3 ms·
Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they
by FooHentai 4y ago
Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they use that as an example of how those those silly Canadians are always electing daft politicians. You're probably going to point out that Trump was not in fact the president of Canada. That the example is not relevant.
Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Nazi dog case in with the other case. One occurred under Scottish legal jurisdiction, the other under English legal jurisdiction. The example is not relevant.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Jon_Lowtek 4y agoIn both cases the relevant law was Section 127 of the Communications Act of the United Kingdom.
- FooHentai 4y agoThat is a very fair point and rebuttal, thank you.