奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:8 r" d" j) X  S, p

9 T+ ]7 ]* `3 _3 Nagree,! f' q0 n  W: W& G4 t% n
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
7 o$ s1 Z! q, H. v$ b但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
) q3 Z# L5 @! _+ h, J& T; A0 |  D6 Z期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

6 S; A) g5 H* P6 U0 f6 x
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html  u$ x# t, ]0 S  u5 _" q2 u/ Y
已經睇左幾期,性質傾向於性教育,同某報既果d嫖妓指南,差天共地
( J/ `* j& C5 p0 h搞成咁,都係兩個原因,第一係香港人係性方面真係好保守,探討下都唔得,第二係欺善怕惡,見係學生就恰你

chicken

Read the student post and find that it's not as evil as described by the media.: b. U( A, Z8 T* m/ }. A/ |
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:% E; G5 c8 W( P  C
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！
3 p$ f; z% d4 i# R: y' V  Q( Q4 D, E5 n; t; B* P
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???
% I# e5 o7 o7 s. y- v9 v7 z: f  M
0 R) }6 h* P- h: P9 Z為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

* r, N3 h7 O* e8 r$ `$ s  Q

7 e$ a) }' D3 F絕對支持啦( h  _) B! y* w3 g- u6 k: q
+ J: x6 v( e7 g# d
有錯就認,打就企定4 x# X( x7 P5 g
. [, X* K8 H$ V  s
無錯當然要撐到底+ {* N7 V8 `$ k
  a7 P7 B, b% t0 p2 `: D
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩- V. t1 K7 z% r0 I9 k, j1 W1 M
+ q3 V" |( R' K" S" @, z
在發佈一份公眾讀物時,內容應該注意下,唔同私人交談,你講咩都得; Z( e/ i+ J. q. h* u

: d% Y+ h% p/ L# c8 P. y% p3 t4 f一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
. W2 h- P  W+ e" }2 W: u/ e7 H* g. k5 `8 A" Y% Q% c' L% z, V
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生% p1 h! K3 E4 Y7 B  K6 x2 Z
# v* z0 ~" s, i2 u. G# W$ Z
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?5 o: ]& G/ h' w, Z: ?

3 A9 Y2 w7 [; U9 q) ]5 C: w我唔認為lor; o6 K% @; A# b- r3 c3 @6 J
5 B" J* `& s: K* e2 h
唔係話要整死佢地
1 [9 K- Z0 D6 ~& F: Z! Z. N
9 ^8 S* f  F! c0 k: w5 C* [而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用; V! V  e* b% s) W/ ~2 c& R

+ L. k% S5 N5 M- i5 J$ k我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
- n) P2 B! N8 O) Z; k& U2 [+ M  V
# I( h; ^& Q, m% u3 ^有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的: `3 L1 H3 [7 U) N

5 l/ F. n. r( n; o( g唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
+ d1 V( G  ?4 ^* k8 z# e' a2 V
: g* }1 o& @0 U' ~: F大家都知偷錢搶錢係唔唔法,唔通咁又話政府防礙你搵錢?

浪子

睇完, 真係冇野好講, 咁所有中小學性教育書籍都可以列做不雅

hackenli

一日一金句# n  _& K. f; s
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
, s: \5 s8 w! l6 [
$ c9 |4 B' _7 D3 p( y# Q- F& o. z/ I我們的大學生
3 W1 U4 C- l2 A6 b, d. U# x, j' C! X  f8 X- ?( [

9 o2 q2 g; U1 X: l: q% b/ F) x7 K1 V  Z: |0 t
4 @7 \' e& `5 d+ c* [1 O% V5 t" {

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:7 z, r& Q1 d& t  M9 A3 [
6 A$ A7 O# S) B" i
* H4 `1 g: q6 ~, M
有見地 !!!: T- r6 h( [1 q" w, k" i" b+ Y
現今大學生部份以為...

vv1668vv

反映大學生對法律認知不足。自以為是

支持者

http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html5 F( q3 o% U) z3 T5 r- t9 _4 z3 R3 j

5 t7 E0 t  w5 I6 B, ?: r) o& yI think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
0 e' j$ u5 E5 f2 W; aI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
6 T. w# L# [1 v+ V" |I pretty sad that about the University official.4 V8 c! d- c* z1 _$ o' O# }
It's them making the stuff worse.

bigfish

我覺得份報刊以市井中文刊出就顯得不雅, 如果轉用華麗英文刊登就乜事都冇 la
* ]+ p) H2 \6 `/ l6 L1 N. q3 r
- x  t9 f5 ^$ ^' l[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

mailcool7

有錯就認,打就企定

155220

Originally posted by bigfish at 2007-5-15 17:24:# o0 l0 S6 j0 d/ d
我覺得份報刊以市井中文刊出就顯得不雅, 如果轉用華麗英文刊登就乜事都冇 la/ T6 V: b# d' E
% z9 Y2 h7 J# q) n. I* F- \
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

& U1 J; w- x* V; N# E
: B9 k7 \# H9 V5 R7 u, ~
兩者有何分別?
) B' r1 ~3 L6 a* s& Y中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?