Woman arrested after racist rant on tram Page 3

Started by Captain Fabio November 29th, 2011 3:02 AM
  • 5537 views
  • 127 replies
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
How I would enforce such censorship?

Honestly, you've got me there. The world has gone too interactive to effectively censor anything.

However, I'd like to clarify that "outlandish or unfavorable views" are not equivalent to hate speech. In most cases, it's the method of delivery or phrasing that's inflammatory and hateful, rather than what's actually being stated.

Still, unless they violate other laws, a person should not be jailed because of hate speech. Perhaps increasing fines could be charged, but things get sketchy if the government is able to jail someone for their words alone (with, of course, the obvious exception of the person's words clearly intended to do harm, such as the old example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded area to incite panic).

But in any case, the video is blown incredibly out of proportion. The woman deserves a hard slap to the face, not international humiliation.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Kung Fu Ferret

Derp

He/Him
Digital World
Seen 13 Hours Ago
Posted 2 Days Ago
1,337 posts
17.7 Years
Oh, for the love of Arceus.... I despise racist bigots...

Look, I'm the whitest guy I know, but I only am attracted girls who are BLACK... for some unapparent reason.....

Anyways.... I find this woman's comments extremely offensive. I hope she gets a lesson into her thick skull.
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
[QUOTE=Digimon Kaiser;6951497Look, I'm the whitest guy I know, but I only am attracted girls who are BLACK... for some unapparent reason.....
.[/QUOTE]
Avoiding the obvious slur... Wouldn't that count as racism as well?


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Ray Maverick

Age 27
Male
Seen 1 Day Ago
Posted 6 Days Ago
3,411 posts
14.3 Years
To answer the question to if what she's doing is (or should be) illegal:

Well, why do human societies make laws in the first place? To ensure peace amongst its members.
What does this woman do?
Nobody wants to hear her full-hating opinion (or even her formally expressed one, in this and most cases in general) about (black) people, and THEREFORE, she's disturbing the peace.

Like someone said in the front pages, it's best her kid is taken so she gets ahold of herself and stop doing drugs and talk trash.
Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
The woman deserves a hard slap to the face, not international humiliation.
So your solution to her ranting is violence? <incredulously shakes head>
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
What are you even talking about?!
Alice was implying that you only find black girls attractive, therefore pushing all white girls out of the running just because they're white, which is discriminating against white girls in favor of black girls.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
Look, I'm the whitest guy I know, but I only am attracted girls who are BLACK... for some unapparent reason.....
.
Avoiding the obvious slur... Wouldn't that count as racism as well?
No, because a person's attraction isn't determined by conscious thought. None of us can really control who we are attracted to. All we can do is decide whether to act on that attraction.
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Age 27
Male
Seen March 6th, 2013
Posted May 22nd, 2012
635 posts
14.9 Years
At the risk of mini-modding, let's try to stay remotely on topic here.

I was, for lack of a better word, debating this video with someone in the comments section of an article a few days ago and I was repulsed that people actually agree with this woman. The interesting thing is that, beyond "It's my British country" or something along those lines, none of the people I was talking to could provide an actual reason for their hate.


"Lightning. It flashes bright, then fades away.
It can't protect. It only destroys."

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]

Male
scotland
Seen September 28th, 2018
Posted March 16th, 2018
8,874 posts
12.1 Years
The interesting thing is that, beyond "It's my British country" or something along those lines, none of the people I was talking to could provide an actual reason for their hate.
I'm guessing it's something to do with the economic situation and all too. Jobs are scarce and a lot of people don't take lightly to immigrants coming in and working them. My response to that tbh would be "well get some qualifications and try again like most people who have a half-decent job here", but I'm just throwing it out there.

Not saying that it's right to be hateful because of that, ofc.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
For what? For speaking her mind? You know that your have every right to like or to hate anybody you want in my country. You have the right to express those opinions. People who disagree with you and don't think very highly of you also have the right to tell you what they think of you in return.

Maybe if she got into a brawl, some anger management would be in order. Jail doesn't do anything to fix the root causes of crime, and usually turns people into even more hardened criminals. That's a debate that warrants a whole thread of its own, though.
Why is free speech valuable to begin with? I would say its value lies in allowing under-represented groups to voice their issues without fear of persecution. Discussion of political problems from multiple sides brings out a lot of issues that we as a whole can work to resolve. Free speech is not valuable in itself, it is valuable because it accomplishes these things. Therefore, limits on free speech ought to be acceptable so long as they don't lessen its purpose for existence.

This wasn't a problem with what she was arguing. While I disagree with the idea that a country should be closed off to all immigrants, I'm fine with talking about the issue with someone who thinks differently. The issue was that she wasn't advocating for an issue. She was insulting people. She was not trying to advance a position, she was not backing up her position with reasoning or facts. She was insulting people to their face. This serves no purpose. It is antagonism for the sake of antagonism. I have no problem with limiting speech that only exists to incite people, even if they happen to be expressing an opinion within that speech.

If you want to advocate for something, go right ahead; I'm all for different opinions and talking things out and all that hippee crap. However, being a jerk should not be constitutionally protected. You want to debate an issue, do so without excessive use of ad hominem or remove yourself from the debate. If she wanted to preach about how England is no longer the glorious white anglo-saxon state it once was, that's fine (though she shouldn't do it on a bus where people are just trying to go home, but that shouldn't be legally mandated). However, she crossed the line and definitely deserved what she got.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it should be legal to be a racist douchebag, but only in the context of a debate. Don't go around calling people n-words or whatever and then waving around first amendment protection as an excuse, because really, **** you.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Why is free speech valuable to begin with? I would say its value lies in allowing under-represented groups to voice their issues without fear of persecution. Discussion of political problems from multiple sides brings out a lot of issues that we as a whole can work to resolve. Free speech is not valuable in itself, it is valuable because it accomplishes these things. Therefore, limits on free speech ought to be acceptable so long as they don't lessen its purpose for existence.

This wasn't a problem with what she was arguing. While I disagree with the idea that a country should be closed off to all immigrants, I'm fine with talking about the issue with someone who thinks differently. The issue was that she wasn't advocating for an issue. She was insulting people. She was not trying to advance a position, she was not backing up her position with reasoning or facts. She was insulting people to their face. This serves no purpose. It is antagonism for the sake of antagonism. I have no problem with limiting speech that only exists to incite people, even if they happen to be expressing an opinion within that speech.

If you want to advocate for something, go right ahead; I'm all for different opinions and talking things out and all that hippee crap. However, being a jerk should not be constitutionally protected. You want to debate an issue, do so without excessive use of ad hominem or remove yourself from the debate. If she wanted to preach about how England is no longer the glorious white anglo-saxon state it once was, that's fine (though she shouldn't do it on a bus where people are just trying to go home, but that shouldn't be legally mandated). However, she crossed the line and definitely deserved what she got.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it should be legal to be a racist douchebag, but only in the context of a debate. Don't go around calling people n-words or whatever and then waving around first amendment protection as an excuse, because really, **** you.
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.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and in Doe v. University of Michigan, the courts clearly reject the concept of European-style hate speech statutes. While the courts have recognized four narrow areas where speech can be regulated, in R.A.V., the Supreme Court tells us that those regulations have to be content-neutral, meaning that the reason for regulating them and the enforcement of such regulations cannot be due to what the content of the speech is.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Court tells us that freedom of speech even protects hate speech that is expressed in extreme and outlandish ways. The Court tells us that the level of constitutional protection is at its highest when the speech is on an issues in political discourse. Westboro was commenting on the issue of expanded rights and special protections for LGBT people, while the women on the tram in the video was commenting on the issue of immigration in her country. Both are constitutionally protected if they take place here, regardless of how offensive or outlandish their speech may be.

Misheard Whisper

I also happen to be a model.

Age 28
He/They
Nimbasa Gym
Seen October 3rd, 2022
Posted September 27th, 2022
3,488 posts
14.4 Years
Frankly, I think it is entirely disgusting that any country which professes to be a free democracy has constitutional protection for vile, disgusting hate speech spouted with no other intention than to cause dissent and to insult. Hate speech is illegal in my country, and for good reason. It's disgusting, and a country that tolerates it is disgusting. Free speech has its limits, and there is a line which has been crossed here.

For example, you mentioned Westboro, which I assume refers to the notorious Baptist Church. Here in NZ, you'd never be allowed to say the hateful, deliberately inflammatory things they've been saying. Also, the special rights and protections for LGBT people are only necessary because of people like them. How many gay people do you know that go on 'straight-bashing' sprees?
Star Performer
~latest chapter: 11~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Champion's Legacy
~on hiatus~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New Game
~the classic~
Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
Frankly, I think it is entirely disgusting that any country which professes to be a free democracy has constitutional protection for vile, disgusting hate speech spouted with no other intention than to cause dissent and to insult. Hate speech is illegal in my country, and for good reason. It's disgusting, and a country that tolerates it is disgusting. Free speech has its limits, and there is a line which has been crossed here.

For example, you mentioned Westboro, which I assume refers to the notorious Baptist Church. Here in NZ, you'd never be allowed to say the hateful, deliberately inflammatory things they've been saying. Also, the special rights and protections for LGBT people are only necessary because of people like them. How many gay people do you know that go on 'straight-bashing' sprees?
Hate speech is also illegal in Canada, and groups like the Westboro church are banned from entering our Country because of their beliefs. We do not tolerate hate, just as it's not tolerated where you live.

I understand where the U.S. is coming from when it comes to the first amendment, however, too many people in the U.S. see the freedom of speech as just a right, and not also a responsibility. Just because you can do a thing, does not necessarily mean you should do that thing.
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Frankly, I think it is entirely disgusting that any country which professes to be a free democracy has constitutional protection for vile, disgusting hate speech spouted with no other intention than to cause dissent and to insult. Hate speech is illegal in my country, and for good reason. It's disgusting, and a country that tolerates it is disgusting. Free speech has its limits, and there is a line which has been crossed here.

For example, you mentioned Westboro, which I assume refers to the notorious Baptist Church. Here in NZ, you'd never be allowed to say the hateful, deliberately inflammatory things they've been saying. Also, the special rights and protections for LGBT people are only necessary because of people like them. How many gay people do you know that go on 'straight-bashing' sprees?
Yes, I am referring to Westboro Baptist Church. The case Snyder v. Phelps involves the Phelps family of Westboro. The Court ruled 8-1 that what Westboro does is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. I agree with the Court's holding. The ultraliberal ACLU also sided with Phelps.

Here is the opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Wikipedia article in case of tl;dr:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Misheard Whisper

I also happen to be a model.

Age 28
He/They
Nimbasa Gym
Seen October 3rd, 2022
Posted September 27th, 2022
3,488 posts
14.4 Years
Exactly, and that's what's entirely wrong. The Westboro Baptist Church are out to stir up trouble, defaming and inflaming. Under your law, that is perfectly legal. I see that, and I comprehend it. What I am saying, however, is that your law is flawed. As Jay said, as well, people are all too quick to seize on their 'rights' while forgetting about their 'responsibilities'. I know that the WBC's actions are legal under American law; what I'm saying is that the American law that makes their actions legal is wrong.
Star Performer
~latest chapter: 11~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Champion's Legacy
~on hiatus~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New Game
~the classic~

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
Yes, I am referring to Westboro Baptist Church. The case Snyder v. Phelps involves the Phelps family of Westboro. The Court ruled 8-1 that what Westboro does is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. I agree with the Court's holding. The ultraliberal ACLU also sided with Phelps.

Here is the opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Wikipedia article in case of tl;dr:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
Legally, in this country, they can do these actions. But, just because its legal doesn't mean its the morally right thing to do.

The fact that these people are legally allowed to spew their hate speech, which is ment to DIVIDE people and make them LESS EQUAL in comparison to another, in a country that is supposed to treat everyone EQUALLY is just another reason why people look down on us.

What point does hate speech have besides to create hatred, divide people, and proclaim people to be of lesser value then another? Care to tell me just how in a civilized society that hate speech can be of good use?

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Legally, in this country, they can do these actions. But, just because its legal doesn't mean its the morally right thing to do.

The fact that these people are legally allowed to spew their hate speech, which is ment to DIVIDE people and make them LESS EQUAL in comparison to another, in a country that is supposed to treat everyone EQUALLY is just another reason why people look down on us.

What point does hate speech have besides to create hatred, divide people, and proclaim people to be of lesser value then another? Care to tell me just how in a civilized society that hate speech can be of good use?
The Constitution doesn't say that everyone has to treat everyone equally. It does say; however, that we have freedom of speech. It also says that the government is to protect liberty. Freedom of speech is an essential liberty, which is why that clause of the Constitution was applied to the states by the Supreme Court.

I agree that we should aspire to treat people more equally, as long as we don't trample on people's individual liberty in the pursuit of equality. When the two conflict, the rights of the individual take supremacy over the rights of the collective. That's my philosophy.

Misheard Whisper

I also happen to be a model.

Age 28
He/They
Nimbasa Gym
Seen October 3rd, 2022
Posted September 27th, 2022
3,488 posts
14.4 Years
Then the Constitution is flawed. People who take the Constitution as gospel are worse than the people who take the gospel as gospel, if you ask me. It was written by a bunch of politicians over 200 years ago, and none of them would have had the foresight or prescience to make allowances for modern-day technology and sensibilities. Even Thomas Jefferson proposed that the Constitution be rewritten entirely every nineteen years, simply to ensure that the American people weren't being ruled over by a bunch of dead guys. There are times when the rights of the individual should supersede the rights of the collective, yes. But not when said individuals are abusing said rights to violate the rights of the majority!
Star Performer
~latest chapter: 11~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Champion's Legacy
~on hiatus~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New Game
~the classic~

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Then the Constitution is flawed. People who take the Constitution as gospel are worse than the people who take the gospel as gospel, if you ask me. It was written by a bunch of politicians over 200 years ago, and none of them would have had the foresight or prescience to make allowances for modern-day technology and sensibilities. Even Thomas Jefferson proposed that the Constitution be rewritten entirely every nineteen years, simply to ensure that the American people weren't being ruled over by a bunch of dead guys. There are times when the rights of the individual should supersede the rights of the collective, yes. But not when said individuals are abusing said rights to violate the rights of the majority!
The Constitution can be amended. It takes 3/4 of both Houses of Congress and ratification by the Legislature of 3/4 the states to amend it. The problem is, proposing what you are suggesting is political suicide in all but the most radically left-wing parts of the country.

Also, this woman isn't violating anybody's rights from an American standpoint. There is no constitutional right to not be offended.

Misheard Whisper

I also happen to be a model.

Age 28
He/They
Nimbasa Gym
Seen October 3rd, 2022
Posted September 27th, 2022
3,488 posts
14.4 Years
So you have the right to freely abuse people, but you don't have the right to not be abused? Sure, that sounds fair. Look, I'm not talking about constitutional rights here anymore. I'm talking about basic human rights. The human rights of the people on that tram were violated because this woman was hurling abuse at them! Nobody should have to put up with that bull****! What she was saying and doing was hateful and racist, and served no constructive purpose whatsoever. The intention was to insult and downgrade other human beings, violating their right to be treated equally, which in my opinion is generally the most important of all rights. Her ****ing right to free speech should have nothing to do with this.
Star Performer
~latest chapter: 11~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Champion's Legacy
~on hiatus~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
New Game
~the classic~
Seen July 22nd, 2016
Posted July 22nd, 2016
900 posts
12.8 Years
Also, this woman isn't violating anybody's rights from an American standpoint. There is no constitutional right to not be offended.
Except where such offense could cause harm. ie. defamation of character, libel, harassment, etc. In those cases, the law does assign consequences for such speech, even in the US.
DAKOTAH
Personal Website
YouTube Channel


1693-4093-6753
Normal Safari
Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

Sheep

She/Her
Australia
Seen 12 Hours Ago
Posted 15 Hours Ago
39,266 posts
16.6 Years
I feel so terrible for that little kid. Wish it were possible for me to adopt every child with idiotic, irresponsible parents.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
And just when was the most recently created and accepted amendment? The 26th, created and ratified in 1971. 40 years ago. Yes, the 27th was most recently ratified but it was proposed in 1789.

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

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


Except where such offense could cause harm. ie. defamation of character, libel, harassment, etc. In those cases, the law does assign consequences for such speech, even in the US.
Yes, but her actions do not fit the legal definitions of defamation of character, libel, or harassment.