3 ms·
As you note, the concept of free speech in Europe is somewhat different than in the U.S., but this includes your first sentence not applying in Europe to the sa
by mjn 13y ago
As you note, the concept of free speech in Europe is somewhat different than in the U.S., but this includes your first sentence not applying in Europe to the same extent. In at least some European countries, the conception of free speech is more of a positive right to speak, subject as you note to limitations (such as an exclusion of racial incitement from the ambit of protected speech). But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances. The most common is that employers are sometimes limited in whether they can fire people for protected speech. Another case is public accommodations, e.g. using political affiliation to refuse service in a hotel or restaurant. I don't know much about transportation law, but it's not inconceivable that there would be some common-carrier rules there.
(The above written with "some" and "may" qualifiers because European laws differ considerably between countries, and sometimes within countries.)
- masklinn 13y ago> But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances. Especially for public accommodations, which an airline servicing a public airport might well be. AFAIK, even the US put restrictions on what businesses can and can not do when they qualify as public accommodations (CRA, ADA, state-level anti-discrimination laws and state-level breastfeeding protection laws for instance).
- mjn 13y agoSome Google-Books perusal suggests that airlines in the U.S., if they sell tickets to the public (rather than operating as private carriers) have an even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers who are required to provide service to the general public at the stated rates without discrimination, like phone companies, railroad companies, telegraph companies, ferry boats, etc. Whereas public accommodations like hotels are only prohibited from certain enumerated kinds of discrimination (race, religion, etc.). Seems to be a concept in 18th-century English law that crossed over to the early US, and stayed around in limited contexts (transportation and communications). Admittedly, not specifically related to freedom of speech in that case.
- masklinn 13y ago> even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers Ah yes, I knew there was something beyond public accommodation but could not remember the concept of common/public carrier. Thank you.