I'm going to stand up for Carol. Respectfully, she is probably wrong if she is thinking that the "free speech" clause in the first amendment to the United States Constitution somehow prohibits Magical Cruise Company, Ltd. (dba
Disney Cruise Line) from deciding not to permit other business magnets on cabin doors.
But the question isn't so simple as to be "hilarious[ly]" wrong and no one here should fault Carol for asking the question. That is much worse that being wrong about a constitutional issue, in my book.
Magical Cruise Company, Ltd. is a UK corporation with its principal place of business in London. Is anyone here enough of an expert on UK law to be able to say with certainty that it does not regulate
DCL's conduct and does not impose limits on private companies who restrict speech by customers?
DCL ships are registered under the laws of "The Bahamas!" (exclamation point in original at
http://disneycruise.disney.go.com/ships-activities/ships/). Is anyone here enough of an expert on Bahamian law to know whether it prohibits private companies from imposing restrictions on free speech of their customers?
And for all we know, Florida, California, British Columbia or Canada (for the Alaskan cruises) impose constitutional or statutory limits on a private company's restriction of free speech. Anyone here an expert on Canadian Constitutional or Maritime law? I sure don't know one way or the other, certainly not enough to think someone is being hilarious just for asking.
And for all we know, Carol was not even asking a constitutional issue but trying to drum up support for her campaign to get DCL to let her post the prior (and current) PCC magnets on her door.
If we know anything, it is to never underestimate Carol's determination.
