This is a private company that has also disallowed Black Panther hats.
It has nothing to do with whether it’s allowed under the First Amendment.
It has to do with whether the private company is selectively applying a policy based on racial bias, intentionally or not.
And from all appearances, that’s exactly what happened in this instance.
I was replying to thread starting with a hypothetical from bobtato about creating a shirt with a sharpy that targeted a specific person. He said:
In that context there was a discussion of if that shirt would be protected by the first amendment as was implied, and why one shirt might be protected while another might not.
I don’t recall having ever stated or implied that United’s behaviors were, could, or should be justified by the first amendment.
The point is “the line” was never with the First Amendment in the first place. You weren’t the one to introduce that example, but it’s still absolutely moot, for all the people who brought it up.
Except that, as speech not protected by the first amendment, @bobtato might actually go to jail for wearing that shirt, regardless of what United does.
Yes, and if he wore a hat more often he wouldn’t get as much sun on his nose…
This is a thread about United’s hassling some people and not others, not about all possible expression of speech.
IMHO, any garment created by and/or licensed and sold with the direct approval of the Walt Disney corporation should grant the wearer immunity to any challenges based on the “appropriateness” of the garment.
If a person can show that the garment in question that someone has challenged their right to wear is, in fact, an officially licensed Disney garment, the person who challenged the person should be charged with harassment and held in prison.
There may be further brands named to the list as well.
As a fan of Ken White, I feel compelled to point out that he would be the first to mock the inanity of thinking the First Amendment limits what private individuals and companies can disallow on their private property and platforms.
UA has zero legal obligation to allow specific articles of clothing on their airline, and their discrimination in what they allow and who they allow is entirely their own responsibility, which in these cases was racist and fascist as fuck!
That really depends on the shape of the hat and the context in which he wears it.
But we may be getting a little off topic. 
Well, to be honest, it’s all moot because apparently the message on the shirt/hat really isn’t the deciding factor…
What’s probably important is how much melanin does @bobtato have?
I’m super-caucasian. Why do you think threats of horrible violence against strangers come so easily to me?
ETA I forgot that I present as a Treen in my profile pic. That’s just for humorous effect because of my large bald head; Venus is actually uninhabited IRL
Then I declare without any evidence at all that you could get away with it! (please please do not test the waters…)
This is a great opportunity to point out the difference between white privilege and white entitlement.
The guy with the shirt felt perfectly entitled to wear a slogan threatening journalists with lynching, even though lynching is both a state and federal crime. He felt it was his right to promote illegal violence, he was entitled to do that. And the slogan indicates he’s part of a group of Trumpists who are comfortable with the rhetoric and beliefs of white supremacy. Those two things together indicate that he was most likely acting out a combination of American entitlement and white entitlement rather than, say, rich guy entitlement; he can say any damn thing he pleases because he’s an American white guy. Two kinds of entitlement at once? Yes, life is not as simple as college courses in social dynamics sometimes pretend. There are many other kinds of entitlement, of course, but the white entitlement part of this guy’s thinking is a symptom of white supremacist thinking.
The United staff accorded this guy white privilege - he didn’t have to ask for it, he doesn’t even have to want it (in this case of course he did) they just gave it. They deferred to him because he was white, where a person of color wearing a shirt threatening death would have been challenged. That’s what white privilege is, it’s special treatment by others.
The two together are much more toxic than either one on its own.
Why am I pointing out that entitlement is feeling that you have special rights because of some quality or set of qualities you have, where privilege is something given to you by other people whether you ask for it or not? Because the two get confused here at BoingBoing a lot, and understanding their difference and how they work together helps us understand bad situations like this.
You can’t really “check your privilege”, since that’s something other people sometimes give you whether you want it or not (and you’re not likely to have any white privilege given to you on BoingBoing threads!). You CAN (and should), however, “check your entitlement”, and not make assumptions about your superiority to other people (whatever kind of entitlement you may act out of).
I believe that we wouldn’t hear about people not being told to remove ‘Black Panther’ caps, but I’m not convinced that there’s cases where people are being told to cover shirts like this and we’re not hearing about it. The entitlement and brashness it takes to wear the shirt would seem to make one likely to not let it go if you’re confronted with consequences for your behavior.
Plus I don’t think it really matters if they allow some ‘Black Panther’ caps and not others. The point is United backed up a flight staff’s racist discretion – pilots can make you change clothes if they’re uncomfortable (an invitation to let your unconscious racial biases to shine through). It’s still a racism-enabling set-up, even if not every pilot reacts the same way to every ‘Black Panther’ cap.
So, I don’t know, I just don’t think selection bias is relevant here as you’re describing it. It’s not about ‘inconsistencies in policy,’ it’s about the ways racism and White supremacy work there way into institutions and their everyday workings.
not how it actually works.
An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason.
same is true for public places like stores and restaurants.
online spaces are different because congress and the courts have been trying to be hands off. it’s still a question are they more like a private home, or more like a public business.
eventually, it’ll probably come down to scale. where small sites can discriminate - as long as it’s not discrimination of a class of people - and larger sites like facebook cannot.
a plane though. you can bet people can sue over first amendment issues.
I still don’t see how this is a First Amendment issue. IANAL, but the First Amendment says the Federal government can’t obstruct freedom of expression. If there’s a law limiting organizations other than the government from doing so, how is that law the First Amendment? AFAIK common carriers are not an organ of the US Federal government.
ETA: I get that the Incorporation Doctrine extends the Bill of Right to the States’ governments. I also realize that in my zeal to rebuke the argument that the First Amendment applies to private organizations such as UA that I said something dumb and wrong, namely that the they have zero legal obligations about who to let aboard expressing what, and your point about common carriers rebuts that error of mine. But I still don’t see where that’s a First Amendment issue.
the transitive property? the laws say something like: you are a public facility in the same way a public park or school or library is. the government can’t limit speech in those public spaces, so neither can you.
it makes sense really. there isn’t a “free market.” all commerce flows from the government regulations that permit some things while limiting others. ( private property defended by a standing army, a police force, etc. money backed by the government; hence the bailout, etc. ) businesses are always going to be subject to the constituton by proxy.
congress and the courts basically get to decide which constitutonal provisions matter more when two parties interact.
in this case, free association or free speech. common carrier law generally seems to favor free speech over free association ( who you can limit your association with. )
companies like united - unfortunately - realize that white people have more power in this society, so a company is much more likely to cater to white demands for free speech vs. minority concerns over fears from malice and threat. knowing the courts will likely back them up
i also am not a lawyer 
No worries. You’re one of the good-faith regulars here. That’s why I followed up. I think I get what you’re driving at, that common carriers are in some way like publicly-funded schools. We’re way above my pay-grade here, but the legal aspects fascinate me.
100% agree. Whatever their exact Constitutional legal obligations, which I’m likely off-base about, UA racially discriminated, which is definitely illegal.
