Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:24:43 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>> My son was refused the sale of hot-glue
>>> sticks when he was 15 on the grounds of a completely fictitious risk.
>> I've snipped the rest because your statement above accepts the point
>> that I have been trying to make. The law is routinely used to ban
>> things even though they have not been proven to be a risk.
>
> I *know* it is. That's what I'm complaining about!
>
> And I do not believe it is as trivial as you are making out. You may
> think that it doesn't matter at all if a few harmless people who
> collected kp lost their families or were driven to ruin or suicide,
> because they brought the consequences onto themselves.
What? A few months in jail did all that?
No, it wasn't the kp law. It wasn't the prosecution. It wasn't going to
prison.
It was being brought to the attention of the authorities as someone who
may be a risk to children.
> Just as other
> people in another time did not think it mattered if a few people were
> killed because they had the wrong political view, or the wrong
> religion. After all, only really stupid people would risk doing
> anything that might be considered pro-communist, and it's no great
> loss to prohibit communist thoughts. And what possible inconvenience
> is caused to any right-thinking person by being prohibited from
> considering that the Earth is not the center of the Universe? I mean,
> knowing how harsh the Inquisition treats transgressors, anyone stupid
> enough to flout the Church doctrine deserves all they get. And there
> were far higher priorities than freedom of speech. Right?
Oh, if those prosecuted for kp had been campaining to get the law
changed, whilst keeping it it - then they would have had no problem.
They are quite entitled to have the view that kp should come installed
as part of the OS. They are quite entitled (terrorism act permitting) to
walk up and down with a placard outside Downing Street. This crime is
*nothing* to do with freedom of speech. They can *think* what they like.
It is not a thought-crime. It is a deliberate act against the law as
much as driving past a speed camera is a deliberate act. There are no
other higher principles at stake. They want this form of entertainment.
This form of entertainment isn't available to them legally. So they
choose to break the law.
--
Sue
|