Man Jailed for Racist Threats to Bus Passenger

[Double Edge]

Just an excuse to bully someone.

This was more than bullying.

[gf0012-aust]

This was more than bullying.

when I'm in the US people often try to speak to me in spanish, when I'm in Germany, they seem to think that I am a turk, when I'm in Oz, because I've got a south australian accent, people will assume that I'm a kiwi, when I was in taiwan the locals had no idea what to make of me, they just knew that I had a complicated history... :)

if I'd been on that bus, that numbnut would just have likely been motivated to have a crack at me as well

peoples ignorance has no limits when it comes to morons like this - and the worst thing you can try and do is analyse with sense and logic.

its people like him that make me a firm believer in the benefits of euthenasia :)

[cyppok]

free speech is dead in that country. (no matter how harsh it is still speech)

[Bigfella]

This was more than bullying.

It was a form of bullying - threatening & standing over somebody else. Trying to exert power over them to make them do what you want. There was also a pack mentality - several people egging each other on & feeling able to behave appallingly because others were. They got to feel powerful in the bus. I doubt they will feel the same way in prison.

[Bigfella]

free speech is dead in that country. (no matter how harsh it is still speech)

You honestly don't have a clue about this. Have you read the article? Have you read the charges? They verbally abused the two girls. They threatened them with physical violence. One of them even broke the window of the bus. Is that OK with you? Are threats to mutilate someone with a knife 'free speech' to you? How about smashing a bus window? Is that the case in the US?

Stewart said he would cut the woman with a box cutter, while Graham told her to "speak English or die" and said he would cut her breasts off with a filleting knife.

when Stewart and Guest got off the bus with their daughter, Stewart smashed a window of the bus with his first, covering passengers in glass.

Stewart, 25, of Hampton East, previously pleaded guilty to threatening to inflict serious injury, behaving in an insulting manner in public and causing intentional damage.

Graham pleaded guilty to making a threat to inflict serious injury and behaving in an offensive manner in public.

Looks to me like you saw the 'race' angle & decided to play 'warrior against political correctness' without bothering to get your facts straight.

[Double Edge]

free speech is dead in that country. (no matter how harsh it is still speech)

Once threats of physical violence are made, the free speech defense goes out the window.

and they were caught on video.

The tirades were captured on video with a passenger's mobile phone and gained international notoriety.

It was a form of bullying - threatening & standing over somebody else. Trying to exert power over them to make them do what you want. There was also a pack mentality - several people egging each other on & feeling able to behave appallingly because others were. They got to feel powerful in the bus. I doubt they will feel the same way in prison.

It's unfortunate that this happened but the system worked. i'm surprised these guys were dumb enough to be caught. It means they've not done this before.

if I'd been on that bus, that numbnut would just have likely been motivated to have a crack at me as well

If you could sing in french which apparently was the trigger

[cyppok]

people say lots of crazy sht during arguments, words are just words.

I reiterate free speech dead in that country. It starts like that and eventually you can't criticize anything.

The problem is you don't know what happened from start to finish even the video is a point in time post-hoc of the trigger of the argument.

...
just like treyvon martin was a gullible little teenager walking with skittles not hurting anyone singing 'ta'ta'ta'

and then evil gun slinging crazy racist Zimmerman jumped out of the bushes... (sarcasm)

Etc. I believe in media sensationalism, I believe they will pick a side that is more photogenic and lie cheat and steal in facts to create viewership and an outcry.
In the end the truth will come out. You nor I know everything that happened.

[Bigfella]

people say lots of crazy sht during arguments, words are just words.

Threats of violence are illegal. They are not 'just words' and they are not protected under free speech laws. Not just in Australia, but also in the US:

The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

The standard for threats of violence is currently the "Brandenburg" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Language will not be protected by the First Amendment if it creates a "likelihood of imminent lawless action".

There are three elements that will bring specific threats of violence beyond the protection of the First Amendment:

1.The threat must be intentional. There is some issue as to whether the intent must be objective, that is the speaker intends for the threats; or if it subjective, meaning the listener could reasonably believe the intent was serious (see below)

2.The threat must be imminent, i.e. it can't be a general fear that something might happen at some unspecified time in the future

3.There must be a likelihood that the imminent threat will occur

Freedom of Speech: How do laws against "specific threats of violence" work? - Quora

This would also be illegal in the US.

I reiterate free speech dead in that country.

Then it is dead everywhere.

It starts like that and eventually you can't criticize anything.

I mentioned in my first post that you don't have a clue about this & you seem determined to prove me correct. There is no 'slippery slope' when you threaten violence in this manner.

The problem is you don't know what happened from start to finish even the video is a point in time post-hoc of the trigger of the argument.

OK, now you have moved on to creating theoretical scenarios about what might have happened. This has already gone to trial, so all sides have had a chance to lay out their version of events. Of course, your made up 'prequel' simply isn't relevant. The threats on film were enough to convict.

...
just like treyvon martin was a gullible little teenager walking with skittles not hurting anyone singing 'ta'ta'ta'

and then evil gun slinging crazy racist Zimmerman jumped out of the bushes... (sarcasm)

....(irrelevant bullshit) is more like it.

As I suspected, this isn't about something that happened in Australia at all. Just you taking aim at the 'usual suspects'.

Etc. I believe in media sensationalism, I believe they will pick a side that is more photogenic and lie cheat and steal in facts to create viewership and an outcry.

I believe that having no basis for your argument you are just rambling on & making shit up. Got any actual proof that this has been misrepresented? Don't just go on a speculative rant, provide some evidence.

In the end the truth will come out.

It already has, at trial.

You nor I know everything that happened.

So you are right because neither of us actually witnessed events. The ultimate concession that you have no argument. Do you apply this standard of evidence to everything, or do you just use it when you are unable to provide actual facts to back up your arguments? (rhetorical question)

BTW, in 'that nation' (it is called Australia, though I doubt you are interested enough in specifics to care) it is actually possible to say some pretty vile things without getting convicted. Direct & personal threats of violence, on the other hand, cross the line.

No conviction for racist Sydney bus rant | News.com.au

No different to any civilized nation.

[Double Edge]

people say lots of crazy sht during arguments, words are just words.

I reiterate free speech dead in that country. It starts like that and eventually you can't criticize anything.

BF's has covered it already.

I have a history of defending some pretty dubious characters on this board over the years and yet i don't have a free speech argument to make in this case. Even if it occurred in the US.

Think about it, if somebody threatens your person and you don't report it and then they carry it out you have only yourself to blame. You have every right to report such a threat. Otherwise it would be the wild west.

The problem is you don't know what happened from start to finish even the video is a point in time post-hoc of the trigger of the argument.

Irrelevant, the threat is on video and explicit.

Unless you're suggesting she threatened a bobbitt on him first :)

Etc. I believe in media sensationalism, I believe they will pick a side that is more photogenic and lie cheat and steal in facts to create viewership and an outcry.
In the end the truth will come out. You nor I know everything that happened.

Agree, but where do you see that in this case. This incident actually happened back in 2011 btw. It's taken over two years to get a sentence.

[ajhax]

I reiterate free speech dead in that country. It starts like that and eventually you can't criticize anything.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[Bigfella]

Irrelevant, the threat is on video and explicit.

Unless you're suggesting she threatened a bobbitt on him first :)

No evidence at this point that any of the accused have claimed provocation. If anything of that nature happened the defence lawyer would have been all over it like a rash.

[Double Edge]

Right, given the video this would be a difficult case to argue, court appointed lawyers not withstanding.

The defense arguments matches the article, pleading guilty seems like the safest option. Defense had plenty of time to get the facts. In fact the case has already been argued, all the due diligence has been done. Only the sentence is left to be pronounced.

[Bigfella]

Right, given the video this would be a difficult case to argue, court appointed lawyers not withstanding.

The defense arguments matches the article, pleading guilty seems like the safest option. Defense had plenty of time to get the facts. In fact the case has already been argued, all the due diligence has been done. Only the sentence is left to be pronounced.

Yep. This is actually as simple as it appears. A couple of unpleasant human beings threatening another get caught & punished. Only news because it was all captured on video. Had there not been racial abuse I seriously doubt our self-styled 'free speech' advocate would even be interested.

[Double Edge]

Yep. This is actually as simple as it appears. A couple of unpleasant human beings threatening another get caught & punished. Only news because it was all captured on video.

Was wondering as to your intent with creating this thread and after re-reading the opener its quite clear.

When this footage surfaced the general response here was disgust. These attitudes are not common, but they certainly exist. While I would argue that racist attitudes have been in steep decline for several generations in Australia, there are a minority that hold to them. Worse, for close to 20 years a segment of the political spectrum & attached commentariat have convinced such people that they are 'victims of political correctness'. As a result 'I've got a right to my opinion' has become the only defence some people seem to need for the most appalling attitudes. Deeper exploration is not needed. Racism is by its nature a stupid prejudice, so its adherents often take signals on acceptable behaviour from such political messages. As a result the visibility of racism in Australia can mislead people as to its prevalence while buttressing those with their own prejudices about Australia. The preparedness of Police to act in this case is heartening, though I doubt it will get the publicity overseas that the footage received.

Will those concerned pls take note.

Aussies are not racists m'kay

My take is simpler, sh*t happens, in any country. If you happen to be in a tough area it will happen ever more often.

One of the positive aspects of this conviction is the message it will send. It has been widely reported in Melbourne today. Any sense of empowerment racists might have felt in seeing this video will be taken away. Conversely people will feel more empowered to intervene & report such behaviour. If people feel there will be consequences for such behaviour their cowardice will get the better of them. Apparently one of these men has already had his life ruined as a result of being identified. Good. I hope other morons are paying attention.

You have always been able to report such behaviour. Just run to the cops that somebody threatened your life and they will do their job. Why you doubt this at all BF ? because in Australia, i would like to take it for granted. Ok, justice might be hard to come by in the bush but not in the big city.

With the prevalence of cellphones these days, a little discrete video means big trouble for the perps. A kid could do it. So easy to level the force imbalance.

[Bigfella]

Was wondering as to your intent with creating this thread and after re-reading the opener its quite clear.

This footage was seen all over the world & it created a particular impression. Unfortunately news of the conviction will not be reported anywhere near as widely.

Will those concerned pls take note.

Aussies are not racists m'kay

Not exactly. Some Australians are racist. More than I would like. I just dislike people choosing to define us by a declining if still unacceptable measure.

I thought it might be useful to put events like this into a context. People who come from societies where people are more reluctant to voice unpleasant views they might hold sometimes mistake visibility for prevalence.

My take is simpler, sh*t happens, in any country. If you happen to be in a tough area it will happen ever more often.

Well, yes, but I don't see that as strictly relevant here. This wasn't an especially 'bad' area. Just one more tract of featureless suburbia. 'Shit happens' certainly applies. I would go with 'every society contains unpleasant people'.

You have always been able to report such behaviour. Just run to the cops that somebody threatened your life and they will do their job. Why you doubt this at all BF ? because in Australia, i would like to take it for granted.

Reporting rates for stuff like this do respond to perceptions that the crime will be taken seriously. It may be that police always did, but this is a visible reminder. The way this is perceived is also relevant - not everyone is picking over the fine legalities of this. Some are seeing 'racist abuse conviction'. This may simply make people more prepared to stand up next time they see something like this. Just as those who would hurl abuse can be empowered by the sense that others are doing it, so people who might decide to stand up can be empowered by the feeling that the law is behind them - even if the legal technicalities are more complex.

Ok, justice might be hard to come by in the bush but not in the big city.

Reverse. Cities produce a sense of anonymity & have a lot of crime to deal with.

With the prevalence of cellphones these days, a little discrete video means big trouble for the perps. A kid could do it. So easy to level the force imbalance.

Agreed. People film this stuff now, so perps know they can be identified more easily. That also makes people feel more empowered to stand up.