Freedom of Speech and human rights.

[Zoranon]

I think you missread the thing about the abusive woman on the train.

"A woman has appeared in court in connection with a video allegedly showing her racially abusing fellow passengers on a tram in south London."

"West, of New Addington, Croydon, was remanded in custody until 6 December."

So she was found guilty of the crime and given a few days in the nick. Fully justified in my opinion, she broke the law and was punished. She was never held for weeks in protective custody like you claimed.

Nope, she was held in detention, the court isn't finished yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...am?INTCMP=SRCH

[Deleted]

Nope, she was held in detention, the court isn't finished yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...am?INTCMP=SRCH

It was still nothing like your original claim. She abused a train load of passengers, how is not punishing her justified?

[Lirina]

Also anyone here from Germany? The Polzi don't fuck around there.

[Zoranon]

It was still nothing like your original claim. She abused a train load of passengers, how is not punishing her justified?

Was she held in detention before her trial for some time? Yes
Did she get sentenced yet? No

Oh and the reason for not punishing her is called right to free speech, she should have been simply told to leave the train. Dragging courts into such matters is preposterous.

[Brett Skullcrack]

Freedom of speech is a fine principal, of course, and should be kept to. However, the it is often used as an argument to somehow demand that expressing opinions that limit other people's freedom should be allowed.
Views like racism, religious intolerance, sexism and other such opinions should, however, not be allowed to be expressed exactly because of Freedom of Speech.

Absolutely wrong. Freedom of speech is meaningless if it only protects the mainstream views. It's the opinion of those outside of the mainstream that should be protected, that's the whole point. Second, it is not only the freedom of people to express their opinion, but my freedom to hear those opinions. I reserve the absolute right to hear every opinion without anyone pre-determining what I should or should not hear. I cannot think of anyone who should have the right to determine beforehand what I should or should not be allowed to hear -- if you support limitations to freedom of speech, who are you willing to give the right to determine what you should or should not be allowed to hear?

[MLX]

Absolutely wrong. Freedom of speech is meaningless if it only protects the mainstream views. It's the opinion of those outside of the mainstream that should be protected, that's the whole point. Second, it is not only the freedom of people to express their opinion, but my freedom to hear those opinions. I reserve the absolute right to hear every opinion without anyone pre-determining what I should or should not hear. I cannot think of anyone who should have the right to determine beforehand what I should or should not be allowed to hear -- if you support limitations to freedom of speech, who are you willing to give the right to determine what you should or should not be allowed to hear?

Good points, I'd like to add to that a bit. You're absolutely right, free speech is there to protect the minority rights, but what people seem never to realize is they always interpret that to mean a group of people, but no group of people is really the true minority, the true minority, the smallest demographic is You, the individual, and that's ultimately what the law is protecting.

[Powerogue]

the thing is the whole point of freedom of speech is protecting the rights of people who's opinions are in the minority and/or hated. Many of the views you list are protected for those very same reasons.

If we went out and decided "you're no longer allowed to have these opinions" people would scream the freedom of speech is dead, thought police and the like. Not entirely unwarranted, as this would open the door to declaring more minority opinions as bad.

[tombstoner139]

Was she held in detention before her trial for some time? Yes
Did she get sentenced yet? No

Oh and the reason for not punishing her is called right to free speech, she should have been simply told to leave the train. Dragging courts into such matters is preposterous.

No, We have courts for a reason. What is not addressed anywhere is the content of her abuse. the basis for her crime. i don't think this is simply a long string of profanity. if she was flipping out about the perceived abuses of the system by minorities and not directly addressing anyone, then she is clearly protected, unfortunately for the people on the train they are trapped. if on the other hand she was verbally attacking someone with intent to harm; not covered by freedom of speech. then criminal and tort law can be applied and damages assessed.