Did you actually read the full article? He was saying something that was not liked and a few passengers jumped him and came up on the losing end; although we may disagree with what he was saying, he was engaged in free speech, just like when you say stuff that you know will be inflammatory to a Christian (e.g. in the Religion Thread, someone is actually trying to make a case that Satan is the hero and God is the villain; or, stuff like the Preacher comics and Lucifer comics and tv series). If you can't tell, let me clarify again; it is not up to fellow passengers to silence you, if you say something that they disagree with; this was a matter for the staff of this company to resolve; the driver could have done something like call for back up, had them meet him at a stop, and than either get the passenger to cease the harassment or have him escorted from the train; as long as he was not getting physical, it was not up to fellow passengers to silence him. They jumped him, in an attempt to silence him from saying something they didn't like, he had a knife, and proceeded to defend himself; they just came up on the losing end. You're getting caught up in how the person who wrote the article is trying to create a narrative about something that was totally different; disregarding the why the narrative was being constructed, this was basically a guy engaged in free speech and who came up on the winning end, after people attempted to silence him by jumping him.