111–120 of 149 posts
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that gate staff of a delayed flight are monitoring Twitter and comparing it to their passenger manifests in realtime. A more likely scenario in my mind is that the dude was hostile and abusive towards the staff, they perhaps told him that he couldn't say something like that and be expected to board, and he chose to interpret that as with respect to his tweet.
I don't know, I wasn't there. However, before sentencing EasyJet, it would be nice to have a corroboration of the facts.
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…
To the extent easyJey is a government bureau, they have no right to do anything. To the extent they are actually a company, they have every right to withhold service as much as they please.
Who cares about the legality of them trying to deny the passenger a flight. Whether they were within their rights or not, this was just plain idiocy on the part of the airline's staff. I hope more stuff like this happens. It's called accountability and we all are subject to it.
It's juvenile to expect an airline to pay for something they didn't cause. We don't know if they caused the delay or not, but it seems likely that they didn't.
If I were running a service and someone spitefully insulted that service on blatantly irrational grounds, I'd refuse them service, too.
And if that's illegal in the EU---well, that's why I'd never run a business in the EU.
Initially I read "to let communist on board"...
If he's not being truthful about this, then I for one would think that he might not be telling the entire truth. Easyjet have replied to this indicating that he might have been disruptive.
Reading this guy's twitter feed also is eye-opening, he comes across as a self-important prick.
Can anyone corroborate this story? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that gate staff of a delayed flight are monitoring Twitter and comparing it to their passenger manifests in realtime. A more likely scenario in my mind is that the dude was hostile and abusive towards the staff, they perhaps told him that he couldn't say something like that and be expected to board, and he chose to interpret that as with respect to…
Can anyone corroborate this story? Frankly, I find it hard to believe that gate staff of a delayed flight are monitoring Twitter and comparing it to their passenger manifests in realtime. A more likely scenario in my mind is that the dude was hostile and abusive towards the staff, they perhaps told him that he couldn't say something like that and be expected to board, and he chose to interpret that as with respect to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Article 10 has never been used successfully against a private company or individual for preventing free speech. The general interpretation seems to be that it only covers public bodies (for example Wikipedia describes it as such and it's the stance taken by many anti-discrimination and non-profit groups). Unless you know of evidence to the contrary ?
"In 2001 a journalist at the Financial Times (FT) received a copy of a leaked document about a possible company takeover by Interbrew. The FT published the document and three other newspapers (The Times, The Independent and The Guardian) and the news agency Reuters, also reported on the issue and referred to the leaked document. Interbrew brought proceedings against the news groups seeking to identify who leaked the document to the FT. The UK Court of Appeal ordered the FT’s journalistic source to be disclosed to Interbrew, using a common law principle (the Norwich Pharmacal principle) and the Contempt of Court Act.
The newspapers and news agency applied to the European Court of Human Rights, relying on the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Court held that the disclosure order interfered with the right to freedom of expression. The Court emphasised the chilling effect of journalists being seen to assist in the identification of anonymous sources. It found that Interbrew’s interests in finding the source of the leak did not outweigh the public interest in the protection of journalistic sources."
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-ri...