奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:( _( C. K, j" e0 y
5 R4 C4 S( |; J" m9 z9 P( ?+ A2 I
agree,
/ Y3 }& p. F8 p1 T) ]- v' e6 x我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
# k# e$ u- o' S0 `但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
" `2 G$ K$ x$ L期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

1 ~+ F4 i# d$ M& y7 J
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
( L. |$ \: n! a3 S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
. k! g  v& g( \, g& _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.
: }6 T: ~, r- K% X, M! uJust some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
  L  f5 X3 D2 Y有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！
; C4 K3 Q! G. w) c! O1 ~% O7 t- F! Z2 T6 E5 {( F
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???
8 V* i7 @, \/ ^2 C& d8 E' ]
6 R- x% p5 y/ C& P% ?5 Z1 _: e為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

9 j5 P! O- d7 I
; S0 {: A0 |' ^% r" r
絕對支持啦7 {4 C: A% q) A1 I; R
! }" n4 x+ i" q6 B- e: B
有錯就認,打就企定$ B, f, r  C. \- F8 z

* @) r: j6 ^0 U) S! r* u( a9 t3 [$ k無錯當然要撐到底
- \4 Y+ X7 I, I$ }7 a# {7 U0 F3 i3 m; z
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩5 k8 b$ p6 |, H+ j1 W

* c% [5 r6 U% U5 _( ?$ D2 W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 h9 A# E, H1 i& Z  e! u; C
/ q2 L- Q2 A+ t6 I7 s9 q
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力- d5 `( E$ t0 m
8 u8 s8 r( `0 P0 O
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
  X5 j. m5 }, e# K. ^
: S. s" a! T2 l$ J9 ?3 {; u唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
* N1 O5 d5 Y  K) i- d5 L
# w' A2 f& |/ \$ B$ \" g* f4 p我唔認為lor% T% {6 }# q. f9 \* A; \+ H* [
+ {$ s3 o* x0 H7 x5 u4 f+ a1 K* J
唔係話要整死佢地
" F) N9 y( P# b- o0 \  W; \& D) l* p& I9 s
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
( B. u5 Q, n7 P0 H2 ]2 n% L% X3 S
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
. \8 I2 p( I) `0 e  G4 Q: X
! B6 y( O1 G$ y有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
7 m" s* h) a& [1 W7 V) v
' B! d: H* L9 g% C" K3 T* ^+ t唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
( @2 i# h3 W: b; d, s( a( f/ X: h! s% f5 n5 C1 k3 Z! B) \- }' @
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
7 |9 h0 w: g7 w, v4 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"7 l! n4 f! E# s3 _% A0 Y% I
) P/ |! j, @& h" {  L/ W/ M. d- F, Y
我們的大學生' B7 A' t2 o% h% R  k) H, l

3 U; o( {+ n' \. G1 r5 h" q  Z0 m* v( [0 s, z' |/ `
; T3 r: D; t5 r

3 e% {* b4 {7 l, U% |# s

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:$ {4 z$ U" s& a! ?: o6 T

: o0 f4 a+ p5 q; q" a1 Q
, @! F4 X2 ~/ x3 z8 E$ ]有見地 !!!. o  O9 g0 d+ ~. y  a
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
* t0 ~3 ?) A8 \+ ~& `3 R" ~) F/ j, Q/ F3 ^* C! i
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
% v/ |" P' ?- d# M! ^' R, W$ V1 g9 CI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.   ]0 o& r$ ^7 ~
I pretty sad that about the University official.3 i* C' D9 g! a$ c, G4 m
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
; g4 d5 a0 \" p" B5 x
& N5 D+ C0 G4 w& J) O! o[ 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:$ a5 o2 U+ I$ i  e( d5 p( d" Y/ B
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  d0 M, t" @4 N, f2 ]. Q. \
/ z9 S, w$ i+ p0 [
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

7 ^' N. P/ ]" H: }3 L; R* u) `7 L; b# S7 x* ]
兩者有何分別?
7 \: I9 t5 B& T4 c! r3 v中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?