Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

thedrum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 149 posts

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#11

Post by davedx »

ig1 wrote: post #10

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.

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?

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#12

Post by arethuza »

ig1 wrote: post #10

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.

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

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.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#13

Post by PeterisP »

raverbashing wrote: post #8

"It wasn’t until I asked him if he’d heard of free speech that the tone changed. He asked me if I was a lawyer and I told him I taught law at Strathclyde. "He quickly had a word with his staff and then told me I’d better get on the flight because they were waiting for me." What? So if you are a lawyer things change? I would have sued the company and the manager personally (not sure this is allowed, still). Edit: appa…

Yup, you can treat this incident as evidence that being a lawyer (or claiming to be a lawyer), with the implicit threat of legal hassle, can give you a strong advantage in arguments vs bigcorp midde management.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#14

Post by cyphax »

ig1 wrote: post #10

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.

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.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#15

Post by camus »

gaius wrote: post #6

I think this will hurt easyJet. If it had been Ryanair people would just shrug and say, what did you expect? But easyJet's schtick has always been cheap and cheerful, better value for money than stuffy old BA but good service where it matters. And anecdotally having flown often with all three, neither Ryanair nor BA's typical passengers really care about social media, the former because they just want cheap (or there…

I agree 100% never had a problem with easyJet , let's not talk about Ryanair , i dont even know how these guys are allowed to fly.But that's a stupid move from easyJet on the contrary , they should have give that guy the best flying experience they could give him instead of doing that.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#17

Post by mjn »

leokun wrote: post #9
raverbashing wrote: post #8

"It wasn’t until I asked him if he’d heard of free speech that the tone changed. He asked me if I was a lawyer and I told him I taught law at Strathclyde. "He quickly had a word with his staff and then told me I’d better get on the flight because they were waiting for me." What? So if you are a lawyer things change? I would have sued the company and the manager personally (not sure this is allowed, still). Edit: appa…

Free speech applies to government restrictions on speech. It hasn't much to do with rules and terms of private service. For example, you can't use claims of "free speech" to get HN to reverse a ban on you should that happen. I don't agree with what a couple of easyJet employees seem to have done without easyJet's approval, but right of a private company or person to refuse service would seem to trump this? It's not l…

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.)

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#18

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

netrus wrote: post #7
PeterisP wrote: post #2

I can imagine a company not dealing with particular individuals - say, due to an ongoing litigation or some personal conflict, like a restaurant owner telling a rude/disruptive customer "we won't serve you ever again". And that probably would be both legal and morally okay. However, for airlines that should (must?) be limited to not selling tickets - if they have sold a ticket, then they must fulfill their end of the…

I'd go one step further, as air lines are providers of critical infrastructure, they should have damn good reasons to ban me from buying tickets at their airline.

Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. We have trains.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#19

Post by nodata »

gaius wrote: post #6

I think this will hurt easyJet. If it had been Ryanair people would just shrug and say, what did you expect? But easyJet's schtick has always been cheap and cheerful, better value for money than stuffy old BA but good service where it matters. And anecdotally having flown often with all three, neither Ryanair nor BA's typical passengers really care about social media, the former because they just want cheap (or there…

Except easyjet really isn't that cheap any more.

Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

#20

Post by nl »

ig1 wrote: post #10

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.

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.

Post reply on HN