Australian Politics Forum - more suppression of free speech

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #135 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #136 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #137 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:58am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged?

The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets.

But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids. For what? Absolutely nothing.

Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you?

This is the first video on their facebook page:

In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background.

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:04am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #138 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:01am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged?

The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets.

But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids. For what? Absolutely nothing.

Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you?

This is the first video on their facebook page:

In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background.

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

I bet if you interviewed the two car drivers they wouldn't have even realised they were in the area at the time.

Keep going, it's fun watching you try and rationalise such a waste of tax payer money. Good to see the police are protecting the community by locking up pranksters. Great job.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #139 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists. They expressed it in their work of art.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #140 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:03am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists. They expressed it in their work of art.

What a pile of crap. As I understand it was a money making venture.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #141 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:06am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:01am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged?

The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets.

But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids. For what? Absolutely nothing.

Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you?

This is the first video on their facebook page:

In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background.

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

I bet if you interviewed the two car drivers they wouldn't have even realised they were in the area at the time.

Keep going, it's fun watching you try and rationalise such a waste of tax payer money. Good to see the police are protecting the community by locking up pranksters. Great job.

So you were lying about the streets being empty, and about them making an effort to stop people stumbling across their pranks, but that is OK because the two or more people captured in the very first scene probably didn't realise?

Out of the many arguments you have tried to make to defend these idiots, is there a single one that hasn't turned out to be BS?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #142 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:07am

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists. They expressed it in their work of art.

What a pile of crap. As I understand it was a money making venture.

So what?

Geez Te arguments are amazing.

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act.
We have mr hammer who thinks freedom of speech only applies when you don't earn money.
And we have freediver who thinks freedom of speech should only apply to people who can afford to get an entire street closed off for a movie set.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #143 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:11am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists. They expressed it in their work of art.

What a pile of crap. As I understand it was a money making venture.

So what?

Geez Te arguments are amazing.

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act.
We have mr hammer who thinks freedom of speech only applies when you don't earn money.
And we have freediver who thinks freedom of speech should only apply to people who can afford to get an entire street closed off for a movie set.

Nobody is allowed to misbehave in public. That's all this is about. Nothing else.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #144 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:11am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:06am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:01am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged?

The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets.

But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids. For what? Absolutely nothing.

Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you?

This is the first video on their facebook page:

In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background.

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

I bet if you interviewed the two car drivers they wouldn't have even realised they were in the area at the time.

Keep going, it's fun watching you try and rationalise such a waste of tax payer money. Good to see the police are protecting the community by locking up pranksters. Great job.

So you were lying about the streets being empty, and about them making an effort to stop people stumbling across their pranks, but that is OK because the two or more people captured in the very first scene probably didn't realise?

Out of the many arguments you have tried to make to defend these idiots, is there a single one that hasn't turned out to be BS?

Not at all, I said quite clearly that there was a passerby in their video. But it's their best effort attempts that matter here.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #145 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:14am

So when you said the streets were empty, what you really meant was they were not empty? Do I need to get out the highlighter for you again?

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

Out of the many arguments you have tried to make to defend these idiots, is there a single one that hasn't turned out to be BS?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Mr Hammer Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 25212 Gender:	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #146 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:16am Just say somebody got involved like a member of the public or a cop etc during the kidnapping parts. These douches could have been shot or assaulted. Pranks are dangerous to the prankster.
Back to top	IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #147 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:16am

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:11am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists. They expressed it in their work of art.

What a pile of crap. As I understand it was a money making venture.

So what?

Geez Te arguments are amazing.

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act.
We have mr hammer who thinks freedom of speech only applies when you don't earn money.
And we have freediver who thinks freedom of speech should only apply to people who can afford to get an entire street closed off for a movie set.

Nobody is allowed to misbehave in public. That's all this is about. Nothing else.

What did they do that is criminal?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #148 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:20am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:16am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:11am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal. I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject. There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists. They expressed it in their work of art.

What a pile of crap. As I understand it was a money making venture.

So what?

Geez Te arguments are amazing.

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act.
We have mr hammer who thinks freedom of speech only applies when you don't earn money.
And we have freediver who thinks freedom of speech should only apply to people who can afford to get an entire street closed off for a movie set.

Nobody is allowed to misbehave in public. That's all this is about. Nothing else.

What did they do that is criminal?

simulated scenarios in public which shouldn't have been in public. which could have lead to negative outcomes.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #149 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:22am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:14am:

So when you said the streets were empty, what you really meant was they were not empty? Do I need to get out the highlighter for you again?

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

Out of the many arguments you have tried to make to defend these idiots, is there a single one that hasn't turned out to be BS?

Keep adding

. Your list still stands quite easily at the fact you think cops are in some Hollywood action film, and hence because of your naive view of how cops operate these kids ought to be charged with a criminal act. It's quite strange that you are so adamant to defend actions of the police force who are clearly wrong.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged