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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
There are sometimes quite compelling reasons to require private companies to provide services aimed at the public without discrimination.
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).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.
That's exactly what they did and that's exactly what happened.
>but there almost certainly wouldn't have been any legal liability for the airline.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Think that would hold up legally?
No it's not. It's about stopping anyone, especially - but not limited to - large and powerful organizations.
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.
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.
http://www.easyjet.com/terms-and-conditions#a19
I don't think what he tweeted would count as "threatening, abusive or insulting words".
Edit: Having said that, "Get right into em!" is probably not the best phrase to use - although in context it is clearly harmless.
"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."
b) I doubt anyone would claim EasyJet can't do this - just that it is a STUPID idea, and is almost guaranteed to backfire.
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.
It would be a little like google blocking your use of their search engine or deranking your websites if you posted something critical of them.