Main Hall
Emily Gillette
Emily Gillette VS. Delta Airlines
Charge: I was taken off an airplane because I wouldn't cover myself with a blanket while nursing my daughter
Gillette's suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages from Delta Airlines, Freedom Airlines and Mesa Air Group. The lawsuit says Freedom uses Mesa aircraft to run flights under contract with Delta, and that Gillette's flight was booked with Delta.
Delta Airlines
Case Status: CLOSED
Case Opened By: Matt U. Seed on October 11, 2009
Bookmark Subscribe Widget
Closed Case
Time Left For Court Rulling Ruled on
October 18 2009
Guilty: 4 Not Guilty: 10
Delta Airlines was found
Not Guilty

CASE SUMMARY
Votings:
Guilty: 4
Not Guilty: 10
Arguments:
Prosecution Arguments: 7
Defense Arguments: 6
Total Arguments Strength:
Prosecution: 1
Defense: 3

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

PROSECUTION
Most Active Member of the Prosecution:
Attackgypsy
6 Arguments
Stronget Prosecution Argument: (Strength: 1)
Dan Rimon
 its an airplane, where will she go. there is no room to do it in a bathroom of an airplane. i think the air lines behaved very badly in this case.
Posted by Dan Rimon 
Most Opposed Prosecution Argument: (2 Opposing Arguments)
Attackgypsy
 Forcing someone to cover their child's head while breastfeeding is indecent in and of itself. It is also dangerous to the child. Children are very delicate and stop breathing very easily. Unless the woman took her shirt completely off in front of everyone, no one should have even noticed it.If she did do that, then she's an idiot. But there is no evidence of this in this case.
Posted by Attackgypsy 
 

DEFENSE
Most Active Member of the Defense:
Andrew Rhodes
3 Arguments
Stronget Defense Argument: (Strength: 2)
Matt U. Seed
 some mothers think they can breast feed where ever they want. not all of us need to see it. you should have covered yourself!
Posted by Matt U. Seed 
Most Opposed Defense Argument: (1 Opposing Arguments)
Matt U. Seed
 some mothers think they can breast feed where ever they want. not all of us need to see it. you should have covered yourself!
Posted by Matt U. Seed 

CASE ARGUMENTS

PROSECUTION
Sort By:   Newest |  Strongest |  Most Opposed To
Attackgypsy
 Georgia General Code 31-1-9 says:The breast-feeding of a baby is an important and basic act of nurture which should be encouraged in the interests of maternal and child health. A mother may breast-feed her baby in any location where the mother and baby are otherwise authorized to be.Unfortunately, it says nothing about a cover being required or not required. So I will cede the legal point, but not the moral point..
Posted by Attackgypsy 10 Months ago.
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
 (0)
Attackgypsy
 Forcing someone to cover their child's head while breastfeeding is indecent in and of itself. It is also dangerous to the child. Children are very delicate and stop breathing very easily. Unless the woman took her shirt completely off in front of everyone, no one should have even noticed it.If she did do that, then she's an idiot. But there is no evidence of this in this case.
Posted by Attackgypsy 10 Months ago.  as a reply to this argument 
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
View (2)
Attackgypsy
 A) Georgia has a nearly identical law. B) Georgia is one of twenty seven states where the law states that breastfeeding in public is exempt from public indecency laws. C) Sexual content ALWAYS has something to do with it. That's where indecency laws come from. D) Common carrier it may be, however they are still required to follow local laws.
Posted by Attackgypsy 10 Months ago.  as a reply to this argument 
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
 (0)
Attackgypsy
 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53-34b provides that no person may restrict or limit the right of a mother to breastfeed her child. Forty two other states have similar laws. Deal with it.
Posted by Attackgypsy 10 Months ago.
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
View (1)
Attackgypsy
 So you think a child feeding is something that should be covered up? Maybe you should put a cover over your head when you cram a cheeseburger down your throat. To me, its something wonderful, and holds NO sexual context at all. Decency has nothing to do with it. it doesn't state exactly what state the occurred in, but here in CT, they would have been arrested for stopping her in any way.
Posted by Attackgypsy 10 Months ago.  as a reply to this argument 
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
 (0)
Back  |  1  |  2  |  Next  

DEFENSE
Sort By:   Newest |  Strongest |  Most Opposed To
Andrew Rhodes
 If it please the court, time and character space ran out. The reference to age was in regards to the research previously mentioned regarding other references to the use of blankets. Many of the opposing views stated that their own children were younger than 1 year old. Many were closer to 6 months old. Nor does my defense intend to argue what other preperations the Plaintiff could have taken in regards to taking a young child on public transportation of any kind. "What might have been", "if", and all that. Nor would I argue the useless argument of whether Plaintiff should have in the first place. Individual needs and requirements pretty much nullify the argument either way. Note also that my defense argument isn't about whether to identify the situation as "decent" or "indecent". This is an issue of law and equal treatment under the law. Inconsistancy and inequity are rampant in our legal system. "Respect for others" is just one example where inconsistancy exists.
Posted by Andrew Rhodes 10 Months ago.  as a reply to this argument 
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
 (0)
Andrew Rhodes
 There is no factual evidence that lightly covering the area presents a danger to the child. Goggling the issue of "covering up with a blanket while breastfeeding" and similar phrases presents us with a great many research options, including this particular case. According to several news reports, it was, in fact, a flight attendant who offered the blanket and stated that THEY were the one who was "offended". Flight attendants are required to perform them job by walking around and looking down at passengers, so they do have a different angle than the average passenger. And they should NEVER ignore a situation that MIGHT be innocent. That opens the door to those who DO seek harm to those aboard. Many of those in opposition to the blanket indicate that it is more of a discomfort and hassel to both mother and child. But, after a 3 hour delay, and a child who is already upset, feeding should take priority over discomfort. Other info: child is 1 yr old. More advanced age.
Posted by Andrew Rhodes 10 Months ago.  as a reply to this argument 
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
 (0)
Swatjester
 a) I don't live in Connecticut. Delta is headquartered in Atlanta, not Connecticut.b) The right of the mother to breastfeed is not being restricted, it is not even implicated. It is the right to do it publicly without being covered. The statute does not cover that.c) Sexual context has nothing to do with it. There are laws against public nudity. She broke them.d) An airline is a common carrier, and may implement reasonable restrictions to protect their passengers.
Posted by Swatjester 10 Months ago.  as a reply to this argument 
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
View (1)
Andrew Rhodes
 The Prosecution is guilty of purjury and misinformation. Asking an individual to take appropriate measures, measures which do NOT interfere nor PREVENT the act of breastfeeding is NOT a violation of any of the laws on the books. An individual can BOTH be respectful of others as well as meet the needs of themselves and their families. The plane is a public area, with individuals of a great many varying sensibilities and beliefs. To imply that, in that public place, everyone else must grant her respect while she grants no one else respect is an act of discrimination. A comparison is someone in a public square, shouting their religious beliefs, which contain bigotry and obscenities that not all those within earshot support. Moreover, because the plane is a confined space, those within earshot MUST listen, not be allowed to walk away, and if they didn't want to listen, MUST "block it out" because the speaker's Freedom of Speech trumps the rights of the listener's Rights.
Posted by Andrew Rhodes 10 Months ago.
This Argument is: 
Strength:
1
Opposing Arguments:
View (1)
Swatjester
 The woman should have covered her self. She would not have had to get up, not have had to stopped. Nothing. She would have been fine if she had the decency to cover herself so that she was not disturbing others on a common carrier flight.Instead, she decided to make a point and ruin other people's experiences flying. She deserves nothing.
Posted by Swatjester 10 Months ago.
This Argument is: 
Strength:
0
Opposing Arguments:
View (1)
Back  |  1  |  2  |  Next  
About  |   Contact Us  |   Terms of Use  |   Advertise Here All Rights Reserved to "AllRise" © 2008