Live data from Hacker News

EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

thedrum.com

71–80 of 149 posts

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

#71
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

>It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry

Well, as a quote it's quite uninsightful.

Would you say the same thing to a woman that said she was offended by you creepily staring at her at a conference or making sexist jokes in her presense? Would you say the "n" word to an African American and not care if he would be offended? It's just a word after all.

Offending people can be a real problem, not just some imaginary whine. That's because feelings are real too -- not just actions ("sticks and stones", etc).

>Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an action that negatively affects the sales of a company and if you expect to benefit from it, in return for which the company doesn't allow you, I think it's fair.

What exactly is fair about it?

Have you thought this through? If you live in a rural area where only AT&T has coverage, albeit spotty, and you tweet that "their coverage is dreadful here" should they cut you off from their service altogether?

What you basically say is that companies should be allowed to punish people (even paying customers), for speaking out about them?

>You can't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be hypocrisy).

No, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. In this case, saying "I would never eat McDonalds" and then eating.

Saying they sucks and then eating it, it's perfectly normal. Heck, I think they suck, and I've eaten several times from them. Lots of reasons.

For one, I was in a country were I ocassionally needed home delivery and McDonalds was the only chain that offered.

Second, sometimes it's the nearest fast food restaurant, or the only one in some small town.

Third, their food might suck, but you find the prices great, compared to the alternatives (or vice versa).

>Well, whether Mc Donald's should let you buy a burger from them AFTER you just said that is solely their choice.

No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer. You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their business), but they should have no right at all to refuse you based on what you say to your twitter or blog or whatever.

>And being a hypocrite and being offended doesn't give you any special rights either. Just saying.

You keep using that word, "hypocrite". I don't think it means what you think it means.

There was nothing hypocritical about what he did. The guy was scheduled to flight with EasyJet, noticed some bad thing happening a few days before related to the company and twitted about it.

Being critical of a service doesn't mean you are a hypocrite of using it. That's the silliest notion I've heard all day.

New Yorkers are critical of the status of their subway service all the time, but they still use it. And people are critical and complain about the products they bought ALL the time. That I find a fault with iPhone 4 and tweet about it, shouldn't mean Apple shouldn't sell me iPhone 5.

That is what moves a market forward.

What you're saying essentially amounts to people not being able to critisize products and services they use, for fear of being denied them by the company.

It's completely bollocks.

>Stop thinking of the airlines as someone else and imagine if it was YOUR company. Imagine if you ran a cloud services company and this guy wrote a blogpost about why your company sucks (which negatively affects your sales) and then bought a dozen cloud servers from you. I would have no problem in refunding his money and revoking his service with a polite smile and a "Sorry", if it was my company.

Are you kidding me? People talk about Linode and Heroku and AWS all the time, posting the problems they find using them, how this or that sucks, etc.

If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your customer.

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

#72
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

> Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another.

You can't have it both ways, it's a logical contradiction.

Furthermore, the idea that by entering a contract with a company for providing you a service to you implies any loss of free speech rights on your part is inane.

In the great scheme of things, we are just witnessing the birth if the Internet. I have noticed a horrible trend wherein, month after month, more consequences become apparent for expressing your opinion freely -- even between friends on some social network. At the same time, the majority of human communication is converging to the net. Can't you connect the dots and realize we might be heading to hell?

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

#73
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

You can't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be hypocrisy).

Of course you can. You may not enjoy it because it sucks, but you might be really hungry. Easyjet sucks massively, however sometimes you just need to get on a plane at a certain time, or someone else might be paying and you get little choice.

As far as your point about negatively impacting sales, criticism from a continued customer doesn't hurt sales nearly as much as banning people from buying from you for being critical. That isn't business, that is just being immature.

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

#74
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

Wow, at first I was with you until it became clear that you think the journalist was acting offended, not the company. You got it completely backwards! It must be possible for people to criticize big companies, and I believe the companies do at least have to take it (ideally they'd listen to the feedback as well). It should not be legal for a huge service company to refuse said service because they feel offended. Companies, especially huge ones, can't act like people whenever they feel like it. It seems they're switching roles whenever it suits them.

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

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

>Had they denied him boarding, perhaps it would have been a bad business/PR decision, That's exactly what they did and that's exactly what happened. >but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline. Legal liability is the least of their worries today. It's a PR nightmare. People all over the world think they're thin-skinned bullies.

> Legal liability is the least of their worries today. It's a PR nightmare. People all over the world think they're thin-skinned bullies.

I wish it actually amounted to something. They probably won't get any drop in ticket sales, because in cheap airline market you pretty much don't have many (if any) alternatives. People are still going to fly with them because they're the cheapest / only ones flying to the destination they want.

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

#77
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.

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". T…

The second sentence of Article 10 of the HRA explicitly reads "without interference by public authority" (i.e it's a limitation on government).

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

#78
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

> Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another.

Is it abuse of free speech to report factually on what you see? Seems to me like this is what Mr Leiser did, and IMHO it is not an abuse at all. Quite the opposite, it is a good use of free speech.

Just because EasyJet don't like what he said does not make it abuse. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough. If I say "I just saw neya step on a puppy" it is not abuse of free speech, even neya does not like me saying this, even it if is objectively detrimental to neya. It is not abuse of free speech unless it is not true.

I know that we have only Mr Leiser's word so far; if EasyJet want to dispute the facts of the matter that would be different. However, if I was their PR department I'd really prefer to leave well enough alone and not attract further press attention; unless they can prove that something utterly different was what actually happened.

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

#79
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry

You're a brave soul for standing up against the "take offense-industrial complex"

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

#80
post #36

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what. - A quote by Stephen Fry Free speech is one thing, but abuse of free speech is another. When you perform an a…

The EasyJet T&Cs are publicly available http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions and outline the circumstances under which they can refuse carriage.

The applicable section would be: 19.2 Right to refuse carriage and the closest there is to any reason would seem to be:

"19.2.7 You have used threatening, abusive or insulting words to, or have behaved in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner towards, a member of easyJet staff, crew or Airport Staff or a fellow passenger;"

Even that seems to be a major push.

If they'd wanted to be petty they could probably get away with a detailed check of his documentation or whatever that might make him miss the flight but to do that they'd probably have needed to not say anything about it being linked to the tweet.

Post reply on HN