6 ms·

Freedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech. AFAIK there's no law which prohibits a company doing business with you bec

by ig1 13y ago

Freedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech. AFAIK there's no law which prohibits a company doing business with you because you made a negative comment about them. In this case it's slightly more grey because the passenger had already bought a ticket and it's not clear if the terms of the sale would allow easyjet to revoke the sale on that basis.

davedx 13y ago
I really don't think it is grey. As you say, he has bought a ticket. It's like if I sold you something on Ebay, you paid for it but made a comment on Twitter about how you didn't like my haircut, and I refused to send you the item. Think that would hold up legally?
- dagw 13y ago
  Assuming you refunded the money I imagine it might hold up.
  - rmc 13y ago
    No, it was within the EU which has strict law about airlines denying people boarding. They can't just refund your money and that be the end of it.
arethuza 13y ago
Looking at their Terms and Conditions it is not obvious to me that any of them would apply: http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19 http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19 I don't think what he tweeted would count as "threatening, abusive or insulting words". Edit: Having said that, "Get right into em!" is probably not the best phrase to use - although in context it is clearly harmless.
cyphax 13y ago
That argument sounds like it would work well if he were looking to purchase a ticket, and they would deny it because they feel like denying it. But I'm sure the ticket was already paid for, which changes the situation. EasyJet almost refused to provide the service for which has been paid. I don't know if they have a clause in their terms of service that says something like "if you say something we don't like, we reserve the right to refuse to let you board" but if it did, I wouldn't be too sure that clause is actually legal anyway.
nl 13y ago
a) This is not in the US, so the US concept of free speech does not apply (the law is much more complex in common-law based jurisdictions) b) I doubt anyone would claim EasyJet can't do this - just that it is a STUPID idea, and is almost guaranteed to backfire.
- rmc 13y ago
  This is not in the US, so the US concept of free speech does not apply (the law is much more complex in common-law based jurisdictions) Yes the US "free speech above all else" interpretation of "right to free speech" doesn't apply in many countries, but the US is also (mostly) a common law system. It's the particular judical interpreation of "right to free speech" in USA and other countries, not the common-law-ness, that's the main difference.
downandout 13y ago
The contract you agree to when you buy an airline ticket normally contains a clause allowing the airline to deny boarding for any reason or no reason at all, with the only compensation to you being a refund of the ticket price. They usually don't exercise these clauses, but they are certainly free to do so at will. Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Not necessarily, because clauses can be ruled invalid if they go against the law. From the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which implements the EC Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (the Unfair Contract Terms Directive): Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the supplier can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not costs or other problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the supplier to cancel without any liability to do more than return prepayments is likely to be considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on terms which exclude even that liability).
  - simonh 13y ago
    That's one layer of regulation, but the problem with airlines is that there's yet another higher layer of regulations agreed at an international level to specifically govern and regulate air travel. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there's an international treaty governing the terms and conditions airlines can impose that trumps even EC Directives.
    - kamjam 13y ago
      Unlikely. EasyJet is a UK/Europe based airline, and they mainly travel within Europe. I think they have tried to ignore a few EU directives before and got stung by the European courts, esp around compensation. I've travelled EasyJet a couple of time, it's a cheap low cost airline. Just don't expect any customer service whatsoever if something goes wrong, it's like talking to a bunch of incompetent monkeys.
lmm 13y ago
>Freedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech No it's not. It's about stopping anyone, especially - but not limited to - large and powerful organizations.
- LanceH 13y ago
  Nobody has been stopped from speaking their minds. The subject of the criticism has just decided it no longer wants to facilitate this criticism and they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract. Only if the contract is valid. I don't think you can sign away your right to speak your mind about an airline in order to be allowed on a flight. That would be unlikely to stand up in court in the UK.
tommorris 13y ago
Err, no, that's a very narrow First Amendment negative style of freedom of speech. Contrary to every American Internet debater, Britain is not actually governed by the US Constitution. The applicable law you are looking for is the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 1998 Human Rights Act, specifically Article 10, which starts with the rather bold statement "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression". This is a positive right that the Convention guarantees (subject to the limitations in Article 10 §2) rather than just being a negative limitation on government. It's a lot more grey than you think. This is very dodgy because most airlines are legally common carriers. The reasons for which they can refuse service are rather more limited than most other businesses. Pubs and bars, for instance, can refuse service on almost any grounds (other than equality legislation: you can't not serve someone because they are, say, black or gay or a woman). But if you hold a valid ticket, have a valid passport/ID and get through security etc., there aren't many grounds on which an airline can decline you from boarding a plane. Standard IANAL disclaimer applies. The actual law is often rather different from what Internet libertarians believe it ought to be.
- ig1 13y ago
  The second sentence of Article 10 of the HRA explicitly reads "without interference by public authority" (i.e it's a limitation on government).
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    The full quote does not support your position. The limitation on public authority is included in the right, but it is not the limit of the right. Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
jiggy2011 13y ago
That is true , but it's still arguably concerning especially in cases like airlines where there are just a few big players who dominate. It would be a little like google blocking your use of their search engine or deranking your websites if you posted something critical of them.
faizanaziz 13y ago
Not really "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
ra 13y ago
IMHO This isn't about the law so much as it is about catastrophic social media screw ups. It's the second Internet / social media storm about an airline in 24 hours.
olalonde 13y ago
Because it is legal doesn't make it right (I have no idea whether it is or not). Hopefully a lot of people will read that news and decide to boycott them.
venomsnake 13y ago
A company should not be able to refuse service for stating a true fact. Or even opinion about them. Especially when they have common carrier protections.
chrismcb 13y ago
This really isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is a customer service issue. Would you rather do business with a company that stops doing business with customers that complain, or with a business that listens to customers complaints and fixes the issue?
homosaur 13y ago
Being a twatcompany is rarely good business though.
RockyMcNuts 13y ago
so, if the government listens to your phone calls and emails and prevents you from saying certain things, that's bad, but if the phone company/ISP does the same thing, that's good.

by ig1 13y ago

davedx 13y ago

I really don't think it is grey. As you say, he has bought a ticket. It's like if I sold you something on Ebay, you paid for it but made a comment on Twitter about how you didn't like my haircut, and I refused to send you the item. Think that would hold up legally?

dagw 13y ago
Assuming you refunded the money I imagine it might hold up.
- rmc 13y ago
  No, it was within the EU which has strict law about airlines denying people boarding. They can't just refund your money and that be the end of it.

arethuza 13y ago

Looking at their Terms and Conditions it is not obvious to me that any of them would apply: http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19 http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19 I don't think what he tweeted would count as "threatening, abusive or insulting words". Edit: Having said that, "Get right into em!" is probably not the best phrase to use - although in context it is clearly harmless.

cyphax 13y ago

That argument sounds like it would work well if he were looking to purchase a ticket, and they would deny it because they feel like denying it. But I'm sure the ticket was already paid for, which changes the situation. EasyJet almost refused to provide the service for which has been paid. I don't know if they have a clause in their terms of service that says something like "if you say something we don't like, we reserve the right to refuse to let you board" but if it did, I wouldn't be too sure that clause is actually legal anyway.

nl 13y ago

a) This is not in the US, so the US concept of free speech does not apply (the law is much more complex in common-law based jurisdictions) b) I doubt anyone would claim EasyJet can't do this - just that it is a STUPID idea, and is almost guaranteed to backfire.

rmc 13y ago
This is not in the US, so the US concept of free speech does not apply (the law is much more complex in common-law based jurisdictions) Yes the US "free speech above all else" interpretation of "right to free speech" doesn't apply in many countries, but the US is also (mostly) a common law system. It's the particular judical interpreation of "right to free speech" in USA and other countries, not the common-law-ness, that's the main difference.

downandout 13y ago

The contract you agree to when you buy an airline ticket normally contains a clause allowing the airline to deny boarding for any reason or no reason at all, with the only compensation to you being a refund of the ticket price. They usually don't exercise these clauses, but they are certainly free to do so at will. Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline.

icebraining 13y ago
Not necessarily, because clauses can be ruled invalid if they go against the law. From the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which implements the EC Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (the Unfair Contract Terms Directive): Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the supplier can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not costs or other problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the supplier to cancel without any liability to do more than return prepayments is likely to be considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on terms which exclude even that liability).
- simonh 13y ago
  That's one layer of regulation, but the problem with airlines is that there's yet another higher layer of regulations agreed at an international level to specifically govern and regulate air travel. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there's an international treaty governing the terms and conditions airlines can impose that trumps even EC Directives.
  - kamjam 13y ago
    Unlikely. EasyJet is a UK/Europe based airline, and they mainly travel within Europe. I think they have tried to ignore a few EU directives before and got stung by the European courts, esp around compensation. I've travelled EasyJet a couple of time, it's a cheap low cost airline. Just don't expect any customer service whatsoever if something goes wrong, it's like talking to a bunch of incompetent monkeys.

lmm 13y ago

>Freedom of speech is about stopping the government from interfering with your speech No it's not. It's about stopping anyone, especially - but not limited to - large and powerful organizations.

LanceH 13y ago
Nobody has been stopped from speaking their minds. The subject of the criticism has just decided it no longer wants to facilitate this criticism and they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract. Only if the contract is valid. I don't think you can sign away your right to speak your mind about an airline in order to be allowed on a flight. That would be unlikely to stand up in court in the UK.

tommorris 13y ago

Err, no, that's a very narrow First Amendment negative style of freedom of speech. Contrary to every American Internet debater, Britain is not actually governed by the US Constitution. The applicable law you are looking for is the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 1998 Human Rights Act, specifically Article 10, which starts with the rather bold statement "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression". This is a positive right that the Convention guarantees (subject to the limitations in Article 10 §2) rather than just being a negative limitation on government. It's a lot more grey than you think. This is very dodgy because most airlines are legally common carriers. The reasons for which they can refuse service are rather more limited than most other businesses. Pubs and bars, for instance, can refuse service on almost any grounds (other than equality legislation: you can't not serve someone because they are, say, black or gay or a woman). But if you hold a valid ticket, have a valid passport/ID and get through security etc., there aren't many grounds on which an airline can decline you from boarding a plane. Standard IANAL disclaimer applies. The actual law is often rather different from what Internet libertarians believe it ought to be.

ig1 13y ago
The second sentence of Article 10 of the HRA explicitly reads "without interference by public authority" (i.e it's a limitation on government).
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  The full quote does not support your position. The limitation on public authority is included in the right, but it is not the limit of the right. Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

jiggy2011 13y ago

That is true , but it's still arguably concerning especially in cases like airlines where there are just a few big players who dominate. It would be a little like google blocking your use of their search engine or deranking your websites if you posted something critical of them.

faizanaziz 13y ago

Not really "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

ra 13y ago

IMHO This isn't about the law so much as it is about catastrophic social media screw ups. It's the second Internet / social media storm about an airline in 24 hours.

olalonde 13y ago

Because it is legal doesn't make it right (I have no idea whether it is or not). Hopefully a lot of people will read that news and decide to boycott them.

venomsnake 13y ago

A company should not be able to refuse service for stating a true fact. Or even opinion about them. Especially when they have common carrier protections.

chrismcb 13y ago

This really isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is a customer service issue. Would you rather do business with a company that stops doing business with customers that complain, or with a business that listens to customers complaints and fixes the issue?

homosaur 13y ago

Being a twatcompany is rarely good business though.

RockyMcNuts 13y ago

so, if the government listens to your phone calls and emails and prevents you from saying certain things, that's bad, but if the phone company/ISP does the same thing, that's good.