A woman was forced to remove her “Hail Satan” t-shirt on an American Airlines flight from Miami to Las Vegas. Was this appropriate or another case of a flight attendant going too far in policing wardrobes?
Swati Runi Goyal took her seat on an American Airlines flight wearing a black t-shirt. It included the text “Hail Satan” in all capital letters along with an upside down cross and the words “Est. 666”.
Prior to takeoff, a flight attendant approached her and asked her to come forward. This wasn’t a first class upgrade…instead, the FA said Goyal would either need to change shirts or get off the aircraft.
Goyal is a member of the Satanic Temple, a “religious” organization that does not actually worship Satan. Rather, it focuses on separation of church and state and free speech.
Speaking to BuzzFeed, Goyal said:
“It’s an ironic shirt. People usually laugh at it, or they give me a thumbs up because they understand the meaning behind it.”
But not on this particular AA flight. Per Goyal, the crewmember claimed the entire crew found her shirt to be offensive. She added:
“We initially just thought it was a joke. But he repeated the directive, and there was another female crew member who was behind him with her arms crossed looking very angry.”
An argument ensued. At first Goyal refused to remove or cover her shirt. But the crew insisted and brought ground staff onboard, who backed them up.
By this point, Goyal was incredulous:
“I said, ‘I’m a foreign-born minority woman, I understand ‘offensive,’ and this shirt is not offensive.’”
But she complied. Her husband, sitting next to her, was wearing two layers and gave her an outer garment to cover the “Hail Satan” shirt.
American Airlines Apologizes
The incident happened on October 30th but has only been made public now after Goyal felt American Airlines failed to take her post-flight request to investigate seriously.
Goyal is afraid that AA’s policy may target Muslims.
“I think the group that could be most targeted by this are Muslim people, for obvious reasons. I’m an atheist, but I support people’s rights to practice what they believe peacefully.”
As I’ve written about before, AA’s nebulous dress code policy states:
Dress appropriately; bare feet or offensive clothing aren’t allowed.
She wants AA to clarify what “offensive” means.
Meanwhile, AA has apologized for what happened, saying:
“We apologize to Ms. Goyal for her experience, and we are reaching out to her to understand what occurred.”
It also added on Twitter:
Discrimination has no place at American Airlines. Please meet us in DMs with your record locator and contact info.
— American Airlines (@AmericanAir) December 6, 2019
My Thoughts
In September, I wrote about Aubrey O’Day being forced to remove a shirt on American Airlines flight that included the f-word on it. Many were outraged since the shirt seemed to be expressing political speech, while others were outraged that anyone could be so inconsiderate as to wear a shirt like that on the plane.
I don’t like rude shirts of any stripe. But sometimes a line is crossed, like those from the Westboro Baptist Church. Sometimes shirts just make others feel uncomfortable.
Was Goyal’s shirt offensive to many? Absolutely. Should she have been forced to change? I tend to think not…her political intentions seem clear enough to me and her shirt did not incite hate or violence.
But any notion that “Hail Satan” is a deeply-held religious conviction equivalent to “Hail Jesus” or “Hail Muhammad” is simply not the case.
Goyal herself told BuzzFeed that she does not really worship Satan, adding:
“I’m just an ordinary-looking person. I’m not goth. I don’t have piercings. I wasn’t wearing a shirt that had a goat being beheaded on it.
I was wearing L.L.Bean hiking pants and vegan sneakers…I mean, I couldn’t look like more of a nerd.”
Does the fact that this was not a sincere religious belief render it any less worthy of protection?
Those offended by Goyal’s shirt should just pray for her. Forcing her to remove a shirt that is not vulgar and does not incite violence undermines their own rights to express their faith in the public square. Even though Goyal’s shirt was intended to mock, her stated policy objective of “free speech and religious freedom” should be music to the ears of the faithful.
CONCLUSION
I think American Airlines was right to apologize to Ms. Goyal. I also find her shirt sad…but hardly offensive. Now AA should better clarify what “offensive” means in its dress code policy to prevent more arbitrary action by flight attendants.
> Read More: Undressing A “Celebrity” Claim American Airlines Forced Her To Undress In Front Of Cabin
> Read More: Offensive T-Shirts And The Line Of Decency Onboard Airplanes
Flight attendant Must be right wing white Christian idiot who thinks they have the monopoly on what constitutes civilized behavior.
Considering this was all southern USA i wouldn’t be surprised.
“Was Goyal’s shirt offensive to many? ”
Satan referred to satanic temple. Her religion. If people are offended they need to jump out of the plane. Idiots.
Would the AA FA who picked on Goyal’s shirt also demand no Trump-supporting MAGA hats be on display on AA flights? A lot of people find MAGA hats offensive,
This is not an issue of excessive political correctness nor going beyond your authority.
It is simply a matter of crass bad taste on the behalf of the passenger.
It is simply too radical. It is rather scary and likely to make many people uneasy. The wearer should have asked herself, “can I really wear this message boldly displayed whilst travelling on public transport?”
The underlying stated meaning and purpose of the inscription is not at all immediately apparent. It is extremely cryptic. It is highly likely to be worrying and unnerving to most.
The flight attendants have to put themselves in the minds of the general majority.
I can easily imagine that many ordinary family folks travelling on the aircraft may very well feel rather uneasy upon sight of a fellow passenger aligning herself with Satan, whichever way.
It is just, simply, scary for many. It is not a normal thing to do. I would be considering what was the state of mind of the wearer.
And the flight attendants have to consider the comfort of mind and wellbeing of all the other passengers. Better to be safe than sorry.
So the ‘general majority’ decides what the general minorities have to wear? You mean like the sharia police in Iran? The taliban thugs in Afghanistan? Is that how you think it should be in the US? What religious clan are you from?
With your statement you are completely destroying all that you think you stand for.
You said it yourself: bad taste. That’s all it is. Not offensive. Just distasteful.
And, in case you’re also running low on irony detection, GUWonder’s comment was highlighting precisely this point: the lack of legal certainty when using loaded words such as “offensive” in the conditions of carriage. What you may find blissfully on point may be “offensive” to many.
The question AA need to clarify is whether they’re simply banning clothing that crosses the indecency line, or anything that a particular FA may find objectionable.
This passenger knew EXACTLY what she was doing. Yeah, this shirt might reference her “religious beliefs” but to 99% of the flying public this an intentional look-at-me message. Making her change or cover is exactly what she expected and was a major league troll move. Just blend and fly. Is that so hard? That said, the airline made this situation far worse by giving her the pathetic attention she so coveted. So many idiots, so little time,
What exactly is “sad” about her shirt? Is someone who is atheist and wants to express their views in this way different than a conservative who wears a “abortion is murder” t-shirt? I’ve seen a few of those on planes before. Is that going to far?
Either religious freedom is protected or it isn’t. I think most people want to make sure THEIR religion is protected but everyone else’s is up for discussion. Whether you are super religious or super atheist or somewhere in between, your views should be protected and not harassed because of them. If the AA flight attendants had a problem with her shirt that should have stayed THEIR problem….not hers.
Really? You must be psychic to knew that.
Or… Just a regular bigmouth?
Where can I get one of those super-awesome shirts? 😀
I have trouble imagining a flight attendant in Asia or Europe behaving like that. Seems outright impossible. Must be a US thing to be policed by flight crew.
if you walk in usa behave like an american.
if no american wears that thing on an airplane dont make yourself different from an american.
Which is why you should remain in Alabama and never leave.
She should have removed her t-shirt and just kept her bra on or, if no bra, then leave it at that.
Was she trolling? Yes. Was she wrong? No
I’ve written it before; I’ll write it again: I do not understand why airlines put FAs in the position of having to enforce unclear and poorly written regulations like this. I’m sure that some FAs like the discretion and latitude this gives them, but I think it’s one huge liability for the company.
As long as the airline also prohibits “Hail Jesus” and similar slogans on clothing, no problem. That seems extremely unlikely, so this was pretty much just prejudice in action. Make a policy for all religions and stick with it.
Americans — and American Airlines — need to get over themselves. I find it hard to believe somebody wearing this shirt would have led to this outcome in any other developed country, even countries with blasphemy laws. American Airlines will be lucky if this woman doesn’t sue.
Idiotic. Yet another example of the Thought Police trying to impose their will on others.
Waiting for an article that (a) muslim was kicked from the airplane due to praying on board, and others felt offended or even suspicious that they are going to either hijack the plane or suicide bombing.
Its america.
Yes, american are that stupid. If not more….
so for all you freedom of speech hypocrites – can I wear a swastika t-shirt on my next flight?
@Duffer
By all means. Most likely you have been brainwashed into believing this is a nazi symbol. Instead it is a very old symbol in Hinduism. Surely under your first amendment or whatever amendment you would allow freedom of religious expression. Unless it should in your interpretation be limited to certain faiths only – which I can assure you, was not so intended by the founding fathers.
Furthermore, in the western world, and also your country, until the 1930’s the swastika was in use as a symbol of good luck.
@Matthew– help a recent law grad out here… Where do you find support for these ideas? Are you so far removed from your 1L brainwashing on the omnipotent “right to exclude” that you’ve forgotten?
Hey everyone, rights are contextual and others have them too! That includes your neighbor, the local baker, your mother-in-law, a homeless man, and American Airlines.
“Does the fact that this was not a sincere religious belief render it any less worthy of protection?”
>> No. We are not arbiters of sincerity, but that misses the point.
” …undermines their own rights to express their faith in the public square.”
>> AA is not the gov (though, you might think so re: operational performance), so it can’t make rules about the public square, but I see what you’re saying. We’re still not on point, though.
We forget that -when on another’s property- they choose the rules, not you nor the gov. This is why a bar owner can have police remove disorderly guests. Thus, property rights supersede your “portable” rights.
In the normal course of biz, a non-gov entity is free to make rules limiting speech, and pax explicitly agree to it via the CoC. This is not an issue of the “public square” [forum] as SOC, Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel details. This is more like a restaurant warning “no shoes, no shirt, no service” because they want a certain environment, which is the owner’s RIGHT to exclude.
A ban on such rules would effectively confiscate private property. If many wore hail satan shirts on AA flights, it could push pax away. AA should be free to make rules on its property that promote peaceful passage AND the bottom line how it pleases. If it’s a bad rule, people fly competitors, and the rule gets changed or AA suffers
Surely, nobody thinks this “free speech” applies to your own property, right? Or… am I free to enter your house, never leave, and preach my radical views? Nope. We can, however, speak freely in public forums, like town squares and sidewalks AS LONG AS it doesn’t impede others’ rights.
And that’s the beauty of it! You’re free to say what you want. And, in my house, I’m free to ignore you, listen and debate, or have you removed by the “law.” Golden rule-esque.
This is not like Guttenberg Taxpayers v. Galaxy Towers Condominium. AA isn’t pushing a political agenda, so they need not provide a “level playing field.” If a Trump ad played alongside the credit card pitch, you’d have an argument that AA held itself out as a political organization. This could potentially permit those free speech “protections.” But those are annoying enough as is so let’s hope it doesn’t come to that…
Good try. Until a business owner writes a rule that says “no public displays of Christian worship” to exclude cross-wearing, Jesus-hailing indoctrinates from service. Would love to see that trial. And the ensuing outcry by religious groups warning of the decay of American “values”.
Mike, a business owner can’t do anything about “public” displays which was my point, so idk what the “good try” was about. They can, however, make such a rule for their premises, just like you can for your lawn, home, and outhouse.
You might be conflating their private property with public property, in which case we’re right back to the initial error in reasoning.
Try to focus more on the rationale and not being bitter towards believers, it’ll help.
Yes, there’s always an outcry. And yes, they think values have decayed, just like every gen since the dawn of time. But no, it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. See, they can have their closed-minded ideals, you can have your spiteful views, and the best part is that neither one matters, except on YOUR property! 🙂
@ ron
Not everybody knows that. And I’m pretty sure most american especially flight crew didn’t either. It’s interesting to see the fight between “freedom of speech” vs “i’m offended” supported by “against value of our ww2 veteran etc”. A stupid cat fight can turn into national dramas (you american loves drama, especially stupid ones).
And all can be easily resolved by, “its sign from India! Like vegan!”
USA, the land of the free?
I find this shirt offensive , IF the USA has to remove all signs of Church of Christ like the ten commandments from our Court house and schools because others Atheist and Satan worshipers find it offensive !
I am dissapointed thayt AA had to apologize for this action.
….and her being foreign-born and a minority is relevant because….?