Australian Politics Forum - more suppression of free speech

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #180 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:41pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

Where do you get this? Cops get Intel before rushing into a situation. No cop is going to rush into a gun fight. Hence this belief that they'll confuse a fake gun with a real gun is ridiculous. Especially when there are no bullets flying but noises being made. Gee that isn't suspicious.

I cannot believe you are really that stupid. A gun is only 'real' if it is being fired? Your argument falls down right there.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38865
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #181 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:46pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:43am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:37am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank????

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driv...

Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

Wow that is your definition of free speech..........????

These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!!

Freedom of speech is being able to express one self without being persecuted.

So if you're dressed in a tux with the misses in evening attire and waiting for the green man to cross the road, and these clowns roll up and throw raw eggs at you and the boss.

This is free speech.............???

Or a stupid act by a bunch of clowns that just ruined your night.

You can sue for civil actions if you like to get the suit cleaned. But no cop would bring criminal charges for that.

Really? You clearly don't know much about the law. REmember the idiot that threw a shoe at Howard - and missed? Was charged and convicted of assault.

You, Sir, are a liar. Disgraceful. That really shytes me.

Link.

He was never charged with anything. Yet you boldly post:

He was charged and convicted of assault.

Best get melielongtime back. Soon. Not that he is much better.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #182 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:48pm

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.

It is you who thinks Freedom of Speech comes without responsibility or consequences. Yelling 'bomb' on a plane is your constitutional right to freedom of speech. You will also be beaten up by men on the plane and jailed. But you still had your freedom of speech.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85443
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #183 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:10pm

Obviously the car knew better than the humans involved.... what a comment on modern day Australia...

Now if every citizen carried a .45... there'd be none of this...

Downe at Ye Olde Courte House....

"Docket No 155842... People v Mumma Protecta.......

"Yer 'Onnah! My client was only protecting her baby from the insanity of some potentially AIDS infected forgein born ghett spitting on the child's face!"

"Did she have to use such extreme force?"

"YES, Yer 'Onnah! People v Puppa defanda says so! To develop anti-bodies the labs would have needed the perp's warm body... and the defendant, My Client and mother of three!.. acted accordingly!"

"Did the offender have AIDS?"

"No - Yer 'Onnah... but to find that out the body of the evil, low-life, unemployed... and possibly Muslim.... perp was needed!"

"Dismissed... next case..."

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #184 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 11:38pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:02am:

ian wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank????

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driv...

Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

Oh yes , all so merry. what a prank, pretending to kill and bomb people. heres the thing, if I thought my life or someone elses life was in immediate danger and I was able to, I wouldnt hesitate. Killing someone to stop them doing harm would be appropriate and highly explainable in the coroners court. Some people are trained to run towards danger and stop it, by any means available, not run away from it like you. Thats what these fools dont understand. Like you I dont think these people should be charged, i just think they should be allowed to do it until they come across the wrong person.

100% false. Even if we were to believe that you would immediately jump to being a hero and killing everyone with your bare hands, it would be deemed manslaughter and likely you would be charged and jailed.

But the more likely scenario is that you would throw children in front of you and run faster than the speed of sound, in the opposite direction.

Nothing to do with being a hero, some people are trained to run towards danger and disarm it. and no, it wouldnt be manslaughter, it boils down to a reasonable belief, if there is a reasonable belief that there is a life threatening danger then any action designed to stop that danger as long as it is not a deliberate attempt to kill is able to be defended, Its being able to justify the force used, that would be easy in a circumstance like this. you really are very naive, despite being self entitled like these kids.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #185 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 11:40pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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.

You cant catch anyone out, you have zero knowledge.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #186 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 11:41pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:23am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 2:51am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:59am:

...that's not free speech.

Just like a fake triple 0. Throw the book at the wenkers

It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression.

..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book? Huh

is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression?

Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas. Such as charging kids for making a youtube video.

You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank.

If the police saw them and decided to shoot instead of restrain then it would be murder. And again, no trauma - it was all stAgggged. Plus why do you care about trauma? You're one of those "ooooh racism is so pc today". You know how many people are left traumatised be caused of racism? Be consistent!!

What ignorant twaddle. If you pull a fake gun on police and aim as if you were going to shoot, you will be shot - probably dead. And the cops will be perfectly justified.

Where do you get this drivel?

correct.

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 #187 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:04am

ian wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 11:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:02am:

ian wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank????

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driv...

Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

Oh yes , all so merry. what a prank, pretending to kill and bomb people. heres the thing, if I thought my life or someone elses life was in immediate danger and I was able to, I wouldnt hesitate. Killing someone to stop them doing harm would be appropriate and highly explainable in the coroners court. Some people are trained to run towards danger and stop it, by any means available, not run away from it like you. Thats what these fools dont understand. Like you I dont think these people should be charged, i just think they should be allowed to do it until they come across the wrong person.

100% false. Even if we were to believe that you would immediately jump to being a hero and killing everyone with your bare hands, it would be deemed manslaughter and likely you would be charged and jailed.

But the more likely scenario is that you would throw children in front of you and run faster than the speed of sound, in the opposite direction.

Nothing to do with being a hero, some people are trained to run towards danger and disarm it. and no, it wouldnt be manslaughter, it boils down to a reasonable belief, if there is a reasonable belief that there is a life threatening danger then any action designed to stop that danger as long as it is not a deliberate attempt to kill is able to be defended, Its being able to justify the force used, that would be easy in a circumstance like this. you really are very naive, despite being self entitled like these kids.

Ok, let's do a test. You use your designed skill to run into danger and kill with your bare hands, and let's see if your "reasonable belief" will stop you from being convicted with manslaughter.

As always you have shown all of us that you do not know the law, nor the definition of something as basic as manslaughter.

Go ahead Ian, use your design to stop danger. I'm looking forward to seeing your face afterwards. Grin

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 #188 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:05am

ian wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 11:41pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:23am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 2:51am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:59am:

...that's not free speech.

Just like a fake triple 0. Throw the book at the wenkers

It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression.

..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book? Huh

is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression?

Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas. Such as charging kids for making a youtube video.

You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank.

If the police saw them and decided to shoot instead of restrain then it would be murder. And again, no trauma - it was all stAgggged. Plus why do you care about trauma? You're one of those "ooooh racism is so pc today". You know how many people are left traumatised be caused of racism? Be consistent!!

What ignorant twaddle. If you pull a fake gun on police and aim as if you were going to shoot, you will be shot - probably dead. And the cops will be perfectly justified.

Where do you get this drivel?

correct.

What part of ther actions suggest in anyway that they would pull a fake gun on the cops?

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 #189 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:06am

ian wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 11:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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.

You cant catch anyone out, you have zero knowledge.

Incorrect.

Again Sad

and again

. Aren't you over being wrong so many times?

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 #190 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:22am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:48pm:

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.

It is you who thinks Freedom of Speech comes without responsibility or consequences. Yelling 'bomb' on a plane is your constitutional right to freedom of speech. You will also be beaten up by men on the plane and jailed. But you still had your freedom of speech.

The whole idea of freedom of speech is that the state cannot prosecute, you 1d10t!! What part of "freedom" is hard for you to comprehend?

And id argue that sure, there is responsibility and consequences of freedom of speech, but there is a massive difference between a staged Artistic expression and an ignorant shouting of a word in a knowingly nervous environment. One could argue that freedoms are above all, regardless of the stupid thing being done. I'm not. But your comparison is incorrect. If they were throwing bags and shouting Allah Akbar in a big supermarket of many people who didn't know it was a prank, I'd most likely agree that it is a public nuisance. But not when it's a STAGED environment with ACTORS.

You lot just have such a massive phobia that you are blinded to the differences.

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 #191 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:24am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

Where do you get this? Cops get Intel before rushing into a situation. No cop is going to rush into a gun fight. Hence this belief that they'll confuse a fake gun with a real gun is ridiculous. Especially when there are no bullets flying but noises being made. Gee that isn't suspicious.

I cannot believe you are really that stupid. A gun is only 'real' if it is being fired? Your argument falls down right there.

Where did I say that? I said that no cops just drive around the corner and start shooting without asking questions. It's going to be blatantly obvious that the gun is fake and there is no real danger when they come around the corner, hear the gun noise but see no 1) recoil and 2) bullets.

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 #192 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:25am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:30am:

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.

Are you denying that you claimed the streets were empty?

Alevines arguments so far:

* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* 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

That sums it up well!

Well done freediver, you hooked longie with your blatant misrepresentations. How do you feel?

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

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49487
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #193 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 1:11pm

Are you denying that you claimed the streets were empty?

Alevines arguments so far:

* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* 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
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

The Heartless Felon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2869
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #194 - Feb 29^th, 2016 at 1:33pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:24am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

Where do you get this? Cops get Intel before rushing into a situation. No cop is going to rush into a gun fight. Hence this belief that they'll confuse a fake gun with a real gun is ridiculous. Especially when there are no bullets flying but noises being made. Gee that isn't suspicious.

I cannot believe you are really that stupid. A gun is only 'real' if it is being fired? Your argument falls down right there.

Where did I say that? I said that no cops just drive around the corner and start shooting without asking questions. It's going to be blatantly obvious that the gun is fake and there is no real danger when they come around the corner, hear the gun noise but see no 1) recoil and 2) bullets.

To see them, they'd have to be sub, sub, SUB-sonic rounds...

Back to top

IP Logged