NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.
But he did follow all instructions — and was allowed to board. What the bitch didn't like was him tweeting about the encounter afterwards.
Personally, I found out the hard way, what these assholes mean. I once pointed out to a New Jersey Transit conductor, that he is closing the doors one minute too early. He demanded, I leave the train in reply... I kid you not, he called police, who ordered me out and interrogated me on the platform (three uniformed bums plus one plain-clothed "detective"). They found nothing to arrest me for, but said (sternly): "You'll have to wait for the next train" (and left me on the empty platform as the train closed its doors — again — and left). It was all "legal": the rules, which you wish all of us to obey, are posted in every car. And they require passengers to "cooperate" with the conductors. Whether or not a particular passenger cooperates, is entirely up to each conductor. And, yes, he still works there — despite my complaining several times.
No flight-attendant — nor a train conductor, for that matter — should have the power to evict a passenger from a plane (or train). Other than for an offense, that's, indeed, subject to arrest.
given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important.
What has recently happened in aviation, that makes you think, safety is important?