Sue the Fokkers

[Shaggybreeks]

There's a dumb movie that was made a year or so ago called "Meet the Fokkers". A comedy about some guy with that name getting married.

That name. Really funny, yeah? I mean, it wouldn't work if it was "Meet The Smiths" or something.

A lame play on words. We all know the word that "Fokkers" is trying to sound like. Call it "that word".

Anyway, somebody apparently tried to wear a T-shirt on an airliner that said "Meet The F*******" over a picture of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and whoever. The airline people told the person she had to cover the shirt up, or change it, or she would not be allowed to board the plane.

So what do you think she did? She's suing the airline for violating her free speech rights. Well, of course!

She says it's her right to make political statements on a shirt and wear it on an airliner. Well of course.

But duh, lady... you think it's because of the -political- statement, or the use of an obscenity?

I'm not here to argue over whether someone should be allowed to wear obsceneties or not. I just think she's got to be pretty dense or specious to pretend that the airline banned her because of the -political- nature of her shirt.

If she'd been wearing the same picture with the caption "War Criminals", she probably should have been let on the plane. I'm not sure how they would have reacted if the caption had been "Terrorists", because airlines have -always- been scared of hijackers. Since the early sixties, anyway.
_________________
Only mutants evolve.

[coralvalley]

Honestly I can see where she might be coming from in how upset they would be about her boarding the plane with a t-shirt like that on that she really believed was alright because it was her way of expressing her own opinions on things. However, given the lengths that the airlines go to in order to keep things running smoothly after the worry of terrorist attacks mounted in the last few years, I can also understand their desire to keep her from wearing a shirt that might make the staff on the flight and other passengers uncomfortable. While I can see why the woman might have been offended, if I were in her shoes, I might have not been the happiest about them asking me to change my shirt as I might have felt singled out a bit, although in wearing a shirt like that I would imagine that you are looking for some kind of attention. In the end if it were me, I might have complained a little bit in the worst case scenario, but I doubt it. I probably would have just changed the shirt, went home and told anyone I felt like mentioning it to about the story. Then again I probably would have just changed and let it go, but that's just me. While I can understand what she is saying about her rights being violated at the same time I can see the other side and really I don't think it was something that really warranted a lawsuit, unless of course there is something more in the story that we are missing, but I doubt it. It just sounds like an attempt to gain some attention and notice, but that was probably the whole point of the t-shirt in the first place.

[pharmer4]

Shaggy, I agree with you. Especially since obscenities are an offence on american flights.

As an aside, an Aussie chick was detained after she was heard to say "Fair Dinkum" when told there were no drinks left. The hostess thought it was swearing. Guess she does not know much about australianisms!
_________________
For Metal and Rock interviews and reviews, go to www.heavymetalnation.com - You can Contribute too if you want!
[img:d85b591d6d]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/pharmer4/pharmer4.jpg[/img:d85b591d6d]

[memoryproblems]

i find your dislike of these movies as unfounded. I rather liked them, and while the title might have been a play on words, the movies were funny even beyond that word play.

Its a tough issue, obscenities aren't alot different than political messages, theres no direct law against them, I could come up to a woman with three young children and tell her to "<you know what> off", and legally, i'm pretty safe.

If the airlines have policies, however, I guess that they could refuse her admission to the plane, but i'm sure that perhaps the nature of the shirt might have contributed to her being denied access to the flight.
_________________
-memoryproblems- supporter of truth at frozenglaze.com
[img:90758e47ae]http://feeds.feedburner.com/frozenglaze.2.gif[/img:90758e47ae]
KingShady - Superb Eminem Fansite

[spock]

[Shaggybreeks]

[Shaggybreeks]

[Kovacs]

To be fair, it's not really an obscenity, although the idea is that the word does allude towards the obscenity. However, Fokker is actually a legitimate Dutch surname. So does that mean that if I child whose surname was Fokker got on an air plane with a football jersey on which had his name printed on the back, he would be made to take it off? Or similarly, someone who has the surname Kuntz, which is a legitimate German surname? Fokker was even an air plane manufacturer up until its bankruptcy recently, so it is likely on some planes you are still likely to see something like "Fokker 100" on the side.
_________________
I Love Rebecca More Than Anything In The World <3
Yo Amo A Rebecca Más Que Nada En El Mundo <3

[Necromis]

Um Kovacs, the shirt actually said the F Bomb. Not Fokkers.

[Kovacs]

Oh... Then why is "Meet The Fokkers" even mentioned? Sorry. English is not my native language so even though I speak it fluently, the phrasing of some things still confuses me.
_________________
I Love Rebecca More Than Anything In The World <3
Yo Amo A Rebecca Más Que Nada En El Mundo <3

[Necromis]

The Fokkers is mentioned because the woman's shirt made a play on that by saying "meet The FU****s" over a picture of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and whoever. It was her bad attempt at humor and protest. Trying to say that these persons F-ed up everyone.

[Rashy]

I met a guy outside the White House who was protesting. On his sign it said something about how the government is abusing the people and "treating us like ****." There was also a bunch of other profane words. It had all sorts of misspellings on it and the guy had terrible hygiene, so the effect was pretty funny.

As far as I could tell he had been out there for quite a while, and since it is near the White House there is obviously all sorts of law enforcement and other security types. He wasn't asked to leave or take down his sign or anything, so I don't think the woman was dismissed entirely on the grounds of the profanity. There are several differences though:

The guy was on public land (a sidwalk), while the woman was on private property (the airline's planes and leased space in the airport). The airline, as a private organization, can refuse service for most any reason (except based on race, sex, etc.), the government (which governs public land) cannot.

It isn't too far of a stretch to imagine that the woman was dismissed on the grounds that the airline was trying to maintain a family friendly atmosphere.

Also I am getting tired of hearing about this kind of crap. She is suing the entire company because she was refused service by a single employee. Did she ever stop to think that perhaps the employee 9or several levels of employees that she spoke to) doesn't know the companie's policy on profanity and chose to err on the safe side? Nah, everybody reach for your lawyer, its suing time!
_________________
Rashy!

[LP-SolidRaven]

[mellymoo]

[Rashy]