What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
218 Comments
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -33/+262Yeah... thats nice and all... but Virgin Blue has the right to refuse your patronage... Congress has jack ***** to do with it. Dumbass.
- egbert, on 10/12/2007, -6/+231That is the US Constitution... the incident took place in Australia. US Laws do not apply.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -27/+119"A Virgin Blue spokeswoman said the airline had a policy to ban offensive clothing and bare feet. "Most people use common sense and don't go out of their way to offend people," she said."
That makes so much more sense than whatever this guy's argument was. When people abuse free speech they only do harm to the cause. - gharding, on 10/12/2007, -9/+87Oh ***** off. Freedom of speech DOES NOT APPLY TO CORPORATIONS. If you go into McDonalds and sit at your table and scream "I ***** BABIES" you're going to get kicked out. Hell, they don't even need a reason.. they have the right to kick you out.
- fourcylthrill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+63I agree with the virgin blue has the right to refuse service to anyone thing... but i don't think they enforce it
http://www.tshirthell.com/images/contestpics/a102_001.jpg - Eldorian, on 10/12/2007, -12/+55Corporations have the right to refuse service to anyone they deem necessary. It has nothing to do with the government.
Buried as inaccurate. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45Now, I'm not very good with dates, but I could SWEAR that it's not the year 2007.
- gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -16/+51sez fourcylthrill
"I agree with the virgin blue has the right to refuse service to anyone thing... but i don't think they enforce it
http://www.tshirthell.com/images/contestpics/a102_001.jpg"
Regarding that dude in the "I Plane NY" T-shirt. What a barfbag.
He shows up at the airport in his lame shirt hoping to get thrown out, so he can see his story on boingboing.net.
As bad luck would have it, a mere glance at him makes it clear that the only way he could pose a threat to another human being is if he handled their food.
Two airport employees -- perhaps overworked and tired from doing things that shirthead is not fully familiar with -- things like working, paying bills, washing their hair -- miss the fact that shirt-for-brains is wearing a lame 911 iron-on T to cover his shiny, unsightly chest.
Still smarting that he can't make his point that TSA workers are fascist thugs, he does the next best thing and manages to get a photograph to prove that they are witless boobs. (The fact that this prank will probably lead to reprimands for the good-natured airline workers is of little concern to the oil-rich traveler and his many and productive pores.)
Pleased with his accomplishment, he moves on to the next great achievement like farting in an elevator just before he exits to prove that western culture sucks like so totally. - nmeadata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35He was in Australia at the time, I wonder how that chain of events would work out in a us airport?
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -16/+46GITMOED!
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35I can invite you into my house and then I can kick you out if you call me an a-hole. You have the right to free speech but not on my property and perhaps not on this particular airline's property either.
- Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37The airline is perfectly within their rights to refuse any customer. And for the guy who said "When people abuse free speech they only do harm to the cause."... would you care to explain how it's possible to abuse free speech?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34im pretty sure it was because of 'terrorist' not bush
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25@soccer
actually, the quote is:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
it's always cute when people try to manipulate that quote.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/11/hh11q.htm - GlenLeafJr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26When did I lose my Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean I can get on the podium when the president is speaking and tell him he sucks.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean I can form a drum-line directly in front of the podium either.
Freedom of Speech means that anyone from Micheal Moore to Ann Coulter is FREE to SPEAK whatever they wish without fear of punishment by the government. - Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23and it should stay that way.
- iceparrot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Oh brother.
People love to invoke "free speech" whenever it suits them.
You don't have a right to free speech in America. You only have the right not to have the Government censor your speech. There is also no right not to have repercussions for said speech. If you say something stupidly offensive and it costs you your seat on an airline, in the bar or even your job, that's your own fault.
This man was not thrown in jail. He was just told he couldn't go on the airline wearing that shirt. They told him he could simply get a new T-shirt, and he did. He didn't get barred from travel by any means. He is welcome to talk about his experience, boycott Virgin Airlines, start a movement of anti-Bush t-shirt protesting.
Free speech would be violated only if the US (or Australian) government came in and censored this STORY :P
(Also, before you start commenting on the story, try READING IT) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26Freedom of speech only applies to government vs citizens, not businesses vs customers. Additionally, the guys shirt had the word "terrorist" on it.
Now, while I'm all for allowing people to express themselves, I don't think the airline overstepped the bounds of decency in asking him to not display the word "terrorist" while onboard one of its planes. - GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Whether we personally know President Bush or not, he has an undeniable effect on all our lives, thus it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to express their opinion of what kind of job he's doing in a non-violent way. I honestly don't think meeting the man personally would change my opinion on his administration's policy.
- jkenda, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Once you desire to pass through the secured area of an airport, there's no right to freedom of speech. That's why they have the signs by the metal detectors telling you that any kind of jokes about bombs, terrorism et al will result in your not flying.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20@ clowe
You might want to look at what liberal minded students do. Is the government banning free speech when college students throw a pie at Ann Coulter, and will not allow her to speak? Is the government banning free speech when liberal students at Columbia university violently attack the Minute men spokesperson when they come to campus as a speaker? There are nearly a dozen more I can throw out where people on the left actively hinder free speech, yet those VERY SAME PEOPLE claim the government is taking theirs away and that isn't acceptable. Might want to ponder that for a second. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Yes those slimy TSA/CIA agents.
They all work for the man and at minimum wage. - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@ gravytop
"...is if he handled their food."
Rich man... rich. - you got me laughing pretty hard. - coreoption, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I'm guessing it was because of the word terrorist rather than an anti-bush statement.
- tevetorbes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9First of all, the "right to refuse service" to someone (in America) is tricky. You cannot refuse service to someone based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
In addition, there are specific laws set up (the Unruh Civil Rights Act, for example) that can make it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.
That being said, we're talking about Australia here, I know. But I really hope you fscktards stop saying that a company can deny service to somebody, because that blanket statement just isn't true. - Pelapp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Digg hunting sensationalism indeed.
I hate these obliously biased inaccurate headlines! - A1kmm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8> 1) It's the companies right to refuse to let someone on. Has nothing to do with free
> speech.
No, the company was relying on laws to deny him the ability to board the plane, solely based on free speech (for example, if he had refused to remove the T-shirt, they would presumably have used trespass or other laws against him, and they are also using contract laws to control what he can do).
> 2) He was Australian, he doesn't have the same rights as a citizen of the US.
You are confusing rights and laws. Freedom of speech (especially on political issues) is a basic inalienable human right, which every human being ever born has. In many places in the world, people are denied the ability to exercise that right by force or coercion, or not guaranteed the right by entrenched legislation, but that doesn't change the fact that human rights are being denied.
Australia has passed legislation to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Politcal Rights. See:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/bodylodgmentattachments/C5903F3A68E87093CA257140001ACE6A?OpenDocument#para4.0
Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Politcal Rights
"
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
"
> 3) Was it the picture or the text? Really now, I don't think the picture had anything to do
> with it. It could have been anyones picture.
Right, because anyone who goes around wearing a T-shirt reading "Worlds #1 Terrorist" must be a terrorist. In fact, it is probably Al Qaeda's policy to wear such T-shirts. - bdickason, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Have to agree here, reminds me of Ben Stiller boarding the airplane in Meet the Parents! 'Bomb ba-ba-bomb ba-bomb ba-bomb bomb!'
- rudy23, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21synonyms?
- stepanstas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I hate to call people stupid, but the picture could have been of anyone
i think its the terrorist word that gets it - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11If you've no right to speak on private property, than the 1st amendment is useless. EVERY DAMNED THING in the world is on private property, including city streets, which are maintained by the chartered city corporation. You just may have the right to speak to a polar bear on an ice floe, if no one can hear you or claim they own that ice floe.
- GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, it's pretty much a bad idea to go into an airport wearing a t-shirt with the words "World's #1 Terrorist" on it. I imagine people might tend to jump to conclusions.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10If it happened in an US airport, no one would know about it because "terrorists" have no rights.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17Government has something to do with it: the Bush government and all their supporters are making their displeasure known to anyone who criticises them. So the t-shirt is banned.
Two: Saying Bush is a terrorist is not a controversial comment other than in the rightist countries of Australia and the U.S.
Three: it's not right because someone in Syria gets killed by their government. Non sequitur.
Four: If free speech can be denied by a corporation, then there can be no free speech. The "only the government can suppress" meme is nonsense. Damned near every piece of land in the world is owned or will be owned by a corporation, or will be, and if they can tell you to remove a t-shirt that offends their Leader's honor, than there isn't any place in the world you can wear one. And your home is no harbor -- recall the teenaged girl who was visited by the SS because a neighbor called in to report an anti-Bush poster on her bedroom wall.
If they can shut you up, there is no freedom to speak. This is an obvious point, but seems beyond the ability of Americans to grasp. - RedbeardUH, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15@socc so you're willing to give up speed limits or red lights just so you can freely drive the way you want to?
Structure =/= absense of freedom. That being said...this is not a "freedom of speech" issue its an issue about image. Airlines have an image that's not quite the same as your local college campus. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ironically, if you had lost someone on 9-11, you might very well be the person wearing that tee shirt -- or at least totally agreeing with the statement.
- tevetorbes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4OK, again we're talking about Australia and not the US, and I'm not sure about Australian law, but in the US, an airline is not allowed to boot absolutely anyone from a plane.
I hope all you digg-pseudo-law-professionals make buckets of money for your sound legal advice. - joshman5k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They had no problem paging Terry Wrist!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FkYPV7Iwu4 - m1ch184, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Australia, as a member of the United Nations, therefore must abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Source: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10It's a shame, but is it really such a great idea to wear a shirt like that to an airport, given the current sensitivity the world has to these sorts of things? I mean, out of all the t-shirts to wear...
It's like walking into a den of lions with meat strapped to your face and wondering why they're going after you. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"don't think the airline overstepped the bounds of decency in asking him to not display the word 'terrorist' while onboard one of its planes."
Of course – as we all well know, the First Amendment includes the right not to be offended. - MakinBacon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5But would you would kick me out of your house for wearing a t-shirt calling a guy down the street an a-hole?
- GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The shirt was suggesting that Bush was in fact the World's #1 Terrorist.
- m1ch184, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@tarmithius
The reason theres a bible quote there Might be because of the fact that regardless of what you believe, the bible has influenced many cultures in our world. The very fact that the bible has permeated into as many world cultures as it has defines it as a document of immense cultural value. Perhaps you should consider the "free speech" that you seem so inclined to protect before making such negative comments about what someone decides to put on a page of quotes of liberty. - gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"If you've no right to speak on private property, than the 1st amendment is useless. EVERY DAMNED THING in the world is on private property, including city streets, which are maintained by the chartered city corporation. You just may have the right to speak to a polar bear on an ice floe, if no one can hear you or claim they own that ice floe."
Not quite true. In fact, not even remotely true. There is a large body of 1st Amendment Case law; and under the law in the US, just because you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or can't scream "kill all the jews" in an airport is a separate question from whether or not you can say those things on a city street (in the United States, anyway. In Europe you will get jailed for the latter, and in other countries you'll just blend in.)
As for the application of the first amendment to conversations with polar bears, um... OK. - modifiedbears, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So all you people saying "omg it's because his shirt says terrorist" please explain how the word terrorist on a tshirt does anything? Why would this raise red flags with anyone? A real terrorist isn't going to walk in with something like that on. They should've just ignored him instead of giving him the attention he was looking for. Do we need to go back to elementary school to learn to just ignore those who seek undeserved attention? If you don't give them the attention then they go away.
- RedbeardUH, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Let's go over fundamental corporation economics: Corporations are bound _by law_ to maximize profits. Where (if ever) do airlines get their profits? From First class/business class. Thus corporations try to appeal to that class of people and I'm pretty sure that class of people do not want airlines to be a medium of political discussion.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Also, if you really want to continue arguing, I'll point out that Australia has no bill of rights and does NOT have guaranteed freedom of speech, so EVEN IF you are so unwilling to understand that this has nothing to do with 'Big Money,' You can know that the guy doesn't even have any 'freedom of speech' to be waived.
- GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If people pay 'hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars' to get on a flight I think they're entitled to wear whatever they want without people looking down their nose at them.
- BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Airlines might be private but it's unfair they get that treatment. It's a necessity of life now and beyond that, most of them are running because of OUR taxes. Anytime an airline goes bankrupt the government steps in and helps them out with our money!
The TSA isn't private either. In light of this, I think we *should* be treated as if we were on public property. It isn't like they are self-sufficient. If they can run without a DIME of tax money and manage their own security, then we can talk about them having the right to do what they want.
Just another case of the sheep defending the butcher I guess. -
Show 51 - 100 of 218 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 