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.
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 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.
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).
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 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."
No, you would start with suing the company using the extensive freedom of expression protections in UK common law, then if the UK court didn't rule in your favour, but you felt it was in the wrong to do so, you then appeal against the court using the human rights act.
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.
Of course, yes, everyone is always in complete agreement about what is right and wrong, because humans are always absolutely objective when it comes to moral decisions.
Does a bar have a right to refuse service to a gay couple? Does a restaurant have a right to refuse service to an Asian man? Does an airline have a right to refuse service to a black person?
There are sometimes quite compelling reasons to require private companies to provide services aimed at the public without discrimination.
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.
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).
That's one layer of regulation, but the problem with airlines is that there's yet another higher layer of regulations agreed at an international level to specifically govern and regulate air travel. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there's an international treaty governing the terms and conditions airlines can impose that trumps even EC Directives.
Unlikely. EasyJet is a UK/Europe based airline, and they mainly travel within Europe. I think they have tried to ignore a few EU directives before and got stung by the European courts, esp around compensation.
I've travelled EasyJet a couple of time, it's a cheap low cost airline. Just don't expect any customer service whatsoever if something goes wrong, it's like talking to a bunch of incompetent monkeys.
> 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.
Stop wishing. If you have a problem with easyJet, don't buy their product. If that means you can't afford to fly, stay home.
The problem is that beneath the feigned outrage, everyone can see that this is just a stupid bully of middle manager making a stupid decision. Nobody really cares enough about it to actually change real-world plans.
I agree with your first point totally. I usually prefer to pay a little more and go with BA.
The second point though. This must have come from higher up. I mean, I doubt that manager was actively watching Twitter so this must have been identified by some automated system and trickled to the manager as a notification...
Said middle manager would be higher up. There is no "middle" to manage at the gate. It's probably a bored jobsworth in the operations center that was keeping an eye on the @easyJet feed. Maybe he discussed it with a colleague or two and they stirred up a frenzy. Maybe someone had just been at sensitivity sensibility training and used his newfound knowledge to identify the tweet as threatening.
Many scenarios are possible, and we can't expect easyJet to air their dirty laundry, so we probably won't know exactly what. What is completely inconceivable is that there is a company-wide policy that came into effect (and was subsequently immediately withdrawn this morning) to hunt down and deny boarding to passengers that criticizes easyJet on Twitter.
A lot of people don't know this because they're used to blindly agreeing to terms and accepting them as "the truth," but clauses which are not legal cannot be enforced. If they deny boarding for just any random reason they choose, the airline accepts that they may be subject to legal penalties.
Denying boarding is more than merely refusing a private service. It's effectively revoking freedom to travel. It can also be more than simply an inconvenience to miss a flight. Even when merely overbooking passengers through no malice at all, European airlines are required to pay significant fees to customers who must miss flights. This is true in the U.S. as well due to the precedent set after Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, 426 U.S. 290 (1976). Airlines attempt to offer vouchers, but you are entitled to cash payouts.
I once made an actual profit from a trip to Europe because Lufthansa overbooked us and paid more per ticket in fees than the cost of my flights and hotels.
This incident occurred within the EU, which has strict laws about airlines denying boarding, and the level of compensation they have to give if you are refused. "we don't have to give a reason and only have to give you your money back", would not be legal in the EU.
That argument sounds like it would work well if he were looking to purchase a ticket, and they would deny it because they feel like denying it.
But I'm sure the ticket was already paid for, which changes the situation. EasyJet almost refused to provide the service for which has been paid. I don't know if they have a clause in their terms of service that says something like "if you say something we don't like, we reserve the right to refuse to let you board" but if it did, I wouldn't be too sure that clause is actually legal anyway.
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.
Nobody has been stopped from speaking their minds.
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.
they should be free to the extent outlined in the contract.
Only if the contract is valid. I don't think you can sign away your right to speak your mind about an airline in order to be allowed on a flight. That would be unlikely to stand up in court in the UK.
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."
IMHO This isn't about the law so much as it is about catastrophic social media screw ups. It's the second Internet / social media storm about an airline in 24 hours.
This is not in the US, so the US concept of free speech does not apply (the law is much more complex in common-law based jurisdictions)
Yes the US "free speech above all else" interpretation of "right to free speech" doesn't apply in many countries, but the US is also (mostly) a common law system. It's the particular judical interpreation of "right to free speech" in USA and other countries, not the common-law-ness, that's the main difference.
A company should not be able to refuse service for stating a true fact. Or even opinion about them. Especially when they have common carrier protections.
This really isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is a customer service issue. Would you rather do business with a company that stops doing business with customers that complain, or with a business that listens to customers complaints and fixes the issue?
Because it is legal doesn't make it right (I have no idea whether it is or not). Hopefully a lot of people will read that news and decide to boycott them.
so, if the government listens to your phone calls and emails and prevents you from saying certain things, that's bad, but if the phone company/ISP does the same thing, that's good.
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.