By STEVE HUETTEL, Times Staff Writer
Published October 5, 2007
Southwest Airlines created a public uproar, then issued a public apology last month after crew members told a young San Diego woman that her miniskirt and tank top weren’t appropriate attire. The message to employees from Southwest president Colleen Barrett: We’re not the fashion police.
On Sunday, Joe Winiecki of Largo [FL] was sitting in the last row of a Southwest jet in Columbus, Ohio, ready to take off for Tampa when an airline supervisor instructed him to change his sexually suggestive T-shirt, turn it inside-out or get off the plane.
Winiecki argued that the airline was violating his right to free speech and objected to changing in front of other passengers. When the supervisor insisted, backed by a burly pilot and security officer, he changed into a different shirt rather than risk missing work the next day.
Winiecki’s shirt, purchased on a cruise in St. Thomas Virgin Islands, uses sexual double entendre to promote a fictional fishing tackle shop. The largest lettering reads “Master Baiter.” Winiecki said Southwest crew members on a flight from New Orleans last month told him “that’s a great shirt and laughed about it.”
| I thought Jack Hoff was funny too. First of all, the guy was sitting in the back row of the aircraft. Who’s going to see his shirt from there? Secondly, it’s sort of in the mind of the beholder anyway. |
| Found by MJ Hopper. |
#26 RBG writes… “The shirt has everything to do with masturbation. That makes it sexual assault when such ‘free speech’ is directed at my children. Not to mention adults.”
Don’t look now (seriously, don’t look), but CNN just perpetrated “sexual assault” on its viewers by showing closeup shots of this shirt prominently in their coverage. I agree that wearing this shirt on an airplane shows poor judgment, but considering it to be a form of sexual assault gives me an idea of just how repressive some households still are. You should understand that there’s a point at which an overprotective parent (maybe you or maybe not) ends up leaving the deepest scar. I don’t pretend to know where that point is exactly, but it’s something you should consider.
31.
Exactly! That like if someone walked around with a shirt that said “SEXUAL INTERCOURSE!!!”
Not exactly anything indecent about it. If your kids see it, they probably would try to figure the hell out what it means, (if they don’t know what it is allready). And if they ask you, you don’t have to tell them! Thats the wonderful thing about kids, you can tell them anything.
“Mommy? who’s Jack Hoff?”
“A Fisherman, now shut up and watch that Wiggles DVD I just spent 20 dollars on”
See? Problem solved đ
What if the person was wearing a French Connection UK t-shirt?
One that said “FCUKINKYBUGGER” or “I DON’T GIVE A FCUK” or some such rubbish?
I bet they wouldn’t have batted an eye-lid as lots of people wear them.
That makes it sexual assault when such âfree speechâ is directed at my children.
RGB: Best not to teach your children to read then….
On a different note, anyone have to twin two year old girls they can dress up in leather vests and a collar and bring onto the airplane? đ
“When the supervisor insisted, backed by a burly pilot and security officer, he changed into a different shirt rather than risk missing work the next day.”
I for one wouldn’t mind telling them to do something like flying sober or anything like it, in fact, if they hit me it would be a very good thing because I could sue them for aggravated assault and battery.
I for one am all for people who want to wear clothing like that be permitted to do so. Maybe they should be required to do so.
It would make it easy to spot tasteless, immature adultolescent dorks and Tom Green fans, so the rest of us, who outgrew tee-heeing over poo-poo and wee-wee jokes somewhere around 4th grade, can steer clear of them…
Exactly right Lauren. The more people wear signs showing that they’re an idiot, the easier it’ll be to avoid them.
#22, Lauren,
Have you ever considered practicing intelligence with a brain?
First, the contract of carriage can not be held as a binding contract IF the purchaser had no way of knowing about it before hand. Just because it was included with the ticket does not mean he assented to it. Any contract must be willingly and knowingly entered into. You can’t pay for something and then be handed a contract obliging you to some condition.
Two, contracts must be clear on the terms. The quote you listed does not mention anything about wearing a shirt promoting a bait shop. None of the words used on the shirt were, by them self, suggestive or obscene. While obscene may have a definite definition, lewd and offensive do not. This shirt, promoting a bait shop, does not rise to obscene.
Three, in a case like this where there were numerous Southwest personnel who assented to his clothing, he would have no reason to think he was violating any clothing standard or requirement. Since he was allowed to pass by the airline, to turn around later and then inform him he was in violation would not hold up. This isn’t a case of prior acceptance, it was the same instance where he was allowed to proceed until it was too late.
Four, in order to use the Contract of Carriage, Southwest would need to show that he was disruptive or injuring Southwest’s business or the safety and comfort of the other passengers. The use of the word âmayâ in a contract, especially an ambiguous section, will usually negate that section due to lack of specificity. A contract must mean what it says and say what it means. In other words, there has to be âa meeting of the mindsâ.
26,
And your kids are old enough to KNOW what a Master baiter is??
then I suggest you Explain it to them, before they ask the guy, HOW to bait hooks.
31. hhopper. Maybe yours do, but mine don’t. Nor do most early elementary school kids. And nor should they. I don’t need mine or anybody else’s kids reading the words out loud in public or considering this normal acceptable behavior either.
If you don’t get it, go up to the next 7 year old girl you see and say “Masturbate” or even “Master Baiter” to her face and explain to her (and her mom) how this is a perfectly good word. A T-shirt is not much different.
If that’s not enough – it’s not meant to be a joke. It’s meant to be hate language. It may read “Master Baiter” but it actually says “Fuck You.” We live in a world with enough Fuck You, already.
Somewhere you need to draw the line – as you do even here at DU. I’d rather parents drew the public line than the randy-assed Master Baiters of this world.
32. Gary. The line of “if you don’t like it, well, just turn off the TV” is shown to be pure BS by those who support that T-shirt.
34. Andy. I suppose they could try. They could also try wearing 98% transparent clothing too.
35. Waymark. I’d prefer to teach them respect.
38. hhopper. Like on airplanes at 35,000 ft.
RBG
Fuse-o…
I would like to point out that that particular Contract of Carriage wasn’t dreamt up by a temp in legal on his lunch breaks. It has been carefully and extensively researched and vetted, not to mention having surived many many courtroom challenges. If you think that you have more on the ball than the salaried professionals in SW’s legal dept, you just try ’em and see just how far you get.
When the ticket says ‘By purchasing of this ticket, you consent to the Terms and Conditions of the Contract of Carriage,’ that all that’s required. If he doesn’t read it, that’s his tough shit, and he’ll get no sympathy in any courtroom anywhere.
Amazing how little old you spotted a loophole that no plaintiff’s lawyer in America ever noticed before, nor did the airline’s legal staff consult with you about what constitutes a binding contract, so they just guessed. Right? I mean, all those high-powered legal whizzes, what with their J.D.s and L.L.D.s from Harvard Law and such cut-rate diploma mills. You need to set them straight, having the gall to imagine they know anything about contract law!
I bet they copied that Contract of Carriage from some $9.99 legal-self-help book they picked up at Office Depot, huh?
“None of the words used on the shirt were, by them self, suggestive or obscene. While obscene may have a definite definition, lewd and offensive do not. This shirt, promoting a bait shop, does not rise to obscene.”
Nice of you to set down a definition binding on all parties. Did they agree to your definition, BTW? No? Well. then, I’m afraid it’ll be up to a civil jury to decide, then, won’t it? They don’t use Fusion’s Law Dictionary in any American courtrooms that I’m aware of.
“Three, in a case like this where there were numerous Southwest personnel who assented to his clothing, he would have no reason to think he was violating any clothing standard or requirement. Since he was allowed to pass by the airline, to turn around later and then inform him he was in violation would not hold up. This isnât a case of prior acceptance, it was the same instance where he was allowed to proceed until it was too late.”
Gee, since you apparently skipped over the part where I clearly apprised you of your error on this point, let me reiiterate; as a matter of common law, failure to enforce a contract provision is never, unless so specified and agreed to in the contract, regarded as a waiver of the right to do so.
Do you understand that? If you rob someone, and pass a police officer who doesn’t chase you, that doesn’t mean the next one can’t. If you default on your rent, under a lease agreement, and they don’t assess a late charge or start eviction proceedings – which the lease specifically grants them leave to do – that doesn’t mean that you can then stop paying rent completely. Try telling a judge that they lost the right to evict you because they didn’t evict you the first time you didn’t pay the rent. The judge will appreciate the laugh.
You would really cut down on the number of times you make a fool of yourself if you’d cease making these pseudo-authoritative categorical declarations which are really only uninformed guesses…
#41, RBG,
Whoa there boyo !!! Don’t be telling other people what they may or may not say just because you have a polish pickle up your ass. If you want to read something perverted into the T-shirt, then fine, just don’t inflict your sick mind on others.
I don’t expect ANYONE to walk up to a seven yr and just blurt out anything. That would be asking for trouble.
RBG, in keeping your kids safe from double entendres, the good news is that you won’t have to tear out any more pages from their dictionary the way you probably have with the “bad words.”
Good grief. What’s so awful about sex or masturbation anyway? We all do it. If you kids are old enough to read then it’s high time you introduce them to some sexual terms.
Sure some people will find public mention of any sexual behavior to be in poor taste, but just abut anything is distasteful to someone. Personally I find bad puns distasteful, and any form of religion more distasteful than any sexual innuendo.
#42, Lauren,
Geeze, when you want to act stupid, you go all the way.
When the ticket says âBy purchasing of this ticket, you consent to the Terms and Conditions of the Contract of Carriage,â that all thatâs required.
No that is not all that is required. In case you are unaware, both parties must be aware of the contract. One side may not later impose restrictions that the other side in unaware of.
I bet they copied that Contract of Carriage from some $9.99 legal-self-help book they picked up at Office Depot, huh?
Or they listened to you.
They donât use Fusionâs Law Dictionary in any American courtrooms that Iâm aware of.
I assume they don’t use the Fish Stick Dictionary of Legal Misunderstandings either.
… as a matter of common law, failure to enforce a contract provision is never, unless so specified and agreed to in the contract, regarded as a waiver of the right to do so.
Wrong examples. Your absconding thief escapade is a criminal matter. Your lease example concerns two distinct acts. In my example I claimed that this was one continuous act.
Something more analogous would be if I paid to park my car then the Parking Lot changed their mind and had it towed at my expense. That is different then if I repeatedly parked there and returned one day expecting to park there and being told I couldn’t. In other words, you can not permit something and then after the other party has invested in the act, change your mind on some legal theory that you have the authority. Southwest gave up that right to determine the obscenity of his shirt when they originally allowed him to board.
No, I didn’t attend Law School. I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express though.
A word of advice, Fu-baby: if you should ever find yourself charged with, say, jaywalking – hire a lawyer.
With your astonishing grasp of the law, if you represent yourself, you’ll wind up sentenced to life in the electric chair.
43 Fusion. I believe that first line didn’t much work for Michael Richards either. Am I supposed to laugh at your second line or is a wink as good as a nod?
The truly amazing thing is that you can so finely reconcile those two mutually exclusive paragraphs of yours.
44 Gary, There’s nothing double entendre about a child saying “masturbator.”
45 Peter. Now ask that same question when a stranger is doing it in front of your child.
RBG