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

21–30 of 149 posts

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

#21

Post by downandout »

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.

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 certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline.

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

#22

Post by dagw »

davedx wrote: post #11
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?

Assuming you refunded the money I imagine it might hold up.

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

#23

Post by netrus »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #18
netrus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Granted. I'd be fine with a "you-are-just-allowed-to-fly-overseas" policy, if that solved a pain point for the airline :)

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

#24

Post by masklinn »

mjn wrote: post #17
leokun wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-go…

> But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances.

Especially for public accommodations, which an airline servicing a public airport might well be.

AFAIK, even the US put restrictions on what businesses can and can not do when they qualify as public accommodations (CRA, ADA, state-level anti-discrimination laws and state-level breastfeeding protection laws for instance).

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

#25

Post by nmeofthestate »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #18
netrus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trains tend to be more expensive than equivalent domestic flights, so perhaps it's the trains that are the luxury.

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

#26

Post by mjn »

masklinn wrote: post #24
mjn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-go…

> But that may mean that non-governmental entities are also prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least some circumstances. Especially for public accommodations, which an airline servicing a public airport might well be. AFAIK, even the US put restrictions on what businesses can and can not do when they qualify as public accommodations (CRA, ADA, state-level anti-discrimination laws an…

Some Google-Books perusal suggests that airlines in the U.S., if they sell tickets to the public (rather than operating as private carriers) have an even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers who are required to provide service to the general public at the stated rates without discrimination, like phone companies, railroad companies, telegraph companies, ferry boats, etc. Whereas public accommodations like hotels are only prohibited from certain enumerated kinds of discrimination (race, religion, etc.). Seems to be a concept in 18th-century English law that crossed over to the early US, and stayed around in limited contexts (transportation and communications).

Admittedly, not specifically related to freedom of speech in that case.

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

#27

Post by lmm »

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.

>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.

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

#29

Post by tommorris »

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.

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". This is a positive right that the Convention guarantees (subject to the limitations in Article 10 §2) rather than just being a negative limitation on government.

It's a lot more grey than you think. This is very dodgy because most airlines are legally common carriers. The reasons for which they can refuse service are rather more limited than most other businesses. Pubs and bars, for instance, can refuse service on almost any grounds (other than equality legislation: you can't not serve someone because they are, say, black or gay or a woman). But if you hold a valid ticket, have a valid passport/ID and get through security etc., there aren't many grounds on which an airline can decline you from boarding a plane.

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies. The actual law is often rather different from what Internet libertarians believe it ought to be.

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

#30

Post by icebraining »

downandout wrote: post #21
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.

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…

Not necessarily, because clauses can be ruled invalid if they go against the law.

From the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which implements the EC Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (the Unfair Contract Terms Directive):

  Excessive rights for the supplier. Cancellation of a contract by the supplier
  can leave the consumer facing inconvenience at least, if not costs or other
  problems. Where that is so, a unilateral right for the supplier to cancel
  without any liability to do more than return prepayments is likely to be
  considered unfair (see Group 6(b), on terms which exclude even that
  liability).
Post reply on HN