The First Amendment has very few limitations. They don’t include opinions expressed in a facility paid for by taxpayer dollars. You think the airlines built that airport, or any other airport? Think again.
Your tax dollars went into the building of that airport. That means it’s a public place, where political views can be expressed, by anyone at all. If you don’t like it, you get to eat shit. End of story.
You don’t think the airlines have any sort of rules, which the flight attendents probably had to agree to follow before they accepted their jobs, about what you’re allowed to do while wearing the company uniform? :rolleyes:
pantom, I’m sure you’ve read this thread and comprehended it all, so I’m sure you can point out exactly where anyone was calling for the government (at any level- federal, state, county, local) to act in any way to silence this idiotic stew.
I mean, that is why you brought up the 1st amendment again, right?
Would it be “I love Mac OS X?”
no.
The OP, for one. I think it’s pretty clear she at least wants the employees in question to be disciplined, and not mainly because they don’t realize chicken’s a meat.
Then there’s this:
To my mind, there is nothing spurious about a First Amendment argument here. The airport is a taxpayer facility, not a private one. Which means you can debate the employees about their views there, but you can’t object to their public displays of their views there.
This is a free country, with free citizens with the inalienable right to express themselves as they please on their own time. The OP’s behavior was cowardly, rude, and ignorant.
She gets to eat shit. Period.
And that’s where you would be wrong.
The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting free speech. This has been said 3,000 times in this thread and others.
AA is not the government. If they choose to restrict their employees’ speech, it might violate some NLRA provision, though I doubt it. It also might violate some agreed to union contract, but we have no evidence of that.
In any case, it’s still not a First Amendment violation!
My God, the people whinging about 1st Amendment rights in this context sound like children.
But Daddy, it’s not FAIR.
Whoever said life was fair. :smack:
Wrong, pantom. But you’re spewing shit. The employees of the airline were in company uniform, representing their company, and were expressing a highly controverisal opinion in public, in a manner that associated their company with those views. The venue notwithstanding, they are still employees of a private company, and as such, “freedom of speech” is still curtailed by their contractual obligations. They are perfectly free to express their opinons. They are also perfectly free to not work. If they choose to work for a private company, then they must also agree to follow company policy.
Oh, and your psychic abilities rank right up there with I.A.S., IRT discerning Anthracite’s intentions. Celene Dion is calling: She wants you to join her psychic friends for fun & profit.
You can eat the shit. You’ve earned it.
On preview, I see Tranq has summed up my reply much better than I was doing.
Jesus Christ, pantom. Today of all days.
Our forbears fought and won a revolutionary war for our freedom. A century later, more of our antecedents gave their lives and limbs to preserve the Union. We have upheld the Constitution and preserved freedom against all odds. And for what? For this? So you can tell people to eat shit? So you can condemn a fellow citizen? Is this freedom? Is this what it was all for?
Congratulations, pantom. You have made me cry.
Which I actually posted on Page 2 of this thread, very clearly - the “friendly reminder” letter, which I said was my intention. Since I posted my intentions clearly, and pantom has said:
then he obviously doesn’t believe me, and is simply the next person to stumble in and openly lie about my alleged “intentions”. But hey, dude, First Amendment and all, he can do that…hey, is that Freedom Rock on the radio? Turn it up, man!
If only that were true, you would be correct, instead of another person who came into the thread to tell me to “eat shit” as you so elegantly put it.
“Hate speech”. “Fire in the movie theatre”. “Libel”. None of these examples is actually valid, because we all have an “inalienable right” to express ourselves, right?
Stand around naked on your front lawn for a while, and you will be shown by the police that your “inalienable right” to express yourself is a fiction.
Also, I have to say - I still think it is amazing how many people believe you can wear anything, do anything, display any political view or expression you want, while on the job or in your workplace or while in uniform, and somehow this is a “Right”. It represents a disconnect with the reality of workplace America that is so profound I can only guess that those who believe it have never held an actual professional job in any capacity.
Bullshit. Taxpayer dollars do not mean it is a “public place”. A military base is not a “public place”. A courthouse is not a “public place” where all may come and do as they please w.r.t. their “inalienable rights” under the First Amendment. Stop by the NRO building sometime and demand to be let in, because it is obviously a “public place” as well. We’ll miss you…
Second bullshit - so employees of the GAO, the Federal Courthouses, and the military bases (all funded by tax dollars) can say and do anything they want under the “First Amendment”? Really? Do you have a cite for that, or are you simply repeating what your 10th grade American Government teacher told you last week?
Get a clue. Employers can and do limit the expression of employees in a multitude of ways - on the job, on the work premises, and while in uniform for the job. There have been a plethora of examples in this thread by smarter people than I; you should try reading the thread first before telling people to categorically “eat shit”.
But again, Anth, the question yet remains: would you have been on the horn so quickly if the message conveyed by the sticker was one with which you agreed?
Suppose it had said “Support Our President!” Would you have dashed to the nearest phone to protest this unseemly political sloganeering?
Without doubt, much of the vitriol directed at you was way over the top, nonetheless, a core truth remains. If you take an action that could plausibly affect someone’s livelihood, you have taken a direct, and hostile, personal action. You have injured the person as a person.
By what right? How are you impelled to take action? In what manner have you been injured such that retribution is called for?
Agreement or disagreement had and has nothing to do with it - or should have nothing to do with it. Along the lines of what a few people have already mentioned, it is something I consider to be a “fringe” statement on something which is still a “conspiracy theory” which dealt specifically with something related very closely to where I was - an airport, having just got off an American Airlines flight.
Although I shouldn’t have to do so, I will provide other examples of things I have seen which I would not complain about, which I strongly disagree with:
“Re-Elect President Gore”
“Trim Bush”
“Two Mommies = Zero Family” (now that one was odd :eek: )
These are all stickers I’ve seen while traveling, but I need to be clear and say that none of them were displayed by airline or airport personnel.
Everything came together, elucidator, to cause me to be upset in my OP: The fringe aspect of it, the 9/11 relation, American Airlines, being on the very same flight… Being offended is not something I go out of my way to do.
Timing, circumstance, situation, personal closeness. That was what brought on my complaint.
I feel that your statement above is either too general, or that you are waxing philosophical. By your measure, any time someone complains about shitty service in a restaurant, or from any public or private employee, they are “tak(ing) an action that could plausibly affect someone’s livelihood, (they) have taken a direct, and hostile, personal action. (They) have injured the person as a person.”
Can that be what you are saying? And if so, does anyone agree with that? Am I really way out of line here? 
Precisely. Except for your spin control, exactly that. You use the example of poor service in a restaraunt. I find it difficult to see the parallel. If I read your anecdote right, you didn’t call to complain that she thought chicken was a vegetable, you called because she expressed a viewpoint on her own luggage that you find offensive.
Did she haul out the luggage in flight and wave it in your face? In what way did her sticker impair her responsibility to you as a customer?
You would be shocked, I think, at the suggestion that you should have jumped up the instant you saw the sticker and given her a quick right cross to the face. But surely you can see that most people, most especially those on the lower end of things economic, would rather have a broken nose than lose thier job?
I didn’t have the chicken/vegetable problem, it was the Indian gentleman sitting in front of me. If he wishes to complain, I have no problem, as that is his business. Just like I didn’t complain over the offense or perceived offense of others; I did so over my own.
If someone serves me in a restaurant wearing a “Jews suck!” t-shirt, I suppose I am out-of-line complaining too, since I’m not a Jew? And it didn’t affect the service? And it didn’t impair her responsibility to me as a customer?
I mean - are we even talking about the same country here?
(And I can’t wait for Sparty to come in now and say “Oh look, now Anthracite’s an anti-Semite, or why else would she have mentioned Jews? Most people go for race…”)
I’m sorry, but since you mentioned “spin control”, I really have to wonder about this hyperbole here.
Good thing she (most likely, since I never even got to the point of telling the flight number on the phone) neither lost her job nor had a personal attack as the result of my action. Yes, I intended to tell the flight number, and airport, I admit, and have never denied this. I would not have given names or nametags, even if I had seen them.
I think you are missing the Big Picture here. It was expressed by fierra back on Page 2.
Whether or not any action is taken by the airlines, it is the fault of the person violating the policy. Yes, amazingly, it is not the fault of the person complaining.
So long as I am truthful and forthright about my complaint, I have done no wrong. It is up to the airline to decide if the FA broke their rules, not me, and not the FA. Possibly the Union on appeal; I confess I do not know.
Trying to shift the blame for the actions taken by the FA to me is clearly disturbing. It is akin to saying “There wouldn’t be so many criminals if people would stop ratting each other out.”
I did not decide any policy for personal expression or limitation of such that may or may not exist with AA. I did not implement it. I did not negotiate it with the Union. And, most importantly, I am not the one who decided to put a sticker on the FA’s luggage.
This is not that hard to me. Since we are at a disagreement here, perhaps some other people could explain how I am wrong?
If the policy allows it, then she’s not in trouble - at all. If it’s a gray area, then the company should tell people to perhaps use better judgement (see Page 2). If it is a clear violation of a written policy, which is agreed to as a term and condition of employment, then how does this now become “my fault” that she would be in trouble for violating it?
I complained under the intent of telling AA that they should ask their employees, in general, to think of how things like this affect their business case.
Seriously, I want to know - if, I repeat, if it is a term and condition of employment that stickers like this not be on luggage, and the FA has violated that policy, who is responsible for any discipline that she receives - herself, through her own willful actions, or the customer who points out the violation?
A little help, anyone? I’m certainly not someone who’s always right about things, and I’m also a person who admits when they are wrong. I also can be swayed to a New and Better way of thinking and acting, if the case is made well to me to do so. But I confess, I really, really do not understand how I am in the wrong here.
You’re not in the wrong, Anth. You’re getting plenty of help. Stand your ground; you’re doing fine.
Thanks dan. It was not help I was seeking, per se, but help in understanding if I was missing the point or clearly wrong.
Honestly, I’m continuing this thread now with elucidator because we’re being polite to each other, and because I really want to try and understand his viewpoint, and see if it’s one that I have not taken fully into account.
Lord knows I’ve tried to be patient, but this is getting silly. Let me make this very clear, pantom. You’re completely wrong. You’re so wrong that there’s no direct flight to Rightville from where you are.
Just as a point of reference, I’m going to post the text of the First Amendment. Then I’m going to run through some basics for those who still don’t seem to get it.
Note the very first word – Congress. American Airlines is not Congress. I don’t have a cite handy for that one so please trust me. Since AA is not Congress, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to American’s actions.
But, you say, the airport was paid for by taxpayer money. So fucking what? AA still isn’t Congress or any other branch of government which is essential to a First Amendment argument (see text above). Many sports stadiums are publicly financed, yet the management can tell its employees what they can and cannot wear, including restricting any or all political statements. The UPS drivers are out in public spaces all the time, yet company policy still applies to them when they’re on the clock.
Let’s even assume that Starbucks opens a store in the Capitol to serve Congress. Since Starbucks is a private business, they could still impose their dress code on the employees. Why? Because Starbucks is not Congress. It doesn’t matter that the employees are in a taxpayer financed building. Starbucks can still say that its employees can not wear political buttons while working at Starbucks.
This argument sucks, too. Are you seriously arguing that the First Amendment bars Anthracite from complaining? If so, please see my statements above. Anthracite is not Congress.
She wasn’t “at work”. She was on her way to work. At that time, she wasn’t interacting with you as customer to employee. It was entirely by accident that you saw the sticker and the uniform. She probably had no idea she would encounter a member of Citizens on Patrol for Corporate Policy.
And hadn’t we best go check her car’s bumper for provocative opinions? After all, she’s wearing the uniform driving to work, is she not?
Why not? If you are entirely blameless, why not? And if you had given the flight number, etc. how difficult would it have been for them to send Catbert from HR to investigate? If they had ferreted out the miscreant and fired her on the spot, would you still hold yourself blameless?
If she has children to support? An aging mother? If she were saving up to buy some very special, high-yield low sulpher coal?
Now, I do not mean to align myself with certain Unnamed Ones, whose personal invective towards you was way, way out of line.
Nonetheless, I can’t see why you felt impelled to take any action whatsoever.
That’s just not the case. An airport terminal is not a public forum for first amendment purposes. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992).
Even if it were, like Tranquilis, ScoobyTX, Zoff, and others keep pointing out, just because you’d be allowed to express your political views there doesn’t mean you’d be entitled to employment there. American Airlines just isn’t bound by the first amendment.