But everyone has d right to wear what he/she want. So what's up americana

WriterNig:


Is America no longer the land of the free anymore?

Cc Lalasticlala Mynd44 Seun

Biden's America

Wahala everywhere

1stGenAmerican:


If you knew and understood the First Amendment then you would realize how false your statement is.

Okay why don't you educate me about it? You mean an airline/business can deny you service you paid for just because they do not like the shirt or pants you're wearing? How does this differ from not liking your hairstyle or looks? The only rights not protected are those that constitute hate crime or criminal in nature. Either way there's no point in arguing here, sentiments are cheap, when it gets to court it's another ball game.

anonimi:


You should have provided the link for the UA case.
How much do you plan to contribute to the fees of the popular lawyer?

I don't have time but I'm sure many can search it online, there are more than one instances of denial of service from SouthWest Arilines to American Airlines and I'm not just talking about clothing, it can be anything from being dragged off the plane excessively, denial of service based on weight, looks etc. Furthermore your point of lawyer fee is irrelevant because if it is a winnable case, most lawyers in the USA collect zero fees and will get compensation from the settlement.

Sunmoluvic:

Chai, see talk, show me the similar case a abeg, I no get time to dey argue

Google is your friend, just Google man dragged off plane or humiliation airline lawsuit.

abbey621:


Google is your friend, just Google man dragged off plane or humiliation airline lawsuit.

Lol, the first question to ask yourself is why was he dragged off the plane, after reading the whole thing, it was obviously for no reason, you can't even compare that with this one. The airline offered $1k to anyone who could give up there seat for something, no one did, so they decided to pick someone themself which they picked the guy, but the guy refused, so they dragged him out, therefore injuring him.
This is a different situation bro.

This is what the law says:
The First Amendment grants you the right to freedom of speech and expression. So you are generally free to say or wear what you want, regardless of how crass or offensive.

However, while the First Amendment is applicable in the public sphere, it has no application in the private sphere.

Sunmoluvic:

Lol, the first question to ask yourself is why was he dragged off the plane, after reading the whole thing, it was obviously for no reason, you can't even compare that with this one. The airline offered $1k to anyone who could give up there seat for something, no one did, so they decided to pick someone themself which they picked the guy, but the guy refused, so they dragged him out, therefore injuring him.
This is a different situation bro.

This is what the law says:
The First Amendment grants you the right to freedom of speech and expression. So you are generally free to say or wear what you want, regardless of how crass or offensive.

However, while the First Amendment is applicable in the public sphere, it has no application in the private sphere.

Actually you've interpreted the First Amendment incorrectly, you cannot wear a NAZI or KKK attire and they let it slide, however being denied service you paid for based on Hijab, based on your dreadlocks, based on leggings etc is definitely an infringement that can be argued in court. You will find that what we normal people think is reasonable differs from how lawyers and the court interprete things. Remember in law, it is not about what is right or wrong but what can be proven or who can sway the judge or jury the most. Finally, also remmeber as a company worth billions, most of the time they settle out of court if there's any possibility of reputational and/or financial liability.

Oh

1stGenAmerican:


The airline’s policy speaks to offensive apparel. She has no case.

What's the legal definition of offensive apparel and offensive to who?

Some will consider a tee shirt with the inscription "Jesus is Lord" offensive, while others will find the word "Nigga" offensive?

If we start dealing with people based on the inscriptions on people's shirt or trousers we fund offensive, there would be lots of chaos in the world.

abbey621:


Actually you've interpreted the First Amendment incorrectly, you cannot wear a NAZI or KKK attire and they let it slide, however being denied service you paid for based on Hijab, based on your dreadlocks, based on leggings etc is definitely an infringement that can be argued in court. You will find that what we normal people think is reasonable differs from how lawyers and the court interprete things. Remember in law, it is not about what is right or wrong but what can be proven or who can sway the judge or jury the most. Finally, also remmeber as a company worth billions, most of the time they settle out of court if there's any possibility of reputational and/or financial liability.

As they say in law, you are rebrobating and approbating at the same time. You cannot wear a Nazi or a KKK insignia which offends some people, but you can wear an hijab or dreadlocks which offends others? How are you able to make sense of that.

You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for wearing a Nazi or KKK insignia on your shirt in the US. Lots of people find it offensive, but it is not against constitutional rights and freedom.

Koreans are often very decent, this is one of those americanised fake koreans

wirinet:


As they say in law, you are rebrobating and approbating at the same time. You cannot wear a Nazi or a KKK insignia which offends some people, but you can wear an hijab or dreadlocks which offends others? How are you able to make sense of that.

You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for wearing a Nazi or KKK insignia on your shirt in the US. Lots of people find it offensive, but it is not against constitutional rights and freedom.

Please don't say what you don't know, I am not only talking about criminal liabilities but civil as well. You can be sued for anything in the civil court in the USA. Furthermore we are talking about the right to deny service as a business, the courts have ruled that the contarct of carriage enforced by these airlines are valid as long as they can defend it.

In the court of law, wearing KKK or NAZI attire in an airport or when boarding a plane is not only seen as disturbing the peace but a valid reason to deny service as it is offensive to majority of customers and could result in substantial loss of revenue for the business. U.S laws are very complicated, you have to do your research and look at past cases to grasp the entire picture.

1stGenAmerican:


My observation is that you have serious self-hate and inferiority complexes, romanticizing one race while being uninformed about your own.
Goodbye.

Continue observing.

The fact does not know emotions

Uninformed about my own race...lol, i know my race well

abbey621:


Please don't say what you don't know, I am not only talking about criminal liabilities but civil as well. You can be sued for anything in the civil court in the USA. Furthermore we are talking about the right to deny service as a business, the courts have ruled that the contarct of carriage enforced by these airlines are valid as long as they can defend it.

In the court of law, wearing KKK or NAZI attire in an airport or when boarding a plane is not only seen as disturbing the peace but a valid reason to deny service as it is offensive to majority of customers and could result in substantial loss of revenue for the business. U.S laws are very complicated, you have to do your research and look at past cases to grasp the entire picture.

Give me examples.

wirinet:


Give me examples.

Please search on Google for many many examples. Here are some examples of airlines refusing service for what they considered offensive:

https://mustreadalaska.com/woman-says-she-was-removed-from-alaska-airlines-jet-for-wearing-a-trump-mask/
https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/man-booted-from-allegiant-flight-for-lets-go-brandon-mask/
https://viewfromthewing.com/watch-delta-kick-this-passenger-off-flight-for-his-offensive-hoodie/

wirinet:

What's the legal definition of offensive apparel and offensive to who ?

Some will consider a tee shirt with the inscription "Jesus is Lord" offensive, while others will find the word "Nigga" offensive?

If we start dealing with people based on the inscriptions on people's shirt or trousers we fund offensive, there would be lots of chaos in the world.

The airline, that’s who . The airline’s policy allows ground and flight crews to exercise discretion.

It’s located many places including the airline’s business policies, the terms and agreements that passengers accept when a flight is booked, and also passenger rules and regulations. In the US, companies are obligated to display government and also private policies in plain sight to the customers. The terms offensive and vulgarities are “at the discretion of the company and its representatives” although broad categories are listed.

abbey621:


Okay why don't you educate me about it? You mean an airline/business can deny you service you paid for just because they do not like the shirt or pants you're wearing? How does this differ from uu not liking your hairstyle or looks? The only rights not protected are those that constitute hate crime or criminal in nature. Either way there's no point in arguing here, [/[b][/b]b]sentiments are cheap, when it gets to court it's another ball game.

What you should take note of before anything else is that the First Amendment guarantees rights to American citizens and legal aliens The DJ is a citizen of South Korea and while she may enjoy a few rights while on American soil, she is not an American citizen so there is no guarantee.

Next, the First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Categories of speech that have minuscule to no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial . Non-government entities reserve specific rights which allows certain types of censorship.

Starcy:
But everyone has d right to wear what he/she want. So what's up americana

You are right, everyone does have the right to wear whatever they want however businesses have the right to refuse service, ask you to leave the premises, etc. if you are wearing something that goes against their rules.

abbey621:


Please don't say what you don't know, I am not only talking about criminal liabilities but civil as well. You can be sued for anything in the civil court in the USA. Furthermore we are talking about the right to deny service as a business, the courts have ruled that the contarct of carriage enforced by these airlines are valid as long as they can defend it.

In the court of law, wearing KKK or NAZI attire in an airport or when boarding a plane is not only seen as disturbing the peace but a valid reason to deny service as it is offensive to majority of customers and could result in substantial loss of revenue for the business. U.S laws are very complicated, you have to do your research and look at past cases to grasp the entire picture.

Yes, there’s some truth to what you’re saying. Hate groups such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis have the right to assemble publicly or amongst themselves as long as no laws are broken however non-government businesses reserve the right to refuse service depending on their policies.