United going after 22-yr old

[Minuteman]

Just start telling people that are flying outstation-hub that they are SUBSIDIZING the flights of people that are flying outstation-outstation via the same hub and they'll be all "rabble-rabble-USER FEES-rabble."

Why don't airlines just charge smaller airport passengers more?!?

 

[derg]

You gotta 2x2 that:

 

[JustinS]

You gotta 2x2 that:

 

[drunkenbeagle]

He explained that by not completing the second segment, Sabre would automatically cancel their return trip. It's probably an easy trigger to set up in any res. system.

That's why you book them under different PNR's, or on different carriers.

 

[Maurus]

I disagree, Maurus. And so does the U.S. Supreme Court. There are indeed limits on speech as you say, but not in this case because none of the adjudicated restrictions apply. Limits do not extend to discussions of non-governmental entities and private citizens solely because said discussions do not involve the government. Limits on speech directed toward non-governmental agencies and private citizens are very narrowly defined with limitations including:

• False statements of facts (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 1974)
• Commercial Speech, specifically false advertising (multiple rulings)
• Use of speech owned by others (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 1985; Folsom v. Marsh, 1841)
• Child Pornography (New York v. Farber, 1982)
• Threats of violence (multiple rulings)
• Fighting words (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)
• Obscenity (Miller v. California, 1972)

Other restrictions include:

• Invasion of privacy
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Absent the above and a few other examples I probably missed, speech concerning non-governmental entities and private citizens is most definitely protected by a whole slew of decisions that protect that speech. So, boiled down, all speech involving corporations, private individuals, and other non-governmental agencies is protected except in instances involving defamation, falsehoods, intentional infliction of emotional distress, threats, invasion of privacy, obscenity, child pornography, incitement (the old "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" doctrine — almost forgot that one), and copyright infringement.

Trust me on this. I deal with free speech issues on an almost daily basis. I'm a writer, a blogger, a published author, and I am very well versed in First Amendment and Copyright issues. Have been for years. What this kid did is most definitely protected because nothing he did meets any prior Supreme Court test saying otherwise . . . and United and their lawyers know that just as well as do I, but they're counting on SLAPP to make the point moot before it gets to the courts.

Again most of what you posted is linked to the government. Private entity Vs Private entity in a case that pertains to a legal agreement has nothing to do with the first amendment. For example this is in United's terms and conditions for using their website.

This website is for the User's personal, noncommercial use only. User agrees not to modify, copy, alter, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from this website without United’s prior written permission. User agrees not to use any robot, spider, other automatic device, or manual process to monitor or copy this website or the content contained therein or for any other unauthorized purpose without United’s prior written permission. User agrees not to use any device, software or routine to interfere with or attempt to interfere with the proper working of this website or any activities conducted on this site. User agrees not to take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure. United reserves the right to investigate any illegal and/or unauthorized use of this website, including, but not limited to, unauthorized framing of this website or unauthorized use of any robot, spider or other automated device, and to take appropriate legal action, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and injunctive redress.

Based on this I would expect every other service United allows to display their flights will have similar if not more restrictive terms.

For example this is CheapOair.com's terms. CheapOair is one service he directs people to.

You agree that the travel services reservations facilities of the Site shall be used only to make legitimate reservations or purchases for you or for another person for whom you are legally authorized to act. You understand that overuse or abuse of the travel services reservation facilities of the Site may result in you being denied access to such facilities. You may not use this Site for any commercial purpose. You agree you will not access, monitor or copy any content or information of this Site using any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means or any manual process for any purpose without our written permission. You agree that you will not violate the restrictions in any robot exclusion headers on this Site, or bypass or circumvent other measures employed to prevent or limit access to this Site. You agree you will not you modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell or re-sell any information, content, graphics, software, products, or services obtained from or through this Site or call center. You agree you will not use a frame or border environment around the Site, or other framing technique to enclose any portion or aspect of the Site, or mirror or replicate any portion of the Site, and that you will not sell, offer for sale, transfer, or license any portion of the Site in any form to any third parties.

The kid hasn't done anything illegal as far as the government is concerned however he has been breaking the terms of use set up by every company he has been using for his website.

 

[RDoug]

The kid hasn't done anything illegal as far as the government is concerned however he has been breaking the terms of use set up by every company he has been using for his website.

If he is indeed doing that, then you are absolutely correct. A violation of the terms of use would not be covered under protected speech. But it was my understanding that he was merely reposting known, advertised fares. If that wasn't indeed the case then he can expect to lose if he allows it to go to trial.

 

[scooter2525]

You gotta 2x2 that:

Love it!

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

I just returned from a trip in SWA (sorry ATNpilot) that was cheaper buying on two reservations then one for three people. By a couple hundred dollars and going nonstop. Go figure.

 

[Richman]

I really wouldn't suggest tinkering with the pricing model of an industry built upon… pricing models.

"Never bust another man's hustle" always seemed like a pretty good rule to live by.

Richman

 

[hook_dupin]

"Never bust another man's hustle" always seemed like a pretty good rule to live by.

Richman

Things like iTunes, Zillow, Uber, and True Car have done quite well completely "busting other hustles."

 

[derg]

And my dog loves to fart but what does that have to do with the price of Chicken McNuggets?