Phanerothyme Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Lots of people feel the same way that the "shouty" woman does. She dared to say what many other people think. People are repressed into silence under threat of being taken to court for being racist. This situation stifles freedom of speech. You mean like the freedom to chant "death to British soldiers" at a remembrance day event? Absolute freedom of expression is a pretty extreme position. Are you an extremist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Lots of people feel the same way that the "shouty" woman does. She dared to say what many other people think. People are repressed into silence under threat of being taken to court for being racist. This situation stifles freedom of speech. Your right to hold racist views are untouched. You could post "I hate minorities" and nobody could stop you. If you think free speech includes the right to scream abuse in public then you're deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrParry Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Your right to hold racist views are untouched. You could post "I hate minorities" and nobody could stop you. If you think free speech includes the right to scream abuse in public then you're deluded. The lady was never a threat to anybody and was merely stressed and reacting to the environment that she found herself in. There was no way that anyone could have felt threatened by her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrParry Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You mean like the freedom to chant "death to British soldiers" at a remembrance day event? Absolute freedom of expression is a pretty extreme position. Are you an extremist? The two are hardly comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If you want to pick and choose who can and can't say what, it's not freedom of speech. Capisce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrParry Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There is freedom of speech and there is inciting violence. The lady on the train was not inciting violence. Capisci? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There is freedom of speech and there is inciting violence. The lady on the train was not inciting violence. Capisci? One of the charges is that she hit someone on the shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrParry Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 One of the charges is that she hit someone on the shoulder. That was not evident from the video. It is not proven either, nor will it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 That was not evident from the video. It is not proven either, nor will it be. Well, let's wait for the trial, eh? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16394046 She was charged with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence after a passenger, Ena-May Eubanks, said she hit her left shoulder with a "closed fist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 That statement alone is a generalisation of people based on the colour of their skin. It is a racist statement. Yes but its positive discrimination which is promoted by people, like your good self... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.