Comment by tommorris | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tommorris | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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 second sentence of Article 10 of the HRA explicitly reads "without interference by public authority" (i.e it's a limitation on government).

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).

Unless you know of evidence to the contrary ?

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."

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-ri...

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.

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.

What's the common law basis you think you can bring the initial suit based on ?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com