EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet

Post by smtddr » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 6:35 PM UTC

polymatter wrote: post #130

smtddr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. With an attitude like that, how can anyone explain racism, sexism or _any kind_ of offensive behavior to you? I mean, you've basically declared the word "o…

Being 'offended' runs a whole spectrum from legitimate outrage of a betrayal of vital social norms through to mildly inconvenienced that not everyone agrees with my personal world view. The problem is many people use 'offense' in the latter sense to ram through their personal beliefs onto others. I have been known to be in the company of men to whom I am not related. Some consider this offensive. They can explain to…

Post by moocowduckquack » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 8:10 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #138

moocowduckquack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally used as an appeal against a lower court decision, so the case is held against the decision of the lower court, which represents the government. However the initial case does not have to be to do with government interfering with speech and can be to do with the actions of a company. "In 2001 a journalist at the Financial Times (FT) received a copy of a leaked document about a possible company takeover…

Freedom of speech was restricted in that case by a legal decision, as in the law was used to restrict free speech. That's completely different from a company freely refusing to serve a customer because of opinions they expressed. The customer would have no basis to challenge under the HRA, because there's no law or legal decision governing the refusal.

Post by rmc » Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 9:03 PM UTC

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…

Post by dreen » Thu, Sep 26, 2013, 7:07 AM UTC

johnward wrote: post #50

dreen wrote: post #28

Holy cow, this is why I quit all the mainstream social media and never even got on Twitter in the first place... because people treat it WAY too seriously

It can be pretty serious. Especially as a tool for consumers to voice their concerns or disapproval of corporations. That can do some damage.

Post by tommorris » Sat, Sep 28, 2013, 7:55 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #113

tommorris wrote: post #29

Earlier 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…

YOu know what? What is right and wrong is right and wrong, regardless of what a bunch of EU bureaucrats say. 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.