mj.scuba Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 sccsux, it's your prerogative to, by way of opinion, deliberately ignore standard (and, indeed, expected) laws, decrees and rules of a country, or several indeed. Whether by personal conviction or for the sake of an argument, doesn't matter. You'll understand, however, that, with your opinion being so opposed to principles of law accepted by most and applying to all, it makes your opinion essentially irrelevant to the topic of this thread. It's not entirely desimilar to people who argue there is no such thing as countries, no such things as national borders, only land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I own my thoughts and no one can have them when I die. But not if you vocalize them, at which point they are placed in the public domain (ie in the air). You'll understand, however, that, with your opinion being so opposed to principles of law accepted by most and applying to all, it makes your opinion essentially irrelevant to the topic of this thread. The law (in this case) is very recent and is designed to limit people's freedom of speech/expression. Also, laws can be changed (rather easy in England). Not all laws are "good" laws, some are downright evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 no such things as national borders, only land And that's a "loopy" thought why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 But not if you vocalize them, at which point they are placed in the public domain (ie in the air). The law (in this case) is very recent and is designed to limit people's freedom of speech/expression. Also, laws can be changed (rather easy in England). Not all laws are "good" laws, some are downright evil. It would be considered very rude to vocalise or write what I think of you, so they remain my thoughts and they will die with me, so you was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 So we just take the word of some 'backers' of a 'pirate station' as gospel? I can't quite grasp what the OP was hoping to achieve here? Israel shuts down a pirate radio station? We do that here don't we? Does anyone know the current situation with pirate broadcasters in the Muslim states, and how they're dealt with? But it wasn't transmitting from Israeli territory and had a licence from the authority in charge of the area it was broadcasting from. Please explain how that makes it a pirate station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 It would be considered very rude to vocalise or write what I think of you Why should I care what some tard on the internetwork thinks of me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Dome Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 But it wasn't transmitting from Israeli territory and had a licence from the authority in charge of the area it was broadcasting from. Please explain how that makes it a pirate station. I believe J&S is governed by the Israeli civil administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellyman Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Is this what a democracy does ? - closes radio stations because it's views might not be in favour with the regime ? Sounds more like what a dictatorship would do. Shameful on Israel's part. ---------- Critics say action against broadcaster is a politically motivated attack on democracy http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-shuts-liberal-radio-station-in-attempt-to-silence-criticism-of-right-6265422.html This is an interesting point. So should we be doing more to encourage the BNP to set up a radio station in the name of free speach? What about Al Quaeda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The law (in this case) is very recent and is designed to limit people's freedom of speech/expression. Also, laws can be changed (rather easy in England). Not all laws are "good" laws, some are downright evil.It doesn't change the (democratic) principle that laws are debated, voted and enacted by a (democratically) elected body, and apply to all governed by such laws. Regardless of how recent or antediluvian, regardless of merit (or lack thereof). A 'bad' law will be curtailed in application by the Courts and/or eventually repelled and/or amended to be 'better', through democratic principles (representations to elected representatives, votes for alternative representatives, etc.) Until then, it's the law. Dura Lex, Sed Lex and all that. You can moan about it all you want, put your head in the sand if it makes you feel better, wee on the floor and roll yourself in it with rage, living in a democracy also entails respecting this fairly fundamental social contract/principle. Are you done digging that hole yet, or are you pushing for Australia now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Why should I care what some tard on the internetwork thinks of me? You wouldn't which is why I will keep them to myself and once again prove you wrong. Not that I needed to prove you wrong when L00b as done such a wonderful job of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.