奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:& b7 c9 Y9 i" c0 U4 N. g
. h3 z9 z4 F7 y3 k
agree,( F1 M- O  A8 e. u& D- N
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
6 W% q2 X5 }) ?! V7 B但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,9 F& m; q0 [9 b5 V. b5 U
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

. L+ Y* n3 A9 x! ?8 ^4 L- Ohttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html9 i  `$ w+ t2 I
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
$ n' f! c5 G# U' j( Z/ X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.0 D1 R) P7 w) B. e1 \
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:& W- K$ G5 g0 L& N
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ 6 D& m2 p  Z' a& _
! o$ Y/ Z+ n% y/ z7 o
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???  g6 Y/ _5 x- O3 f

, q. V+ M$ k( l6 w; R為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

$ O2 N- n/ i( N: w: j0 u* ?( X5 H

& v! ~" Z, z* [& v6 }' l% b, V, Q/ R9 {絕對支持啦
, l9 E- S( ?: L8 E
" N+ l: f5 h* E7 R+ u% L- ?; z有錯就認,打就企定. T  H, W# Z5 k2 z
% v# t% }1 W3 Y
無錯當然要撐到底) g# u4 i  \! q2 c

- m! z& z, l/ _0 U但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
  I) A3 x% J5 @
1 }: q' V" D' s9 _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5 v  ?. Z! Z, `: \
) s; P; [1 _. R7 s( N7 L# Q
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力5 B( E6 c8 I, f

( Z, c) J: ]) M7 E9 L# K我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生) w1 g/ g4 j% D( z2 {
# n7 u( ~2 a' B5 T2 |- R
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
: o2 G  u& g* t3 o- e7 ~! l5 ~' T+ e
我唔認為lor
4 C) g  R, f, g+ W4 N  J* f: |5 d- w' \5 e9 G- K# p- t  n
唔係話要整死佢地
6 f$ x( m) n5 P4 I2 f) x7 q, i, T" |0 V
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用: x, o/ z, o) z# j% y

0 l; Y& a3 `2 n( P' T' A我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
0 n1 h5 l2 i$ M2 H
/ ]" d2 d8 `8 L& q6 d& i# m有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的4 v( E+ ^$ c3 {1 G9 \! _6 B, \( f

  }  B9 s- l" k# ]唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由0 h' G" j, p  E$ b8 r8 ?
8 i4 D" p# w7 f: K) R
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! c) A3 W* j5 R: c% A
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
9 l& U$ @' M2 R% w9 r) |& P; o# I* @1 U: H: s/ L3 {5 J: R& Z
我們的大學生
8 X1 ^0 d/ C% |5 P* M) u
- d; e$ t; M+ ]" j
* }7 w6 R6 R+ V6 q) l/ h0 f0 u2 {

0 P% p3 Q9 ]% K9 {

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
- B# Q# D( G- ]9 F* e- k! l9 E8 w2 T0 C' |

0 H' @5 t! G2 J9 X( E有見地 !!!
1 b; d2 v$ [2 \8 ]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.html! C' M# ~; G! {/ s  a
+ r' Y$ ?1 o, s* Q5 c4 k
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
6 r/ v, J- y  g4 D5 TI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
: ~* _& K) X3 {6 i8 a' k/ `I pretty sad that about the University official.
* ?6 l  X. a% a6 h  u$ z8 EIt'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
4 F1 m, g4 c+ \
+ u6 C2 Z: G' r: |/ l! U[ 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:
2 i+ i1 G9 f- s$ ^- k! C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 la3 V: O- z" r, g8 V

1 q/ \8 |. }/ I1 x, A[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

3 ^* O8 S4 r' R$ Y8 N3 @& }0 L

7 k- m  e: _/ N1 O* u5 J兩者有何分別?0 ]- x& `; }: I+ |3 _
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?