Australian Politics Forum - more suppression of free speech

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49487
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #150 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:25am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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.

Were you lying about the streets being empty?

Alevines arguments so far:

* the streets were empty (except for the people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on
* 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"
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away

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 #151 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:26am

Mr Hammer wrote on 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.

Shouldn't have been in public? What?

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 #152 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:30am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:25am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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:

* the streets were empty (except for the people caught on film in the background, who couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on)
* 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.

Were you lying about the streets being empty?

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"
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away

Why are you ignoring your own arguments now freediver? I think it's because you agree how absurd they were Wink

Go over my posts, you'll see I didn't lie.

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

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #153 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:07am: We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act EXCUSE ME! !!! put up the link where I said that PLEASE.. you wouldnt want fd to think you are a LIAR WOULD YOU?
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 #154 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:41am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am:

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

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act

EXCUSE ME!

!!!

put up the

link

where I said that PLEASE..

you wouldnt want fd to think you are a LIAR WOULD YOU?

Well you think they are criminals no?

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

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #155 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:45am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:41am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am:

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

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act

EXCUSE ME!

!!!

put up the

link

where I said that PLEASE..

you wouldnt want fd to think you are a LIAR WOULD YOU?

Well you think they are criminals no?

where did I say that?????..

if you are going to say things about me at least make them true...

A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS NOT A CRIME.......

you are saying its ok to kill yourself.....

as long as it doesnt IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE>

I am still trying to find out.. HOW ANYONE WOULD DO JUST THAT???...

please explain..

you make weird statements that you dont back up

then accuse me of making statements that I DID NOT DO>>

so how about some honesty Mr sir..??????

you seem to be sadly lacking in that department.

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 #156 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:55am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:41am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am:

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

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act

EXCUSE ME!

!!!

put up the

link

where I said that PLEASE..

you wouldnt want fd to think you are a LIAR WOULD YOU?

Well you think they are criminals no?

where did I say that?????..

if you are going to say things about me at least make them true...

A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS NOT A CRIME.......

you are saying its ok to kill yourself.....

as long as it doesnt IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE>

I am still trying to find out.. HOW ANYONE WOULD DO JUST THAT???...

please explain..

you make weird statements that you dont back up

then accuse me of making statements that I DID NOT DO>>

so how about some honesty Mr sir..??????

you seem to be sadly lacking in that department.

Public nuisance is a crime cods. That's why they are being charged. I disagree they should be charged. You don't. So if they are charged with a crime but aren't criminals what do you think they are?

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

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #157 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:09am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:41am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am:

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

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act

EXCUSE ME!

!!!

put up the

link

where I said that PLEASE..

you wouldnt want fd to think you are a LIAR WOULD YOU?

Well you think they are criminals no?

where did I say that?????..

if you are going to say things about me at least make them true...

A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS NOT A CRIME.......

you are saying its ok to kill yourself.....

as long as it doesnt IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE>

I am still trying to find out.. HOW ANYONE WOULD DO JUST THAT???...

please explain..

you make weird statements that you dont back up

then accuse me of making statements that I DID NOT DO>>

so how about some honesty Mr sir..??????

you seem to be sadly lacking in that department.

Public nuisance is a crime cods. That's why they are being charged. I disagree they should be charged. You don't. So if they are charged with a crime but aren't criminals what do you think they are?

its a simple affray.....a misdemeanor

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 #158 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:12am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:09am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:41am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am:

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

We have cods who wants them jailed because she thought their video was a real terrorist act

EXCUSE ME!

!!!

put up the

link

where I said that PLEASE..

you wouldnt want fd to think you are a LIAR WOULD YOU?

Well you think they are criminals no?

where did I say that?????..

if you are going to say things about me at least make them true...

A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS NOT A CRIME.......

you are saying its ok to kill yourself.....

as long as it doesnt IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE>

I am still trying to find out.. HOW ANYONE WOULD DO JUST THAT???...

please explain..

you make weird statements that you dont back up

then accuse me of making statements that I DID NOT DO>>

so how about some honesty Mr sir..??????

you seem to be sadly lacking in that department.

Public nuisance is a crime cods. That's why they are being charged. I disagree they should be charged. You don't. So if they are charged with a crime but aren't criminals what do you think they are?

its a simple affray.....a misdemeanor

Which is still a criminal act that implies they are criminals.you seem conflicted cods, why?

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

The Heartless Felon Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2869 Gender:	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #159 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:24am Sydney Morning Herald-29 minutes ago 'A middle-aged man spat in a baby's face and then ran off only to be hit by a car in a bizarre unprovoked incident in an inner Sydney street ' I suppose this is OK as long as he did it "artistically"?
Back to top	IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #160 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:46am

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Sydney Morning Herald-29 minutes ago

'A middle-aged man spat in a baby's face and then ran off only to be hit by a car in a bizarre unprovoked incident in an inner Sydney street '

I suppose this is OK as long as he did it "artistically"?

better ask sir he is the expert on CRIME and criminal acts..

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 #161 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:46am

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Sydney Morning Herald-29 minutes ago

'A middle-aged man spat in a baby's face and then ran off only to be hit by a car in a bizarre unprovoked incident in an inner Sydney street '

I suppose this is OK as long as he did it "artistically"?

Freediver, what do you think, should spitting be a criminal act? You could be hit by a car.

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 #162 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:48am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:46am:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Sydney Morning Herald-29 minutes ago

'A middle-aged man spat in a baby's face and then ran off only to be hit by a car in a bizarre unprovoked incident in an inner Sydney street '

I suppose this is OK as long as he did it "artistically"?

better ask sir he is the expert on CRIME and criminal acts..

Don't get so upset for being caught out.

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 #163 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:54am

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Sydney Morning Herald-29 minutes ago

'A middle-aged man spat in a baby's face and then ran off only to be hit by a car in a bizarre unprovoked incident in an inner Sydney street '

I suppose this is OK as long as he did it "artistically"?

And you have shown to have no understanding of freedom of speech and the difference between this and putting together a YouTube video.

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

The Heartless Felon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2869
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #164 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:04am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:54am:

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Sydney Morning Herald-29 minutes ago

'A middle-aged man spat in a baby's face and then ran off only to be hit by a car in a bizarre unprovoked incident in an inner Sydney street '

I suppose this is OK as long as he did it "artistically"?

And you have shown to have no understanding of freedom of speech and the difference between this and putting together a YouTube video.

Spitting on a person is a criminal act. It's called 'assault'.

Damaging a car or other property by throwing flour bombs or other articles is a criminal act. It's called 'criminal damage'.

Going armed in public even with a replica firearm is a criminal act. I'll let you guess what that one is...

Back to top

IP Logged