What country's first ammendment guarantees you the right to intimidate or harass people online?

What country equates complaining about rudeness with intimidation and harassment? Probably, not even North Korea...

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

Yes, there is, of course. As described in TFA, the woman certainly qualifies for the term. Anybody abusing their power over others is a bad person ("bitch", "asshole" — pick your gender-specific name). And, in addition, malicious prosecution — which she threatened to bring upon him — is a felony, you know...

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening.

If complaining on Tweeter about rudeness can be considered either "intimidating" or "threatening" — or, indeed, "interfering" — then the First Amendment is null and void. Is that, what you are telling us?

"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft [emphasis mine -mi]] being operated under this part."

The gate-agent being talked about was not aboard the aircraft (nor part of the crew). In other words, your citation is invalid and inapplicable even if it were appropriate for a stewardess or a pilot on board.

the tweet identified someone by name.

Her name is publicly displayed. There is nothing "intimidating" about repeating it — or even taking pictures.

there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

Whether the victim was "reasonable" or not is not being discussed. The agent threatened him with arrest over his accusing her of rudeness. What else would you blame a victim for? How about posting a negative review of a restaurant? Maybe, we "should be more like Europe" and punish people for that too?

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?

Only someone who doesn't understand language would assert that I am not a source. Everyone who uses language is a source of meaning of that language. That's how our language actually works.

We both know you're lying, because I quoted other sources agreeing with me, and you pretend I didn't, just like you pretend I didn't reference Madison in regards to "democracy."

Actually, in fact, I did. I was very explicit. You just don't understand language, so you missed it. But because I am so generous, here it is again: common usage. That determines the meaning of all words. We can be prescriptive in a given context -- for example, "organic" has a specific legal definition when applied to food for sale -- but generally, we simply have to go with how words are commonly used. We use dictionaries to discover common usage if we don't know it, but not to prescribe it.

Not by anyone who understands language or dictionaries, no, it's not. Even Wikipedia says you are full of shit: "Large 20th-century dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Webster's Third are descriptive, and attempt to describe the actual use of words. Most dictionaries of English now apply the descriptive method to a word's definition ... the meanings of words in English are primarily determined by usage."

You're a liar, of course: I referenced a very important person in the history of the word: James Madison himself. And it's not an "alternative," it's the original meaning. The original use of the word "democracy" was in reference to Athens, where all citizens collectively made all legislative decisions. You're just being completely idiotic, as usual.

I presumed you were capable of taking your URL and replacing "democracy" with "socialism". My bad.

You're a liar. I simply use dictionaries properly, and criticize their improper usage. Using a dictionary to settle a discussion about the proper meaning of a word is obviously stupid, if you understand that dictionaries are descriptive, and therefore prone to error. Even without understanding how dictionaries work, the fact that we have many English dictionaries with sometimes conflicting definitions should clue you in to the fact that you can't use one dictionary to settle the discussion.

Once again, you do not know how dictionaries work: they do not prescribe definitions, telling us what words must mean; they merely describe how words are commonly used. Dictionary authors are reporters, not dictators. And if we identify common usage that is not captured by the dictionary definition, that is proof that the dictionary is wrong or incomplete. Further, if we can identify common usage, we literally have no need for a dictionary at that point, because it would at best be redundant, and at worst mislead the less-educated among us who have been tricked into thinking that dictionaries are authoritative.

And too bad you didn't look at that same dictionary for "socialism," because under that entry, you see definitions that well-describe the Soviet and Chinese regimes of the 20th century that you say are not socialist. So by your own logic, you proved yourself wrong.

Do you ever tire of being a tool?

False. In fact, "democracy" means people making decisions collectively. As Publius wrote in Federalist 10, it's a society of people assembling and administering the government in person. For example, in Massachusetts, the residents, at a town meeting can pass any rules they wish for the town (subject to state and federal law, etc.). That's, arguably, actual democracy. But voting for your leaders is not. We call it "representative democracy," to highlight the fact that we're collectively voting for people to make decisions for us, but that's not a "type" of democracy, it's actually a different thing. We have small pieces of democracy -- town meetings, voter initiatives, and so on -- but not much of it.

You can make an argument for their being different degrees of democracy, but there are plenty of democracies in this world including the country you currently live in (unless you finally moved away from the USA).

Only in the exact same sense that there are different degrees of socialism, and there are plenty of socialist regimes in this world.

It only seems that way to morons like you. Really.

Literally no one agrees with you on this, no matter their opinions of my beliefs. I don't even believe you believe this. I can tell you're trying to hurt my ego, but you'll have as much luck doing so by attacking my intelligence and knowledge as you would for calling me short or hairless.

Translation: "crap, you caught me in a lie again, so I'll just lie some more and pretend that I wrote it and you just ignored/missed it."

Of course, this is the same idiot who lied about Democracy being responsible for more deaths than Socialism, even though the essentially socialist regimes Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century killed many times more than all democracies put together. Right, right, they aren't True Socialists. Well, there's never been a True Democracy either -- thankfully -- so it's a dishonest claim no matter how you slice it.

Not that we're surprised.

I doubt it. You don't get a lot of men being asked If the carpet matches the drapes I think the real problem with gamers in general is that you get a lot of "type A" competitive personalities without any social skills to temper their behavior. Throw in the fact that, for a lot of gamers their only actual experience of actual females is either from watching porn or interacting with booth babes and they just don't realize that both are fictional.