Posted on 05/14/2025 6:28:20 AM PDT by MtnClimber
“You low-down no-good racist slur!”
😃😄🤣🤣😜😛🤪🤪🤪
So this lady was arrested for supposedly saying a naughty word. Let’s say she did say it (although she didn’t). That should get her banned from the property. But arrested? Nope.
I don’t know who first made the comment below. But he/she is very wise.
The First Amendment is meant to protect unpopular behavior. And that’s because popular behavior needs no protection.
“..the plaintiff should pay all of the defendant’s legal costs associated with the case...”
^THAT^ right there would stop a lot of that BS.
She should turn around and counter-sue the daylights out of him, the police and the company.
The problem is, ANYONE can accuse anyone else of hurting their feelings.
The left even goes as far as *Silence is Violence*.
So whether you speak or not, someone’s feelings are allegedly getting hurt.
> The left even goes as far as *Silence is Violence*. <
Yep. And to make it more interesting (and not in a good way), the left is constantly changing the rules. We saw that during the French Revolution. What was a mandatory belief one day could lead you to the guillotine the next.
In our case:
Last year: You must buy a Tesla! If you don’t, you’re a monster.
Now: You must not buy a Tesla! If you do, you’re a monster.
Been this way in the UK for some time now. But America has a 1st Amendment, and if the shitstains on the SC will do their job, we won’t have the problem here.
Exactly.
The whole tactic is to keep the right off balance and on the defensive.
We need to stop participating in their games and bowing to their tactics.
The existence of Yale hurts my feelings. Shut it down.
Bogus headline. What happened isn’t about free speech. It’s about how white people are not only often the victims of racism but are also frequently falsely accused of it.
She should obviously file a civil suit. Firstly, even a cursory examination of available evidence would have shown that she had had no interaction with the accuser. Secondly, even if she had, calling somebody a nasty name is not a crime. This was a case of malicious prosecution. She should be entitled to hefty damages.
About the only thing that surprises me about this story is that the video footage was preserved and not destroyed.
I remember a little paperback with the title, “It’s Fun To Be A Polack”. I was just a kid when one of my dad’s younger brothers happened to borrow it from a friend of his. They gathered in the basement kitchen to browse through it and it didn’t seem like such a big deal then, but hey, it was the ‘60s!
Agree, and thankfully there was video footage to begin with. Without proof she would always be known as the lady that was mean to the black guy.
Peace Frog. Great tune!
This is the path the UK is on. The State gets to subjectively decide if something said is a ‘crime’.
Free Speech MUST have broad reach, where the only limits are ‘calls to violence’ or ‘inciting panic that causes unnecessary harm’ (shout ‘fire’ in theater). Outside that, any restrictions mean you don’t have free speech and the State gets to imprison people for ‘hurty words’...as they subjectively interpret them. Which is an endlessly slippery slope that governments cannot be trusted with.
Anything can be contorted into some bizarrely interpreted meaning.
E.g. “Please speak English” = “interpreted as racial hatred” = “crime”
It’s nuts. You should be able to be the biggest a**hole you want, offend everyone on everything...not a crime. Everyone else has the right to hate and avoid you. Anyone that thinks the State gets to stick their nose into it doesn’t understand freedom, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.