OK. Let me spell it out. The laws aren’t there to protect the rights of the ordinary citizens. It’s there to keep them under control. The rich and powerful are not only exempt from it, but the laws exist to protect their interests. That’s why cracking and jail breaking are illegal.
I used the example of the UK post office because they didn’t even need the evidence of theft to send hundreds of sub postmasters to jail. But even after it became clear that the post office management lied and extorted, those responsible still roam free.
Yeah, most laws have nothing to do with justice and are merely threats made by social elites to working people. I don’t need that explained to me. I think you misunderstood my politics from my initial comment.
Cracking, unlicensed MAME, jailbreaking - these should be free-speech fundamentals that are instead prosecuted as crimes.
If that’s your notion what laws and judicial systems are for, check out the ongoing Post Office scandal in the UK.
I find it unclear what the relationship is between free speech and the UK using flawed but licensed proprietary software to wrongly convict innocent people of fraud.
OK. Let me spell it out. The laws aren’t there to protect the rights of the ordinary citizens. It’s there to keep them under control. The rich and powerful are not only exempt from it, but the laws exist to protect their interests. That’s why cracking and jail breaking are illegal.
I used the example of the UK post office because they didn’t even need the evidence of theft to send hundreds of sub postmasters to jail. But even after it became clear that the post office management lied and extorted, those responsible still roam free.
Yeah, most laws have nothing to do with justice and are merely threats made by social elites to working people. I don’t need that explained to me. I think you misunderstood my politics from my initial comment.
It was more a reflection of my outrage at the injustice and inequality that plagues the world, than a judgement of your politics.