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.
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…
EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
91–100 of 149 posts
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#92It'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…
Yes, anyone should be able to refuse you service if your actively denigrating their work except where prohibited by law.
If you tell me my service sucks, I will correct it if I think the criticism is warranted. I am under no obligation to consider it valid until I have researched the issue at hand. Pretty much it comes down to this, if you don't like the service then don't use it, however don't expect me to render service knowing your predisposition to label it as inferior or worse.
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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.
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#94It'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…
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#95It'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…
> '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
In my viewing, it's the airline that got "offended" and is acting about, so that quote would apply more to the airline than to the reporter, as a company, you have to expect criticism, specially in this days.
> 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.
You can't abuse free speech, there are some things that are not guaranteed by free speech (you yell bomb on a plane, you can't accuse free speech afterwards), that said, I think this has little to do with free speech, that would be if there is a legal consequence but that is out of the question. Of course you know that your words can have consequences, but that in any way justifies the company's reaction, more on that next.
> You can't say Mcdonald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be hypocrisy).
How come not?? I don't like the service later, IMO the quality has gone down and I know that it is quite unhealthy, even so, every now and then, I want a burger from them, hypocrite would be to say I will never touch and mcdonalds again, boast about it and secretly eat it once a week.
> 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.
So, that's you advice? Whenever you get criticized, you react by pushing back and "attacking" your (potential) customer and possible leader of opinion? Does this also apply when the criticism is true??
You are a public company, you are going to be criticized, probably the worst thing you can do is start fighting them back, if you screwed something up, you apologize and you try to make up for it, if it's unfunded criticism, the you try to explain that this is not the case, whatever you do, you do not confront and be aggressive.
>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 try to give him so go and service that he would eventually write good things about me if he has any intellectual honesty, or to at least stop writing bad things about me, I can't see how childishly fighting back to help to achieve any of this?
Note: This comment may sound a little pedant, but it was not the intention, cordial discussion was the intended tone.
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to when? What about comparing their current prices to before low cost flights were popular. I'm flying to Western Europe, with baggage and an extra legroom seat for £120 return. I think that's superb value for money.
They launched as a budget airline. Now they're either same price as BA or slightly cheaper (unless you're lucky enough to get their first few cheap seats).
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree that there are two parts - whether they'd have to sell him a ticket in the future and what happens with the current flight but there may be something in the small print that would allow them to prevent him boarding (though almost certainly subject to suitable compensation).
This took place in the EU, so there are legal limitations on how and when an airline can deny you boarding.
Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#98Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#99Re: EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet
#100Freedom 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.
>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.
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.