It's hard to imagine how anyone could find this to be scientific experimentation, rather than some random crap done in hopes of finding a way to sell more advertising.

Depends on what he tweets with it. Or threatens to. Anybody who reads Slashdot should know how easy it is to get a lynch mob stalking some random stranger with death threats with lies.

You've clearly never, ever worked in customer service.

He had that option when she threatened to call the police. He declined. Strictly speaking, he still has that option in a civil court, but will decline that, too, I expect.

This guy's only disability is that he's an asshole, and that's not a protected class.

That's one interpretation. The other is that - as the articles say - he named her in the very public tweet, and might have threatened to escalate further and encourage people to harass, threaten, or do worse to her. It's not implausible that she did feel threatened by his behavior, and threatened behavior.

You, of course, will assume that the article is a true and complete account, because that's the popular thing to do on the internet, but there's always two sides.

One thing that was included in the article was that he named the gate agent in the tweet. That pretty much proves your theory that his intent was intimidation. Given how easy it is to convince stupid assholes on the internet to stalk some random stranger with death threats, I'm not all that sure it was an overreaction.

If it was as he described, his best reaction would be to tell them to go ahead and call the cops, which would have proved that the gate agent doesn't have the authority to do so, and determine whether or not their supervisor was an idiot.

I dunno about you, but I - who have no children - would rather be sitting in the uncomfortable chair at the gate waiting for the idiot parents with unruly children get their shit together than be sitting in the even more uncomfortable, far more cramped seats on the plane. Let the parents board first, by all means.

The example was not "You're ugly" or "you're stupid," it was "you're ugly as a woman" and "you're stupid because you're a woman."

Try to pay attention, troll-boy.

"Sexual harassment" has a specific legal definition - and the example given fits in it quite firmly. You are factually incorrect about it not being sexual. The "sexual" part of "sexual harassment" refers to gender, not the sex act. (My employer's mandatory - by state law - sexual harassment training used to be done by a trial lawyer who loved defendants - so long as he was on the other side - like you.)

And you implicated that I cannot possibly disagree with you unless I am mentally ill is proof that you have quite a bit of experience at one side of bullying. Unfortunately for you, son, you haven't got what it takes to troll the master, so go ask mummy for some milk and cookies, and head off to bed so you won't fall asleep in school tomorrow.

Sexual or not, it's certainly harassment, and therefore, illegal in the US. More so in some states than others, but illegal everywhere.

I'd guess you've only been on one side of bullying, to take such a position.

Having a formal policy reduces legal liability (somewhat) for the employer.

Of course, enforcing the policy reduces it even more.

Contract provision or no, they're a corporation, and that means they are required by law, in every state, to have a business address published (usually with the secretary of state for the state they're incorporated in).

They'll claim the contact prohibits notice by mail, but that's unenforceable to begin with, and when you describe the phone call - their flat refusal to accept the cancellation - or play the recording of it, even if it were technically enforceable the contract would be ruled unconscionable.

You can believe in the ultimate, unchallengeable power of the Mighty Corporation(tm) all you want, but their only real power comes from your belief. If you stand your ground, and bother to know what the law is, it's on your side.

That's why you don't tell them until after you've told them to cancel the account. If they reserve the right to record it - which they did before the human came on the line - there is no expectation of privacy, and you don't need to tell them. You only tell them at the end to reinforce that you can prove you did.

"This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" means that you have their permission to record it, too, even in California.

"Cancel my account."

"I can't do that unless you give me a reason."

"I'm recording this conversation, so I have proof that the account has been canceled. If I receive any more invoices, the next phone call will be from my lawyer, or the police."

Click.

The better method, though, is to do it in writing, by registered mail. End of equation.

I know I'll get modded down for this. but I find it hard to sympathize with someone who goes on vacation on another continent and wants to play computer games in their hotel.

Sever allergy to sunshine must be more common than I thought.

I see no criminal charges mentioned. There's an allegation of perjury in a civil case, but no criminal charges.