
EasyJet refuses to let columnist on board for sending critical tweet - r0h1n
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/09/25/easyjet-under-fire-after-claims-it-refused-let-drum-columnist-mark-leiser-board
======
ig1
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.

~~~
downandout
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.

~~~
icebraining
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).

~~~
simonh
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.

~~~
kamjam
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.

------
raverbashing
"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: apparently the Social Media team was active during the incident and
agreeing with the passenger, not with the manager.

~~~
leokun
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 like they are refusing service
because of a protected category (like discrimination based on race, etc).

Although this isn't even happening in America, so I don't even understand what
laws apply. Freedom of speech as Americans understand it do not really even
apply in some European countries to the extent it does in the US because of
ridiculous slander laws and the ability to be thrown in jail for telling lies
(about the Holocaust for example, which is a pretty awful thing to lie about).

~~~
mjn
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-governmental entities are also
prohibited from interfering with or retaliating for the speech, in at least
some circumstances. The most common is that employers are sometimes limited in
whether they can fire people for protected speech. Another case is public
accommodations, e.g. using political affiliation to refuse service in a hotel
or restaurant. I don't know much about transportation law, but it's not
inconceivable that there would be some common-carrier rules there.

(The above written with "some" and "may" qualifiers because European laws
differ considerably between countries, and sometimes within countries.)

~~~
masklinn
> 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).

~~~
mjn
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.

~~~
masklinn
> even stronger obligation than public accommodations, as common carriers

Ah yes, I knew there was something beyond public accommodation but could not
remember the concept of common/public carrier. Thank you.

------
JackFr
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 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.

~~~
zeinology
Suppose you are an expert in creating a buzz. One day you want to create a
buzz around you. You tweet a bit, discuss it with some people until they say
that they're not happy with your tweet. You actually get on the plane fine.
But still you fabricate most of the story to get the buzz you were looking
for. Far fetched?

~~~
r0h1n
Copy-pasting the same comment more than once in a post == not cool.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444903](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444903)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6444838)

------
ianstallings
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.

~~~
javert
I think it's great, and the company shouldn't have backed down.

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.

~~~
ianstallings
Sounds like a sure-fire plan, for failure. Turning away money from a customer
because you don't like something they said on twitter is not only juvenile in
itself, but also a terrible way to run a business. A better way is to address
the customer's complaint in a respectable fashion. So it's either be _right_ ,
win an argument, and don't get the money or take it on the chin and get the
money. Seems pretty straight forward. Otherwise, why are you even in business?

------
PeterisP
I can imagine a company not dealing with particular individuals - say, due to
an ongoing litigation or some personal conflict, like a restaurant owner
telling a rude/disruptive customer "we won't serve you ever again". And that
probably would be both legal and morally okay.

However, for airlines that should (must?) be limited to not selling tickets -
if they have sold a ticket, then they must fulfill their end of the bargain.

~~~
netrus
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.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury. We
have trains.

~~~
dingaling
> Domestic flights in the UK aren't critical infrastructure, they're luxury.
> We have trains.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

~~~
officemonkey
There are ferries.

------
colechristensen
This is infantile, I don't want to see this type of content here.

A low level company manager making a stupid decision, an entitled journalist
trying to drum up controversy using his position and the squawks of Twitter
responding have no place in 'hacker news' or 'news' in general.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "This is infantile, I don't want to see this type of content here."

Flag it.

------
highace
What's the problem? His original tweet encourages his followers to "Get right
into em!". Oh sorry, you want to whip up an online frenzy about a company AND
use their services?

------
the_mitsuhiko
Somehow I doubt the story. Boarding personal has better things to do than to
check twitter against the list of people baording.

~~~
gaius
Probably he got a call from HQ where some "big data" geek is inordinately
proud of his 10-line script for mashing up Twitter with the passenger
manifest.

------
gaius
I think this will hurt easyJet. If it had been Ryanair people would just shrug
and say, what did you expect? But easyJet's schtick has always been cheap
_and_ cheerful, better value for money than stuffy old BA but good service
where it matters. And anecdotally having flown often with all three, neither
Ryanair nor BA's typical passengers really care about social media, the former
because they just want cheap (or there is no other airline doing that route),
and the latter because they get their brand messages via other channels. But
easyJet's do.

~~~
nodata
Except easyjet really isn't that cheap any more.

~~~
switch007
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.

~~~
nodata
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).

~~~
mseebach
Yes, because competition from easyJet forced BA to lower their prices.

~~~
nodata
That as well.

------
surfacedetail
I have some serious doubts about this story. Strathclyde Law School does not
have Mark Leiser listed as a law lecturer. Searching for "Mark Leiser
Strathclyde" produced a page that seems to indicate that he's a PhD student.

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.

~~~
scott_s
From his academic page,

"I am a PhD Student in Cyber-Law at the University of Strathclyde. I am
researching the effects, limits and the legitimacy of regulation and law in
cyberspace. I am currently researching what “activates” the active dot in the
active/pathetic dot matrix within the context of cyber-legitimacy. My
interests are governance -Internet and Corporate, copyright, trademarks,
social media and Internet Regulation. _I lecture part of Internet Law and am a
tutor for Internet Law, Commercial Law, Business Law, Legal methods, and
Voluntary Obligations._ "

Emphasis mine. He is a graduate student who also teaches.

~~~
surfacedetail
Sorry to be pedantic about this (I'm an academic), but the fact that he tutors
and lectures doesn't make him a lecturer. A law lecturer is someone who has
been hired and holds that title. I taught a lot while doing my PhD, and I
wouldn't have dared to call myself anything other than a PhD student. If
anything, my level of suspicion has gone up.

~~~
scott_s
I would not have called myself a lecturer, either - I also have a PhD, and
taught while I was doing it. But I also don't know what the customs are in the
UK regarding titles, both official and unofficial.

I also think it's worth noting that I think he does have a law degree. He says
"was enrolled," but I can't tell if he also means it was awarded. (I also had
to look up LLB and LLM, and I admit I'm still confused on if those are
equivalent to the JD that is granted in law schools in the US.)

~~~
surfacedetail
The UK academic titles are very specific: Lecturer (Assistant Professor),
Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor), Reader (short of US tenure), Professor.
I can't call myself a lecturer unless I have been appointed to that title.

Law degrees are different as well, there's no direct equivalence. The levels
are LLB (minor), practice diploma (sort of JD), LLM (masters), and Phd
(graduate school). It's possible to write a PhD in law without having received
a law degree, although it is common for law PhDs to at least have finished an
LLM.

------
dreen
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

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

~~~
dreen
Its still just people talking about stuff. Things coming from an official
corporate account are different matter, but people should be able to say
something sucks without having to fear repercussions.

------
SchizoDuckie
Barbara Streisand effect is already kicking in.

------
zeinology
Suppose you are an expert in creating a buzz. One day you want to create a
buzz around you. You tweet a bit, discuss it with some people until they say
that they're not happy with your tweet. You actually get on the plane fine.
But still you fabricate most of the story to get the buzz you were looking
for. Far fetched?

------
neya
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

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 say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be
hypocrisy). Well, whether Mc Donald's should let you buy a burger from them
AFTER you just said that is solely their choice. I'm sure it must be buried in
some TOC bs of theirs somewhere. But you can't be a hypocrite and expect
sympathy for it, either. In all fairness, if his money wasn't refunded, then
it's probably fair that he fights with them. Otherwise, if he had been
refunded already, it's just hypocrisy at best.

And being a hypocrite and being offended doesn't give you any special rights
either. Just saying.

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 (secretly, because you're his
only option). 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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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 that said she was offended by you
creepily staring at her at a conference or making sexist jokes in her
presense? Would you say the "n" word to an African American and not care if he
would be offended? It's just a word after all.

Offending people can be a real problem, not just some imaginary whine. That's
because feelings are real too -- not just actions ("sticks and stones", etc).

> _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._

What exactly is fair about it?

Have you thought this through? If you live in a rural area where only AT&T has
coverage, albeit spotty, and you tweet that "their coverage is dreadful here"
should they cut you off from their service altogether?

What you basically say is that companies should be allowed to punish people
(even paying customers), for speaking out about them?

> _You can 't say Mc Donald's sucks and eat a burger from them (that would be
> hypocrisy)._

No, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. In this case, saying "I
would never eat McDonalds" and then eating.

Saying they sucks and then eating it, it's perfectly normal. Heck, I think
they suck, and I've eaten several times from them. Lots of reasons.

For one, I was in a country were I ocassionally needed home delivery and
McDonalds was the only chain that offered.

Second, sometimes it's the nearest fast food restaurant, or the only one in
some small town.

Third, their food might suck, but you find the prices great, compared to the
alternatives (or vice versa).

> _Well, whether Mc Donald 's should let you buy a burger from them AFTER you
> just said that is solely their choice._

No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer.
You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their
business), but they should have no right at all to refuse you based on what
you say to your twitter or blog or whatever.

> _And being a hypocrite and being offended doesn 't give you any special
> rights either. Just saying._

You keep using that word, "hypocrite". I don't think it means what you think
it means.

There was nothing hypocritical about what he did. The guy was scheduled to
flight with EasyJet, noticed some bad thing happening a few days before
related to the company and twitted about it.

Being critical of a service doesn't mean you are a hypocrite of using it.
That's the silliest notion I've heard all day.

New Yorkers are critical of the status of their subway service all the time,
but they still use it. And people are critical and complain about the products
they bought ALL the time. That I find a fault with iPhone 4 and tweet about
it, shouldn't mean Apple shouldn't sell me iPhone 5.

That is what moves a market forward.

What you're saying essentially amounts to people not being able to critisize
products and services they use, for fear of being denied them by the company.

It's completely bollocks.

> _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._

Are you kidding me? People talk about Linode and Heroku and AWS all the time,
posting the problems they find using them, how this or that sucks, etc.

If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain
publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your
customer.

~~~
neya
>If that's your idea of running a company, throwing out customers who complain
publicly instead of fixing the issues, then I wouldn't want to be your
customer.

You misinterpreted my reasoning and took it somewhere else :)

>No, they should serve someone who criticizes the same as any other customer.
You might not be able to shout it inside their restaurants (that's their
business), but they should have no right at all to refuse you based on what
you say to your twitter or blog or whatever.

If you do something that negatively affects my company, without giving my
company a fair chance/benefit of doubt, but ironically try to benefit from it,
then I would have no problem revoking you of my services. Even If I'm the only
available option to you. Of course I am welcome to constructive criticism and
bashing me on your blog is totally fine. I will try to fix my mistakes. But it
is different if you mis-inform your readers that I'm a bad company and if you
use my company's services behind the scenes because it's one of the best
options for you, then that is hypocrisy and the day when I find out it's
basically game over for you. Because what you essentially did was:

1) Abuse of power. (You had hundreds of followers on your blog and negatively
marketed my company to them on purpose)

2) Absolutely zero journalistic integrity. (for the same reason as 1)

>Third, their food might suck, but you find the prices great, compared to the
alternatives (or vice versa).

3) Backstabbing and hypocrisy. (You betrayed your readers, my company and
tried to benefit in the process).

At the end of the day, every company needs to profit. If you seem to be in
it's way, I don't think it's wrong to get you out of it's way. And companies
don't need such customers either. It would be shooting in their foot,
literally.

>Saying they sucks and then eating it, it's perfectly normal.

Seriously? If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what else is.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
> then that is hypocrisy and the day when I find out it's basically game over
> for you

Hypocrisy is not illegal (nor should it be). Not honoring contracts, on the
other hand, is (and it should be).

------
ethanazir
If a consumer has parity with a service provider it may be hypocritical to
both publicly criticize and use the service. However, when a service provider
has leverage over the market; e.g. Microsoft 10 years ago; there is no
hypocrisy.

------
whow
I think this is a case of the employees acting out and not a corporate policy
or corporate retaliating. Nevertheless, EasyJet will be taking most of the
brunt of the bad PR

------
tonylemesmer
He did actually get on the flight so the title is misleading.

------
stigi
Initially I read "to let communist on board"...

~~~
pessimizer
10 years too early or 60 years too late.

------
solnyshok
how about throwing passengers out from the flying plane for doing the same via
onboard wifi? or, at least, denying them right to use toilets.

------
Lunatic666
Not letting lawyers on board sounds perfectly ok for me...

