Woman arrested after racist rant on tram

[twocows]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Dakotah]

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.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

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

 

[Misheard Whisper]

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.

 

[Mr. X]

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:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Wikipedia article in case of tl;dr:
https://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]

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]

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!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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]

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.

 

[Dakotah]

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.

 

[Sheep]

I feel so terrible for that little kid. Wish it were possible for me to adopt every child with idiotic, irresponsible parents.

 

[Mr. X]

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]

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.

 

[Misheard Whisper]

Yes, but she's clearly being hateful. If the laws are loose enough that this kind of bullcrap is allowed, then the laws need to be tightened. Can you understand the concept of a flawed legal system? America is not perfect, no matter how much you might want it to be.

 

[Oryx]

Yes, but she's clearly being hateful. If the laws are loose enough that this kind of bullcrap is allowed, then the laws need to be tightened. Can you understand the concept of a flawed legal system? America is not perfect, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Chill.

I understand the idea of free speech being great and all, but I see twocows' argument as the most valid here. We were raised with "free speech is inherently good because it's free speech" for our entire lives pretty much, without stopping and thinking about why it's good. This is one of those 'spirit of the law' things - what good has come of that rant? What good has come of rants that are specifically there to insult and demean others? I hesitate to label free speech as inherently good because I can find plenty of examples of free speech being used in a way that's not inherently good. :x

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes, but she's clearly being hateful. If the laws are loose enough that this kind of bullcrap is allowed, then the laws need to be tightened. Can you understand the concept of a flawed legal system? America is not perfect, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Being hateful isn't a problem. You have the right to hate whoever you wish.

 

[Dakotah]

Yes, but her actions do not fit the legal definitions of defamation of character, libel, or harassment.

She WAS charged with racially aggravated harassment. Obviously the authorities disagree with you.

Being hateful isn't a problem. You have the right to hate whoever you wish.

Obviously you have the right to hate whoever you wish. However you do not have the right to express that hate in a threatening or harassing way.

 

[Misheard Whisper]

Being hateful isn't a problem. You have the right to hate whoever you wish.

Hate, yes. Expressing that hate loudly, vulgarly and explicitly in the presence of a large number of people who belong to the group you are insulting for no other reason than to profess your hatred? Not so much.

Also, does this mean that you approve of hatred and racism? Because that's kind of how it sounds.