Woman arrested after racist rant on tram

[FreakyLocz14]

America, where everyone* is equal. (*Unless you have a certain skin color, sexual orientation, or whatever diffrence that we feel is worthy of discrimination.)

As for you Locz, im going to say something to you that I really should have said a long time ago. Sometimes to ensure some rights are protected, other rights must be neglected. That said, you prefer a country that discriminates against its own citizens? And can LEGALLY do so?

I disagree. I believe in protecting liberty across the board, not neglecting some in favor of others.

And, no, I don't endorse a country that discriminates, but this woman is not a government employee. She is a private citizen, so her actions are not actions of the country's government.

Arrests after the incident being unconstitutional applies to the regulation of speech. Freedom of speech does have some narrow exceptions, but they are almost always only applicable at that given time.

 

[Mr. X]

In other words, you want a working solid gold car. Sorry, its just not feasible. You can't make a car out solid gold and expect it to work. Sad truth is that sometimes you need to remove some of that gold for parts made of other material if you want it to work. In this case, the working gold car is you wanting to protect all liberties equally and the other material being the rights that have to be neglected in order for other rights to be protected. (Basically, you can have a solid gold engine but your still going to have to have rubber/whatevermaterialtheyaremadeof belts if you want it to work. Not to mention a lot of other parts.)

I said prefer, not endorse. You didn't need to answer that as you had made your preference quite clear a couple posts above.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

In other words, you want a working solid gold car. Sorry, its just not feasible. You can't make a car out solid gold and expect it to work. Sad truth is that sometimes you need to remove some of that gold for parts made of other material if you want it to work. In this case, the working gold car is you wanting to protect all liberties equally and the other material being the rights that have to be neglected in order for other rights to be protected. (Basically, you can have a solid gold engine but your still going to have to have rubber/whatevermaterialtheyaremadeof belts if you want it to work. Not to mention a lot of other parts.)

I said prefer, not endorse. You didn't need to answer that as you had made your preference quite clear a couple posts above.

I don't buy that argument. It seems like this is going nowhere, so let me close with a famous quote:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

In other words, you're willing to curb freedom of speech in order to keep people from being offended, which you believe might lead to a fight or something. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[countryemo]

I want to meet this lady when I cross the Atlantic next month, lmao. Aaaaahahahaha. She's funny. I don't think an arrest is deserved here, however she IS proud to be English and as far as I know, there is no freedom of speech law, so let me toss my American law knowledge away for a moment and say that she did deserve it. Love the guy behind her ready to get up and smack a *****.

Lmao. Wow Sydian.

I like this Woman, I believe she shouldnt have gone as far as she did, and she does deserve it. But it was a nice watch.
Shame if it did get physical, I would feel sorry for the child, and the woman. The others should have just shut up and ignored her.

 

[Dakotah]

I clearly did say that America is imperfect, and while marriage liberty is an advantage that Canada has over the United States, I prefer my country.

You are welcome to it.

Back on topic, you are INCORRECT. She would NOT have been arrested. Hate speech laws have not fared well in American courts. She might have been removed from the train, and maybe arrested for fighting words, but only AT THAT VERY MOMENT. An arrest made after the the incident would be unconstitutional here, and rightly so.

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.

 

[Nihilego]

I like this Woman, I believe she shouldnt have gone as far as she did, and she does deserve it. But it was a nice watch.

It almost sounds like you're supporting what she's saying when you say that you like her lmao.

Anyway, it's times like this when I'm completely glad we don't have the right to free speech since if we did, wouldn't that mean that she could have got away with this? Idk if an American or someone else from a country with free speech would like to correct me then please do. But I don't see how they could have arrested her if we did have that right.

...that said though I'm kinda surprised that she was arrested. She did something that, unfortunately, a lot of people overly proud to be British to the point of discrimination do every day and the police are well aware of that. I'm guessing it was just some sort of demonstration to say "yeah this isn't on". Not that I think she shouldn't have been arrested ofc, but I'm surprised that she did.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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.

There are constitutional limits when offenses are based on speech. Nothing criminal by American standards came out of her mouth. As someone who has been studying law for several years now, I can tell you that what she said is protected under Freedom Of Speech. The only exceptions that could apply are fighting words or dangerous words, both of which require the danger to be imminent at that very moment. Once the incident ends, the opportunity for the police to intervene is gone.

 

[Esper]

I don't see what would be the difference if she was arrested on the spot or days later. If what she did was worthy of being arrested at the time, but there were no police around, does that mean she gets away with it just because it took them time to find her?

The police making examples of individuals whose crimes become widely publicized is just a matter of course. They can't not do anything when everyone can see someone committing a crime. So the only real question here is whether what she did was a crime - not when or how she was arrested - and I still think what she did was trying to start a fight.

 

[Mr. X]

I don't buy that argument. It seems like this is going nowhere, so let me close with a famous quote:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

In other words, you're willing to curb freedom of speech in order to keep people from being offended, which you believe might lead to a fight or something. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

We sacrificed essential liberty when the PATRIOT act was passed to purchase a little temporary safety. If you believe your above words true then, therefor, we deserve neither liberty or safety.

And yes, I am. Im willing to make sure that people are not allowed to spread hatred of other people through the use of speech. While you see nothing wrong with people being able to spread hatred of other people, I do and I don't want the speech to grow to the point that America has it's own Hitler who wants to kill all *insert minority here*.

 

[Oryx]

I don't see what would be the difference if she was arrested on the spot or days later. If what she did was worthy of being arrested at the time, but there were no police around, does that mean she gets away with it just because it took them time to find her?

The police making examples of individuals whose crimes become widely publicized is just a matter of course. They can't not do anything when everyone can see someone committing a crime. So the only real question here is whether what she did was a crime - not when or how she was arrested - and I still think what she did was trying to start a fight.

I think the idea is - the arrest isn't to punish her for speaking that way, but to keep a fight from occurring. And if a fight didn't happen, then there's not much reason to arrest her for her speech, since it's wasn't enough of fighting words to cause a fight. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I think the idea is - the arrest isn't to punish her for speaking that way, but to keep a fight from occurring. And if a fight didn't happen, then there's not much reason to arrest her for her speech, since it's wasn't enough of fighting words to cause a fight. That's how I see it anyway.

Exactly.

The only law acceptable is to prevent a fight. Punishing someone for the content of their speech is unacceptable.

 

[Livewire]

They should take her child away from her and leave here in jail for all I care. Normal, civilized people won't miss her much. Not like she's a contributing member of society anyways.

 

[Overlord Drakow]

They should take her child away from her and leave here in jail for all I care. Normal, civilized people won't miss her much. Not like she's a contributing member of society anyways.

I believe she made the claim that she has a working job, in which case she would probably be contributing to society one way or another. So I would also argue that there would be some people who should miss her too if she got jailed. That being said, I sure as hell am not one of them.

 

[Livewire]

I believe she made the claim that she has a working job, in which case she would probably be contributing to society one way or another. So I would also argue that there would be some people who should miss her too if she got jailed. That being said, I sure as hell am not one of them.

Having a job by no means makes you a contributing member of society. Convicted felons in prison, have jobs. Guys like Kim Jong Il and Mamoud Akhmendinejad have jobs.

 

[Overlord Drakow]

Having a job by no means makes you a contributing member of society. Convicted felons in prison, have jobs. Guys like Kim Jong Il and Mamoud Akhmendinejad have jobs.

Which is why I used the term "probably" though perhaps the term "possibly" would have been more appropriate in this instance. Regardless I find it unlikely that she was a convicted felon or anything of that nature even with taking into account the behaviour she has displayed in that video.

 

[Esper]

They should take her child away from her and leave here in jail for all I care. Normal, civilized people won't miss her much. Not like she's a contributing member of society anyways.

Perhaps some court-mandated sensitivity training would be a more suitable punishment for her than putting her in jail.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Perhaps some court-mandated sensitivity training would be a more suitable punishment for her than putting her in jail.

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.

 

[Livewire]

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.

Ok, seriously. Enough. Notice how things got physical towards the end there? That's why you can't say crap like that. You will start a conflict, which leads to violence. That's how people get hurt. Which you can get arrested for too.

 

[lacella]

she's not a criminal, she's socially retarded. in fact, she should thank any cop who removed her from the train. if they'd left her there, she probably would have been beaten up.

 

[sims796]

So, if I were to punch her in the face for it, would she then get in trouble for "starting a brawl"? Obviously I would, but would she? What warrants going 'too far'?

Yes, there is freedom of speech. There is also using that freedom very, very irresponsibly. She could have easily started a fight there, and is very lucky she did not. Words can easily start trouble, which is why it is illegal to use your words to do so. We do not live in some utopia where one can say what they want and expect no recourse. She has every right to say what she did. We have the righ tto disagree. She has the right to disagree back. In an ideal world, that would be enough. But this world isn't ideal, and she is very lucky to have not been attacked on the spot.

The law only works when people agree to be bound by it.

If you want to praise America for being completley free, then fine. Don't get mad when you have a trail of bodies from people who used that freedom loosely.