Woman arrested after racist rant on tram

[FreakyLocz14]

[SIZE="a"]This is a common logical fallacy. Not wanting to prohibit someone from doing something does equate to express approval of their actions.

If we only allowed speech we approved of, what good would the 1st Amendment be?[/SIZE]

 

[Mr. X]

Do you believe that the first amendment was created with hate speech accounted for? No. It was created to allow PEOPLE to LEGALLY be able to CRITICIZE the GOVERNMENT. It lacks protections against hate speech only because, at the time of its creation, other races (Africans) were legally considered to be second class citizens and homosexuality was a crime in a lot of states. The first amendment was great at its time. While MOST of it is still relevant to this time, some aspects of it are a little under two and a half centuries outdated.

That said, I'm all for protecting the rights of the individual as long as those rights are not used to bring harm to other individuals or groups. Free speech is great but its just like Islam. Good in theory, until some people use it as justification to commit certain acts.

Legalities aside, do you really think its morally acceptable to allow people to spread messages of superiority when compared to other groups or how a certain group should be killed for certain actions, even though those actions are legal, just because the actions are ones that you do not agree with or support?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Do you believe that the first amendment was created with hate speech accounted for? No. It was created to allow PEOPLE to LEGALLY be able to CRITICIZE the GOVERNMENT. It lacks protections against hate speech only because, at the time of its creation, other races (Africans) were legally considered to be second class citizens and homosexuality was a crime in a lot of states. The first amendment was great at its time. While MOST of it is still relevant to this time, some aspects of it are a little under two and a half centuries outdated.

That said, I'm all for protecting the rights of the individual as long as those rights are not used to bring harm to other individuals or groups. Free speech is great but its just like Islam. Good in theory, until some people use it as justification to commit certain acts.

Legalities aside, do you really think its morally acceptable to allow people to spread messages of superiority when compared to other groups or how a certain group should be killed for certain actions, even though those actions are legal, just because the actions are ones that you do not agree with or support?

That's a bit much, isn't it? I didn't hear her say that anyone should be killed.

 

[Mr. X]

Hitler started with speeches about superiority too.

That said, thanks for not giving me a straight answer to the two questions. Is there a reason why you are refusing to do so?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Hitler started with speeches about superiority too.

That said, thanks for not giving me a straight answer to the two questions. Is there a reason why you are refusing to do so?

I honestly don't believe she means everything she says. She is clearly intoxicated on alcohol, weed, or some other drug. I wouldn't compare her to Hitler because she had a drunken fit.

I believe that she could be have been temporarily detained and cited for public intoxication or possibly inciting a riot. I just don't believe that the basis of her punishment should be due to the content of her speech.

 

[Dakotah]

I believe that she could be have been temporarily detained and cited for public intoxication or possibly inciting a riot. I just don't believe that the basis of her punishment should be due to the content of her speech.

Different country, different laws. What you or I believe is irrelevant. The fact is, she was charged under the criminal code of that country. The charge that was laid was proper given her actions, in accordance with the laws of that country. Like it or not, that's the reality of it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Different country, different laws. What you or I believe is irrelevant. The fact is, she was charged under the criminal code of that country. The charge that was laid was proper given her actions, in accordance with the laws of that country. Like it or not, that's the reality of it.

You are right, but we are also debating whether or not those laws are just laws or if they are violation of essential liberty. The same argument you made can be applied to public execution of homosexuals in Iran. People need to stand up to unjust laws and not just say, "Oh well. That's the law.".

 

[Dakotah]

You are right, but we are also debating whether or not those laws are just laws or if they are violation of essential liberty. The same argument you made can be applied to public execution of homosexuals in Iran. People need to stand up to unjust laws and not just say, "Oh well. That's the law.".

Where your analogy goes wrong is that in Iran, the law is a blatant restriction of the civil liberties of a class of people, whereas in this case, the law is an attempt to protect the civil liberties of all its citizens, including the woman who engaged in the offensive behaviour.

This rule, I think, applies: your rights end where my nose begins.

The message there is, your rights can be curtailed if your actions negatively impact another person's rights.

On the bus, those people had the right not to be exposed to her harassment (and yes that is what she was charged with). She, on the other hand, had every right to voice her opinion. The problem for her was, she went way above stating her opinions. She was argumentative, belligerent, and engaging in harassing behaviour.

 

[Esper]

I really do like how twocows worded things on free speech: a means for a specific end, namely allowing for all sides and opinions to be expressed in a civil manner. Not a broad "anyone can say almost anything they want" kind of view that Freaky has. But I sympathize with Freaky's position, too, since not everyone is a trained debater who necessarily knows how to present their opinion properly, nor does stating your position politely have the impact that other methods of expression do (such as marches and street occupations). However, I don't think that if "European"-style anti-hate speech laws are in place that you loose the right to express yourself. It merely forces you to express yourself in a civil way if your opinions are hateful.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Where your analogy goes wrong is that in Iran, the law is a blatant restriction of the civil liberties of a class of people, whereas in this case, the law is an attempt to protect the civil liberties of all its citizens, including the woman who engaged in the offensive behaviour.

This rule, I think, applies: your rights end where my nose begins.

The message there is, your rights can be curtailed if your actions negatively impact another person's rights.

On the bus, those people had the right not to be exposed to her harassment (and yes that is what she was charged with). She, on the other hand, had every right to voice her opinion. The problem for her was, she went way above stating her opinions. She was argumentative, belligerent, and engaging in harassing behaviour.

I reject the premise that hate speech laws protect civil liberties because you have yet identify what liberty is being protected by them. There is no right to not be offended.

A civil liberty is also a right that deals with people's relationships with their government. This woman is not a government agent as far as I know, and even if she was, she is not acting in her official capacity as a government agent. If she was, I'd hold a different view on the situation.

 

[Dakotah]

I reject the premise that hate speech laws protect civil liberties because you have yet identify what liberty is being protected by them.

The most basic of all civil liberties... the right not to be harmed by another. Harassment, as you know, is a real harm inflicted on people. Hate speech laws target harassing behaviour based on racial, religious, sex, age, disability, and other characteristics. They're designed not only to protect the individual, but also the class of people being targeted.

In this particular case, the law also protected this woman, which was accomplished when the police detained her in prison for her own protection after they intercepted death threats made against this woman.

Those death threats, I contend, should also be investigated and the perpetrators of those threats arrested and charged.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The most basic of all civil liberties... the right not to be harmed by another. Harassment, as you know, is a real harm inflicted on people. Hate speech laws target harassing behaviour based on racial, religious, sex, age, disability, and other characteristics. They're designed not only to protect the individual, but also the class of people being targeted.

In this particular case, the law also protected this woman, which was accomplished when the police detained her in prison for her own protection after they intercepted death threats made against this woman.

Those death threats, I contend, should also be investigated and the perpetrators of those threats arrested and charged.

Liberty is the right to be left alone by and not be harmed by the government. This woman is not the government; thus, she is not violating anybody's civil liberties with her speech.

I also disagree with your view that classes of people have rights. They do not in my opinion. Groups don't have rights. Only individuals have rights.

 

[Mr. X]

A group is nothing more then a varying number of individuals. The number can vary from 2 to anything.

Why is it that when people band together that they should lose those rights?

If a strong collection of individuals are not deserving of rights then why should a weak individual have rights?

 

[KingCharizard]

Before I say anything I will remain neutral about this matter. First let me quote something then post my views

Come on now, being arrested after committing an offense is standard in any country. You don't get arrested during an offense normally, not unless a police officer is on the scene at that exact moment, you get arrested AFTER the offense has been committed. So yes, getting arrested after committing an offense is constitutional. It's done every single day, in every single state, in every single town, in every single county.

I am an american, so I'd like to point out what she said is not an offense! Shes pretected by the 1st Amendment... However Disturbing the peace is, and that's what she would be arrested for in america...

Now about my thoughts on this... Why is this wrong? Because its offensive? It hurts peoples feelings? She has no respect? Perhaps, but this is wrong according to who? Not her. In fact its not actually wrong. Its immoral but People(Humans) have a right to believe and say what they wish, free will and all but there are reasons they do not, such as FEAR, RESPECT, MORALS etc.. She however is doing what she believes is right. Who are we to tell her otherwise, yea there is laws and guidelines people must follow so a certain sense of order is kept without these the world would be very Uncivil. That's why these laws are in effect.

Most of you say she's wrong because of the kid... But who are we to tell her how to raise the kid? Do I agree with what she's saying around him? No! But I also don't have the right to tell her how to raise her kid(Assuming its hers). As a Parent myself I wouldn't want anyone to tell me how to raise my kids.

So Like I said according to her she's not doing anything wrong, according to everyone else she is.. but that's their views, and their offended. They have every right to be! But she doesn't think she's doing anything wrong! Morally she's wrong according to me and most of others but technically she's not... This is HATE. and she should show respect she just doesn't because shes not a decent person(According to me!)...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A group is nothing more then a varying number of individuals. The number can vary from 2 to anything.

Why is it that when people band together that they should lose those rights?

If a strong collection of individuals are not deserving of rights then why should a weak individual have rights?

No. I did not say that. Each individual in the group retains there rights at all times. The group as a collective does not have rights.

Before I say anything I will remain neutral about this matter. First let me quote something then post my views

I am an american, so I'd like to point out what she said is not an offense! Shes pretected by the 1st Amendment... However Disturbing the peace is, and that's what she would be arrested for in america...

Now about my thoughts on this... Why is this wrong? Because its offensive? It hurts peoples feelings? She has no respect? Perhaps, but this is wrong according to who? Not her. In fact its not actually wrong. Its immoral but People(Humans) have a right to believe and say what they wish, free will and all but there are reasons they do not, such as FEAR, RESPECT, MORALS etc.. She however is doing what she believes is right. Who are we to tell her otherwise, yea there is laws and guidelines people must follow so a certain sense of order is kept without these the world would be very Uncivil. That's why these laws are in effect.

Most of you say she's wrong because of the kid... But who are we to tell her how to raise the kid? Do I agree with what she's saying around him? No! But I also don't have the right to tell her how to raise her kid(Assuming its hers). As a Parent myself I wouldn't want anyone to tell me how to raise my kids.

So Like I said according to her she's not doing anything wrong, according to everyone else she is.. but that's their views, and their offended. They have every right to be! But she doesn't think she's doing anything wrong! Morally she's wrong according to me and most of others but technically she's not... This is HATE. and she should show respect she just doesn't because shes not a decent person(According to me!)...

A+ post!
Liberty is strong with this one.

 

[c l e a r]

Amberlamps is about a billion times more entertaining. This is just some xenophobic lunatic sprouting drunk non-sense.

Jolly good show though, for the people on the tram. (PS, Think of the Children is not a valid argument)

 

[twocows]

I have a personal belief that this woman is a racist pig, so we agree there. I don't believe that we should use the strong arm of the law to enforce political correctness because that sets up a dangerous precedent against freedom of speech. Free speech is an essential value in a free society. Free speech should be virtually unlimited save for speech that directly incites imminent lawless action. Anything less sets up a dangerous precedent where we can have people we disagree with arrested and prosecuted because we found their views offensive.

(snip)

You're arguing mostly on a legal basis. I'm arguing on a philosophical basis. I don't care what the law is or says, I care what the law should be. Why is free speech important? Why should it be unlimited? You say because anything less puts us in danger of arresting people for offensive views, but I think that we can easily place reasonable limits on free speech without that happening. I'm basically saying we should include limits in free speech on harassing people. It should be fine, for example, for someone to argue against social welfare. It should not fine, however, for someone to go up to a homeless person in a food stamp line and stand there firing off insults at the guy for the better part of fifteen minutes.

I don't think free speech needs to be unlimited at all for people to protect opinions others might find offensive. I don't see a problem with making laws against harassing people like this lady was. I'm not 100% sure, but I think there may already be some, though I'm not sure if they'd cover this sort of thing.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You're arguing mostly on a legal basis. I'm arguing on a philosophical basis. I don't care what the law is or says, I care what the law should be. Why is free speech important? Why should it be unlimited? You say because anything less puts us in danger of arresting people for offensive views, but I think that we can easily place reasonable limits on free speech without that happening. I'm basically saying we should include limits in free speech on harassing people. It should be fine, for example, for someone to argue against social welfare. It should not fine, however, for someone to go up to a homeless person in a food stamp line and stand there firing off insults at the guy for the better part of fifteen minutes.

I don't think free speech needs to be unlimited at all for people to protect opinions others might find offensive. I don't see a problem with making laws against harassing people like this lady was. I'm not 100% sure, but I think there may already be some, though I'm not sure if they'd cover this sort of thing.

They don't. See the cases R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Doe v. University of Michigan, and Snyder v. Phelps. The courts have clearly established that European-style hate speech laws are unconstitutional here in America.

The courts have said that laws to keep people from inciting violence can be enacted if 1) the threat of lawless action is imminent (at that very moment)(Brandenburg v. Ohio) and 2) the law are content-neural (the content of her speech cannot be a factor)(R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul). This is commonly referred to as the fighting words exception. Thus, even if it can be shown that she was inciting lawless action, the state's opportunity to intervene goes away once the imminent danger does.

As for the philosophical argument, I believe that freedom of speech should be as unlimited as possible while still maintaining public safety. My core philosophy is the harm principle. If something doesn't physically harm others or cause severe emotional distress, the state shouldn't be able to stop people from doing what they want. Her words didn't harm anyone. Some people just got offended, but no real harm occurred.

 

[Dakotah]

I am an american, so I'd like to point out what she said is not an offense! Shes pretected by the 1st Amendment...

She was not arrested for voicing an opinion, she was arrested for harassment, which is illegal. And also, she's not protected by the 1st Amendment. The event did not occur in the U.S.

 

[KingCharizard]

She was not arrested for voicing an opinion, she was arrested for harassment, which is illegal. And also, she's not protected by the 1st Amendment. The event did not occur in the U.S.

I'm not gonna argue with you, and be like the rest in this thread, I said if she was in america...

I am an american, so I'd like to point out what she said is not an offense! Shes pretected by the 1st Amendment... However Disturbing the peace is, and that's what she would be arrested for in america...

try to quote and read my actual post if you have an disagreement please. I could have worded it more clearly, and of course i meant protected*