• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The word "****" on a t-shirt - freedom of speech?

Although I agree with the message on the shirt, and actually find it funny, I think that it was in poor taste for her to wear the shirt. I'm a bit 50/50 on weither or not the airline should have told her to get off because of it, but it most definately was an inappropriate thing to wear on a plane. At home or at a friends, sure, but not on a commercial plane.
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
I'm a bit 50/50 on weither or not the airline should have told her to get off because of it
Click to expand...

She was given multiple options of things she could do to stay on the plane. It was her choice to leave. Her choice.

The airline was well within their rights as far as I'm concerned. This woman was obviously looking to make a statement and she did. I would hope that a judge would fine her for wasting the time of the court should she decide to bring a lawsuit against the airline.

The woman was an idiot, and the only problem I have with the airline was why they allowed the idiot to even get on the plane in the first place.
 
The word "torture" causes me much, much more distress. I wonder if there is any way we can have that word banned from clothing...

"Maim" is pretty bad, too.
 
Being a Cuban-American, this t-shirt is offensive to me:

71306.jpg


Nonetheless, I say wear it if it turns you on. You have that right regardless of how it makes me feel. Freedom is beautiful and we should all cherish it even when it offends.

Some folks feel that Che was a hero- an social icon of sorts. Everyone has the right to think; everyone has the right to wear what they desire. I have no problem seeing someone wear (or defend) clothing of Che, or Hitler, or Bin Laden, or Satan (666). It is a free country...wear what you like.

I think that lady in the plane had the right to wear her shirt. The only concern I would have would be the children on board. Otherwise leave her alone and don't be so over dramatic. Just look away.
 
Well said, AquaBlue,
It just does seem that as life goes along we have to learn to tolerate (or endure) more and more as part of expanding freedom. The name of the game, it would seem.
Peder
 
What I find amusing is that its not even a word.

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

Arrest sheets 17th century England.

Prostitution.

It may be legal to have it on a tee shirt, but its in
very poor taste, and I would certainly wonder about the intelligence of the wearer.
 
pontalba said:
It may be legal to have it on a tee shirt, but its in
very poor taste, and I would certainly wonder about the intelligence of the wearer.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you 100%.
 
there has to be a limit to freedom of expression when it sets out to deliberately inflame people and/or target individual groups/people. A healthy (and controverial) discussion is great but people walking around with controversial/racist/sexist/plain rude slogans on their t-shirts etc witth no understanding/interest in the implications is just very damaging.

Less importantly perhaps than the above, I, for one, deliberately stopped shopping in French Connection when most of their stuff was branded FCUK. How can i be telling my kids that saying "****" etc is not an OK thing to do when i (and more importantly) other people are walking around with an anagram of the same on their t-shirts?

I realise that this is completley against the right of freedom of speech but there has to be a limit. (surely?)
 
What people wear is their own business, whether in poor taste or not. However, there has to be limit to how far things can go. The overuse of the f-word in public is the reason why even innocent pre-K kids can even be found using it. Even though it is not a direct danger to anyone, it is a danger to society. If this word becomes ingrained in these kid's volcabulary, this world will become a very sad place. I hear it everyday at school, at my friends' homes, public places. I do support the freedom of speech (including flag burning) but I don't think a limitation would be a violation of the first amendment. For example, we are not 'allowed' to swear in school, and since swearing is a disruption to the learning environment, and Supreme Court ruled that education comes first, this isn't really a violation.

Furthermore, if the airline (in the first post) is a privately-owned company, and the passenger was a voluntary consumer, then the airline has every right to request that she change her shirt. It is not a public place and is not imposed by the government. Not that the First Amendment was written to protect the people from the federal government, not from each other, and the Bill of Rights applies only to oppression by the federal government (exclusing state and local government, other citizens, and the private sector). In the same way, you can't sue someone for kicking you out of their house for swearing at you. The plane is not government owned or government employed. You can be refused service in a restaurant for lack of shoes or a shirt, even if you feel it is symbolic speech or a demonstration or something like that. Wouldn't this fall under the same category?
 
Does anyone know if the woman actually did sue? How did it turn out?
Sorry, I'm just too lazy to wade through all those posts, if it's in there.
 
AquaBlue said:
I think that lady in the plane had the right to wear her shirt. The only concern I would have would be the children on board. Otherwise leave her alone and don't be so over dramatic. Just look away.
Click to expand...
But because of the children, did she have the right to wear that t-shirt? I agree with the posters who questioned this lady's IQ - it's just inappropriate and pretty juvenile.
 
veggiedog said:
You can be refused service in a restaurant for lack of shoes or a shirt, even if you feel it is symbolic speech or a demonstration or something like that. Wouldn't this fall under the same category?
Click to expand...

yeah, but it's usually stated "no shirt no shoes no service" somewhere on the door.

planes don't come with dress codes.
 
pontalba said:
What I find amusing is that its not even a word.

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a backronym though? There's also:
Fornication Under Consent of the King.

As an aside, I know this is an old thread, but I would personally be offended if I saw a stranger on a plane wearing atire such as this. I agree with all of the comments re how tasteless, attention-seeking and lacking intelligence the wearer would be, especially to "prove her point" in such a juvenile way.

To go way back to ruby and cajunmamma's debate, I would be horrified if someone turned up to tea at my home and subjected my children (of any age, 8, 9, 15, or 25) to clothing such as is described.

AquaBlue said:
Freedom is beautiful and we should all cherish it even when it offends.
Click to expand...
:eek:

I disagree with that statement.
 
Steffee For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge is what the policemen would write on the arrest sheet when they arrested prostitutes. Then, either wanting to, or not bothering to take the time to write the entire thing down, they would put a period after each letter, then the periods disappeared as well.
 
Oh really, Pontalba? I apologise, then.

I read a wikipedia entry a few months ago, looking for something else (honestly!) and remembered the backronym bits...

Stolen from Wikipedia:

False etymologies
There are several urban-legend fake etymologies postulating an acronymic origin for the word. One legend holds that the word "****" came from Irish law. If a couple committing adultery were "Found Under Carnal Knowledge" they would be penalized, with "****" written on the stocks above them to denote the crime. Alternative explanations for "****" as an acronym for adultery pin it as "Fornication Under Cardinal/Carnal Knowledge", or "Fornication Under the Consent/Command of the King". Another story is that it was written in the log book as "****" when people in the military or navy who had homosexual intercourse were being punished. Variants of this include "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", "For Using Carnal Knowledge", "Felonious Use of Carnal Knowledge", "Full Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", "False Use of Carnal Knowledge" and "Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", a label supposedly applied to the crime of rape. In some reports, there are tombstones around English cemeteries that had the word **** engraved in uppercase letters. These referred to those who were put to death for crimes against the state and the church. In another story, a sign reading "Fornication Under Consent of the King" was supposedly placed on signs above houses in medieval Britain during times of population control and was special permission given to knights (droit de seigneur), by their king, when a knight wished to have sex with a woman.

None of these acronyms were ever heard before the 1960s, according to the authoritative lexicographical work, The F-Word, and so are backronyms. In any event, the word "****" has been in use for too long for some of these supposed origins to be possible. It should also be noted that acronyms themselves were rare prior to the 20th century.
Click to expand...
 
Steffee The only source I have is a footnote in the book Storyville, they claimed it came to use in 17th century England by the London police. It sounded entirely plausible, and logical to me.
You know as an aside, in the movie Braveheart, that was the only jarring note that just didn't fit to me, the use of that particular word. Way too early. I noticed in particular as I read that Gibson tried to make that film as true to Period as possible.
 
pontalba said:
Steffee The only source I have is a footnote in the book Storyville, they claimed it came to use in 17th century England by the London police. It sounded entirely plausible, and logical to me.
You know as an aside, in the movie Braveheart, that was the only jarring note that just didn't fit to me, the use of that particular word. Way too early. I noticed in particular as I read that Gibson tried to make that film as true to Period as possible.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Well the wiki article states that acronyms weren't around much before the 20th century, so... also, at the wiki link (which may not actually be true anyway, as we all know), there are examples of how it was taboo as early as the 1500s, so, I dunno. Your explanation sound plausible, though, I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top