The resisted behaviour of the illegal broadcast station personnel who fought for freedom of speech shows a misconception of civic defy, from which the stand point of the perseverance of human rights, yet should be given considerably consideration, do not conceive fully the practical environment of society. As the judge put his query in the decree over the assumption of the defendant, whether the freedom of speech should be superior to any values and reality? The Telecommunications Ordinance contained the concern of serious interference of emergency use and other normal public broadcasting conditions. Why should we disobey the profound influence against the concern from its originality of keeping channel sequence?
The activists argued that the contradiction from plaintiff (the government) of provoking mass simulated behaviour of channels occupation totally deviated from the actual consequence. However, we should not underestimate the possibilities of chaos situation even with only mere interference, in which the aftermath is possibly existed among the tainted legal operation.
Moreover, the very stance of mine is the related law the activists disobeyed which was turned out from "objective reasoning of possibilities", not under consideration of philosophical values only. The incidence is frail in comparison with the case of Martin Luther King who defied against the law discriminated blacks and minorities, in which this is the law under inauthentic establishment of ethics rationality. The basic inference of establishment were particularly different. I must not accept the organization doing illicit behaviour in public for political sensationalism only.
The only reason preferred for civil disobedience is "the objective evidence of practical influence against the society with balance of subjective values". The objective objects could be in science, in social science and even ethics. This is the fiducial base of disobedience polarized law.
The activists argued that the contradiction from plaintiff (the government) of provoking mass simulated behaviour of channels occupation totally deviated from the actual consequence. However, we should not underestimate the possibilities of chaos situation even with only mere interference, in which the aftermath is possibly existed among the tainted legal operation.
Moreover, the very stance of mine is the related law the activists disobeyed which was turned out from "objective reasoning of possibilities", not under consideration of philosophical values only. The incidence is frail in comparison with the case of Martin Luther King who defied against the law discriminated blacks and minorities, in which this is the law under inauthentic establishment of ethics rationality. The basic inference of establishment were particularly different. I must not accept the organization doing illicit behaviour in public for political sensationalism only.
The only reason preferred for civil disobedience is "the objective evidence of practical influence against the society with balance of subjective values". The objective objects could be in science, in social science and even ethics. This is the fiducial base of disobedience polarized law.
沒有留言:
發佈留言