"Get back to your own countries!" Says illiterate woman on tram O_o

[Helmholtz Watson]

She doesn't have an interesting opinion. She has a rampantly racist opinion and thinks that countless people who have put more into my country than she ever will should leave based on their skin colour. End of.

Edit: And before they crawl out the woodwork, no, she is not protected by freedom of speech. She deserved to be arrested and the police have every justification to punish her.

hmm... your right, we should punish people who express an unpopular opinion! I mean why let people have the freedom to express themselves?! Outrageous! *sarcasm*

Get serious man, are you really supporting someone being CRIMINALLY charged because they expressed an opinion? Really? I mean really? lol, you know who else punishes people when they express an unpopular opinion? The CCP when people say things that are deemed "criminal" to say.

So you're saying verbal abuse should be protected under freedom of speech? Well, at that tare, why not make it okay for people to fire guns in public just because they have a right to own them; let's allow people to drive with reckless abandonment just because they bought the damned car; let's give people the right to use their pet rabbit to go about and spread rabies to the children of the neighborhood. *much sarcasm*

Having the right to posses something does not give you the right to use it in a manner that is harmful to another individual.

EDIT: First on this page!!

Harmful? Really? lol, "sticks and stones...".
I admit I was approaching this from an American view point, and that is why I feel she has a right to say it. I realize that UK law doesn't agree.

 

[Fearzone]

Please, people of the London Metro, don't feed the troll.

Whether she deserves to be arrested or not... first if it were America, hateful speech is not guaranteed by freedom of speech. Probably Britain has similar laws. If this were the only time she has ever done anything like this, anyone can have a bad day, anyone can lose it under the right stresses, and she should be let off with a warning to be careful about whom she scapegoats. If this were a pattern, then harsher penalties are warranted.

 

[Zio_IV]

There are no words that could sum up my disdain for that woman. What a joke.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

She doesn't have an interesting opinion. She has a rampantly racist opinion and thinks that countless people who have put more into my country than she ever will should leave based on their skin colour. End of.

Edit: And before they crawl out the woodwork, no, she is not protected by freedom of speech. She deserved to be arrested and the police have every justification to punish her.

hmm... your right, we should punish people who express an unpopular opinion! I mean why let people have the freedom to express themselves?! Outrageous! *sarcasm*

Get serious man, are you really supporting someone being CRIMINALLY charged because they expressed an opinion? Really? I mean really? lol, you know who else punishes people when they express an unpopular opinion? The CCP when people say things that are deemed "criminal" to say.

So you're saying verbal abuse should be protected under freedom of speech? Well, at that tare, why not make it okay for people to fire guns in public just because they have a right to own them; let's allow people to drive with reckless abandonment just because they bought the damned car; let's give people the right to use their pet rabbit to go about and spread rabies to the children of the neighborhood. *much sarcasm*

Having the right to posses something does not give you the right to use it in a manner that is harmful to another individual.

EDIT: First on this page!!

Harmful? Really? lol, "sticks and stones...".
I admit I was approaching this from an American view point, and that is why I feel she has a right to say it. I realize that UK law doesn't agree.

Everyone has different levels of tolerance, not all people are word-proof. I understand where you're coming from ("I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"), but being completely ignorant to the limits of another individual (especially by choice) is reckless and, in some instances, inexcusable.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

She doesn't have an interesting opinion. She has a rampantly racist opinion and thinks that countless people who have put more into my country than she ever will should leave based on their skin colour. End of.

Edit: And before they crawl out the woodwork, no, she is not protected by freedom of speech. She deserved to be arrested and the police have every justification to punish her.

hmm... your right, we should punish people who express an unpopular opinion! I mean why let people have the freedom to express themselves?! Outrageous! *sarcasm*

Get serious man, are you really supporting someone being CRIMINALLY charged because they expressed an opinion? Really? I mean really? lol, you know who else punishes people when they express an unpopular opinion? The CCP when people say things that are deemed "criminal" to say.

So you're saying verbal abuse should be protected under freedom of speech? Well, at that tare, why not make it okay for people to fire guns in public just because they have a right to own them; let's allow people to drive with reckless abandonment just because they bought the damned car; let's give people the right to use their pet rabbit to go about and spread rabies to the children of the neighborhood. *much sarcasm*

Having the right to posses something does not give you the right to use it in a manner that is harmful to another individual.

EDIT: First on this page!!

Harmful? Really? lol, "sticks and stones...".
I admit I was approaching this from an American view point, and that is why I feel she has a right to say it. I realize that UK law doesn't agree.

Everyone has different levels of tolerance, not all people are word-proof. I understand where you're coming from ("I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"), but being completely ignorant to the limits of another individual (especially by choice) is reckless and, in some instances, inexcusable.

I would agree with what you said if a person uses "fighting words". However, saying racist things should not equate to being arrested. As I have pointed out to other people, if the Neo-Nazi's can march down Skokie and express themselves, than this women can too.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Please, people of the London Metro, don't feed the troll.

Whether she deserves to be arrested or not... first if it were America, hateful speech is not guaranteed by freedom of speech. Probably Britain has similar laws. If this were the only time she has ever done anything like this, anyone can have a bad day, anyone can lose it under the right stresses, and she should be let off with a warning to be careful about whom she scapegoats. If this were a pattern, then harsher penalties are warranted.

unless she uses "fighting words", then yes she would be protected by the First Amendment\ just like how the WBC is protected.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Wow... I feel so sorry for her kid though. I find that she was doing it in front of the kids worse then anything she actually said. That is not to say that what she said wasn't bad though. It was a horrible thing to say and her arrest was deserved.

 

[HeatproofShAdOw]

Video got over 1 million views in a couple of days? Her life is screwed. And for good reason, too.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

I like how first page I see Volf supporting this lady. 9 pages later and he's still here supporting her.

unless she uses "fighting words", then yes she would be protected by the First Amendment\ just like how the WBC is protected.

Apparently(and thankfully... hopefully?) not. Even in your own country this kind of dickery is illegal.
America's freedom of speech does not cover:
"obscenity, harassment, defamation, incitement, fighting words(the only one of these i've seen you actually mention), incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, false advertising, perjury, information decreed to be related to national security such as classified information, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct, and time, place and manner restrictions."

Though the whole thing is somewhat of a confusing mess really, since as you said(kinda), stuff like racism, sexism and other hate speech is actually legal... and yet not if it breaks any of those exceptions... so uh.. bwa? racism without it being harassment/obscenity/defamation/slander? Is that actually possible?

(though i'm little stunned that you think such behaviour is and should be allowed. You actually support such racism and bigotry?)

((edit: I suppose racism without it breaking those exceptions is possible if you just say you hate [whatever race] and leave it at that?))

 

[NoOne852]

Dear god, this was (is) terrible. Seriously, what is so hard about accepting someone else of different descent? Nothing. There is no superior race, and there never will be.

 

[Drejer43]

i don't want to live on this planet anymore

yes you do so stop using that stupid meme

warning: joykilling funsponge detected.

Nope i'm on memebase too, but i hate that meme.

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

I like how first page I see Volf supporting this lady. 9 pages later and he's still here supporting her.

unless she uses "fighting words", then yes she would be protected by the First Amendment\ just like how the WBC is protected.

Apparently(and thankfully... hopefully?) not. Even in your own country this kind of dickery is illegal.
America's freedom of speech does not cover:
"obscenity, harassment, defamation, incitement, fighting words(the only one of these i've seen you actually mention), incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, false advertising, perjury, information decreed to be related to national security such as classified information, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct, and time, place and manner restrictions."

Though the whole thing is somewhat of a confusing mess really, since as you said(kinda), stuff like racism, sexism and other hate speech is actually legal... and yet not if it breaks any of those exceptions... so uh.. bwa? racism without it being harassment/obscenity/defamation/slander? Is that actually possible?

(though i'm little stunned that you think such behaviour is and should be allowed. You actually support such racism and bigotry?)

((edit: I suppose racism without it breaking those exceptions is possible if you just say you hate [whatever race] and leave it at that?))

Thank you, saved me from having to find that quote myself. You sir, and/or madame, deserve a cookie. Nay...a tray of cookies would be more appropriate gesture of my appreciation.

 

[Pegghead]

Well, what can be said that hasn't been said already? A spiteful woman with prejudice and indecency in her went ahead and ruined everyone's tram ride and thankfully got her come-uppance. If it's any condolence to ye, citizens of the mother country, you're not the only ones:

 

[Vrex360]

Jesus that is just awful, I really feel sorry for that kid she has. He's been pulled into the middle of something truly awful and you can tell that he's scared and confused. It was probably only his presence that prevented her from getting hit, as I could see quite a few people who looked about ready to come around and hit her or at least explode in her face, as some did.

I mean, wow... so much open and blind unapologetic hatred and yelling at everyone on the tram. This sort of situation is exactly why I always bring my ipod on public transport.

 

[tobi the good boy]

Oh for all that is rational in this world. Free Speech does not cover the offence principle. If you are 'Verbally Assaulting' you are not covered under free speech, because by that stage you are infringing upon someone else's rights and are performing a 'Hate Speech'.

 

[Linda Bridget]

Also why is it that the kid behind her suddenely stands up all riled when she stupidly says go back to Nicaragua?

Cause she actually did not say Nicaragua she combined the "N" word and Africa to add to her racial hate speech.

He finally has it with her once she uses that word and just about resorts to physically shutting her up no matter if she had a kid. Good thing the other passengers are able to persuade him not to do anything and it's interesting to see one of the other passengers come over and hug him.

 

[StANDY1338]

Also why is it that the kid behind her suddenely stands up all riled when she stupidly says go back to Nicaragua?

Cause she actually did not say Nicaragua she combined the "N" word and Africa to add to her racial hate speech.

He finally has it with her once she uses that word and just about resorts to physically shutting her up no matter if she had a kid. Good thing the other passengers are able to persuade him not to do anything and it's interesting to see one of the other passengers come over and hug him.

Yes if a woman upsets you it's ok to physically assault her. Hes obiously a bit scummy too.

 

[Darkmantle]

Also why is it that the kid behind her suddenely stands up all riled when she stupidly says go back to Nicaragua?

Cause she actually did not say Nicaragua she combined the "N" word and Africa to add to her racial hate speech.

He finally has it with her once she uses that word and just about resorts to physically shutting her up no matter if she had a kid. Good thing the other passengers are able to persuade him not to do anything and it's interesting to see one of the other passengers come over and hug him.

Yes if a woman upsets you it's ok to physically assault her. Hes obiously a bit scummy too.

you would punch a guy in the face for less.