscene shirt that has no business being on an airplane
I’m not sure, as I stated in my earlier article. It was just speculation based upon her Instagram photo. But the inclusion of Trump is immaterial. It is an issue of whether “F—“ in any context is appropriate.
Totally agree. Morons
Without f–k we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s only a word to discribe an act of pre life. Would it be inappropiate to say sexual intercoarse Trump? Means the same thing. F–k has been used out of context for so long it has become meaningless. You certainly wouldn’t act on it every time it’s used.
@ Matthew — If people wish to make themselves look like complete morons, I say let them.
I agree. You know where people stand when free speech is upheld. Don’t look twice or listen again if you don’t like it or confront the person and civilly disagree. When you curtail it for the sake of protecting snowflakes from getting the vapors, it’s a slippery slope.
That T-shirt is less offensive than one with a Chinese flag to me.
I don’t doubt you feel that way.
And again, where should the line be drawn?
I absolutely hate this stuff. Let’s clean it up, folks. Whichever side of the political spectrum you are on, we don’t need to see your opinions everywhere. Especially your profane opinions. Or, in this case your thoughts on who to lynch.
And….f— cancer? Most of us are not real crazy about deadly diseases but that doesn’t mean we have to walk around in public with that word on a t-shirt.
Here’s an idea. Sit around in the afternoon with your buds, drink whiskey and let those words flow like water while solving the world’s problem.
And leave the general public out of it.
«F*** cancer» must be the most misrepresenting slogan ever BTW …
@boogen Someone wears a flag of their country on their shirt and that’s offensive to you? China clearly is on the radar re-Hong Kong but having to been to both I can assure you they are not Saudi Arabia etc. with incredible horrible human rights violations
How long will it save the Tatas re-breast cancer. The race to the bottom continues
Since this is a travel blog the first thing I thought of when I saw the word “Tatas” the heavy industry company from India.
“Horrible, isn’t it? While such a slogan may play into the fearmongering of demagogues, calling for the murder of anyone is offensive…disgustingly offensive.”
Meh – Matt is just jumpy because William Shakepeare wrote “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. (Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2). Much ado about nothing.
Explicitly, the shirt did not convey anything about murder. Implicitly, it does depends on whats on your mind.
Mindgames. Its made to show the idiots, that they are idiot, even tough they always denies it. Being unable to refute the Facts given, the idiots get mad and feels “offended”.
Allowed to bring loaded guns to school, but cannot wear some shirt with something written on it. What a clever society….
If a person who appeared to be Middle Eastern wore a shirt that said “Plane. Skyscraper. Martyr.” boarded a United flight and someone expressed discomfort, you better believe that it wouldn’t be the person that complained that would be directed to take a different flight, regardless of the words in United’s policy.
Privilege is being able to wear a shirt that all but directly calls for bodily harm to others (baked in plausible deniability notwithstanding) and not suffering any consequences for that action.
It is very intrusive to have to be exposed to these messages, regardless of the political direction of them ( and it’s a reflection of the arrogance of the bearer). No one wants this ‘in your face’ crap. The people who engage in it are are the same level as the weirdos that buy and wear clothes with visible logos/slogans. Morons.
One doubts that Senator Warren, as President Presumptive, would be impressed with the vulgar anti-Trump slogan seen last week.
Just another MAGA mouth breather…nothing to see here move along
Somehow I imagine the founders didn’t have what is now let fall under freedom of speech in mind when they wrote it.
Maybe because there were no t-shirts.
I don’t disagree, but this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
Why stop at a t-shirt?
Macabre Video of Fake Trump Shooting Media and Critics Is Shown at His Resort
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trump-video.html
Our society has become waaaay too fragile. A bunch of wussified snowflakes. It’s a damn shirt, for cryin’ out loud! Do you honestly think that anyone will see that and think “yeah, rope tree and journalist – I’ll do it!” Of course not. It’s a commentary – perhaps distasteful, but that’s what it is. The shirt will NOT hurt anyone.
By the way, I’d say the same thing about an anti-Trump shirt as well. People do wear those and I see them out in public. Just as is the case with the journalist shirt guy, I think to myself that the wearer isn’t quite right in the head, but they have a right to their opinion. Now, the f___ shirt that was referenced in the article is an exception because of the open profanity, a feature that the “oh so offensive” shirt in question here doesn’t have.
But really, we need to get over this and not be so dramatic. OK, you don’t support the hanging of journalists? Me neither. But the shirt isn’t giving orders, it’s meant to be “clever”. At least to some. And perhaps the wearer is sick of what he considers bias in the media. Perhaps the news reporting he sees on TV doesn’t ring true to him. He saw the shirt somewhere and it resonated with him. He had the temerity to wear it. Big freakin’ deal. Point and laugh if you think he’s an idiot. But he has a right to be one if he wants.
Stogieguy7
“Do you honestly think that anyone will see that and think “yeah, rope tree and journalist – I’ll do it!””
Question: Isn’t that much the same as Alex Jones promoting Pizzagate?
Edgar Maddison Welch left North Carolina armed with an AR-15 to “investigate” Comet PingPong pizza. Once there he opened fire.
Not hitting anyone, he was sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Asked later, his comment was: “I just wanted to do some good and went about it the wrong way.”
Clever becomes an issue exactly when clever goes horribly wrong. For you, that may be a clever shirt. For others it may be a rallying statement… for a few it may be something worse.
Do I want to be on a plane concerned that another passenger may lose it? Either wearing the tshirt or reacting to it?
@liberal capitalist: are you really that much of a drama queen to believe what you’ve written there? It’s just a freakin’ shirt. Get over it.
@stogieguy7
You really need a crash course on cause and effect.
First amendment makes it pretty clear.
No, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with this issue.