“There have been constant attacks on the ABC by sections of the Federal Government claiming the organisation is biased. While there have been inquiries, few examples of bias have been found..”

It would be truer to say that the ABC’s investigations of ITSELF have found few examples of bias.

This media person presents no evidence for his claim that sections of the Liberal Party have sought to turn the ABC into a propaganda machine. They would probably be happy for it to be merely neutral. It is already a propaganda machine for anti-conservative forces and is a devout critic of the Government’s and Australia’s alliances, views and action on anything and everything.

The comment about critics of the ABC being “. far to the right and away from mainstream Australia..” shows the author’s own bias and sneaks past the fact that relatively few members of “mainstream Australia” watch and listen to the ABC anyway.

Mr. Foyle’s comment about the Government’s “obsession with control” says it all. It’s what we expect from a post-modernist member of the media. He/they are the ones obsessed with the need to ‘inform’ and influence their audience, and they invariably accuse their opponents of the very same fault to cover their own tracks.

Invoking ‘dictators’ and tacitly suggesting that we are heading for a dictatorship is a useful ploy they also use.

The author talks about government “drawing on community fears”. He is doing the very same thing, appealing to fears of dictatorships and censorship. Howard’s word is, of course, no good, but we must trust the media.

The media and its practitioners need to realise that “mainstream” Australia doesn’t love and admire them as much as they love and admire themselves. And, if they fear sedition laws, stiff cheese. All Australians, irrespective or political bent, learned to treat the media with suspicion long, long ago.

Well summed up Leigh

Gosh Lindsay, if you view Phillip Adams as a "small l Liberal" I wonder what a left winger really looks like. Anyone who listens to the ABC as much as I do will have no doubt about its left wing bias. And as for political journalists I wouldn't number more than a handfull at best who were right wing. The rest are well and truly on the left side of politics.

If I were you Lindsay I'd continue drawing your cartoons with the same confidence that you had before the latest laws were passed.

Like most people I welcome what the Government has done.

Lindsay Foyle reminds us all what the freedom of the press means in terms of retaining and maintaining a healthy democracy.

* I wonder if the two posters above have ever published their views publically and with their true identities? I suspect not. Only then would they appreciate what Lindsay is talking about.

I like the introductory line: "Nothing protects democracy more than free speech."
It has flow and beauty and essence, and pithiness but where do we find this mythical country that has free speech. I don't know of any.
That is all I have to say as I can't say what I want to say.

I would suggest that Lindsey Foyle open his/her other eye, all the better to see with!
To say that the ABC is not biased is the most biased statement .
Phillip Adams not a leftie?
I wish we could get rid of all leaners, right and left, then this country might just be a good honest straight forward one where every body has an equal say.
Then the ABC may even give John Howard equal space as they give the Labor Party spokespeople. I'd like to see that.

Thank you Lindsay Foyle. Can you tell me if the new sedition laws could be applied to the 'trueblue Oz' rioters of yesterday? Are they not advocating through violence the overthrow of government policy? Is this what the wording of the Act now comprehends? They have successfully demonstrated the latest wonderful reality of Howard's racist Australia. I suppose you can no longer safely publish where we go from here. Still, I hope you try: Philip Adams might even visit you in prison - if he was allowed to do so. barbh.

Get your facts right Leigh. You boldly state: "It would be truer to say that the ABC’s investigations of ITSELF have found few examples of bias."

The investigation of Richard Alston's numerous complaints were made by the Australian Broadcasting AUTHORITY, which is a separate body. ABA members are almost all appointees of the Howard government. You might remember their very high profile ex-leader, one Professor David Flint, a close friend of the PM. Despite this, very few of Alston's complaints were upheld, basically because they were mostly untrue.

I'd like to see a similar investigation into the bias of say the Murdoch Press or Channel 9.

Philip Adams, is, in my view, left wing. So what? Michael Duffy, who has a fair amount of ABC air time, is right wing. So what. Labelling someone as left or right wing without any analysis of the validity of their views, adds nothing to the argument.

Please, some considered opinions, based on research and logic, rather than top of the head responses.

If Mr foyle had a smaller ego, he would be less worried. For his peace of mind I would like to asure him, that it does not take a large hamer to crack a peanut, & a small hand can swat a mosquito.
It is a fact, that it is the the exaggerated rubish from his pen, & others like him, that makes it hard to for me to vote the way he would like.
Freedom of the press is essential, but that freedom should be qualified with more than a little responsibility.
If news of the first airline hijack had been suppressed, rather than sensationalised world wide, at least a few people would be alive today.

So much of the posting is based on a flawed understanding of the law that it is difficult for me to know where to start.

1. The sedition offences require the urging of the use of force or violence. It is not sufficient that the impuned conduct results in the use of force or violence, or might do so. Although some might fear that the courts would construe 'urge' to have a much wider meaning than it does in every day life, there is no danger that the courts will. The courts will take the view that if parliament had intended that simple comment should be unlawful, then parliament would have said so in very clear terms. Further, if legislation purported to constrain comment on political matters, it's clear that the court would strike it down as unconstitutional. So it's not true that we only have John Howard's word for how the laws will be used.

2. The restrictions on reporting that someone is being detained only applies for the duration of the detention order. The point is to avoid revelations that will undermine the purpose of the order. Once the order is no longer in effect and the person released from detention, there will be no constraint on reporting.

3. The requirement to produce documents is constrained as to what the documents can relate to. It's mostly about bank accounts, utility bills, and so on. It takes a long stretch of the bow indeed to find a way in which that power could be used against journalists at all, let alone to obtain the identity of confidential sources.

4. Although it's true that terrorists are unconcerned about laws, that argument only stands up where the laws are aimed at deterring terrorist conduct (as, for example, in random bag searches). These laws are about preventing terrorist conduct, not deterring people from it.

There are risks in all this. The main one is that misinformed comentators will make people think their actions are constrained when they're not. That will lead to the worst kind of censorship - self censorship.

Lindsay Foyle, I enjoyed your piece.

Sylvia Else, thanks for a measured comment. I have a supplementary question or three.

Preamble:

I and many other citizens knew full well that the reasons for invading Iraq were a pack of lies. On the evidence, it is inconceivable that my Prime Minister and Cabinet were not knowingly part of the lie-mongering.

Given the Iraqi death toll. Given that our US allies use torture and weapons of mass destruction (yes, really). Given that our government still supports US policy -

Question: Is it subversive of me to say that our PM and Cabinet are guilty of crimes againt humanity - at least, by association?

Question: Is it subversive to wish them brought before The Hague?

Question: Is it possible that the spread of such ideas will be deemed unlawful?

I am not being "cute" Sylvia. What do you think, really?

Cheers

Chris shaw posed some questions.

Question: Is it subversive of me to say that our PM and Cabinet are guilty of crimes againt humanity - at least, by association?

Answer: It may be subversive, but subversion is not unlawful. This conduct does not meet the requirements for it to be an offence under the sedition laws.

Question: Is it subversive to wish them brought before The Hague?

Anawer: It may be subversive, but subversion is not unlawful. This conduct does not meet the requirements for it to be an offence under the sedition laws.

Question: Is it possible that the spread of such ideas will be deemed unlawful?

Answer: No. This conduct does not meet the requirements for it to be an offence under any Australian law, nor, given the implied freedom of political speech found to exist by the High Court, could it be made unlawful.

Sylvia Else,

The Anti-terror legislation does;

1.Impose retrospective criminal liability upon those individuals that have trained with proscribed organisations (ie. they can be punished now for actions that were not illegal at the time; see Polyukhevich).

2.Make it illegal (with a possible life sentence) to give money to an organisation, without making sure that organisation will not use those funds for terrorism related actions, or also to do so, disregarding the possibility that it may be so used (ie.Possible that it could arise that, it is possible that donations to the red cross could be used by the red crescent to promote terrorism).

3.Allow for detention of a person, for a punitive purpose (ie. protection of the community, not themselves; cf Kruger; cf Fardon), which is therefore non-administrative (Al Khateb; Fardon; etc.). This would invalidate a judge operating as persona designata - as it is not administrative - and would reduce public confidence in the judiciary (cf Grollo v Palmer). Therefore, presumably invalid?

Feedback welcomed?

Didn't Hawke accuse the ABC of bias, we all read the same news, but all have different views, in other words, if we hear the facts, but they are not what we want to hear, it sounds like bias. For example say Australia are playing South Africa in cricket, and we want Matt Hayden to make a century, but he gets out for 78, our expectations have been dashed and we are disappointed, especially if the replay shows him to be not out. A human has to make a decision and makes it, we live with it, and agree or disagree depending on our leanings. Let's give Aunty a break, she has been and continues to be one of few channels that provide a good news service.

Sylvia Else
Justice Michael Kirby of the Supreme Court has expressed grave concerns about Howard's new Detention & anti-sedition laws. I would suggest, since he is in the supreme court & therefore responsible for upholding or striking down the laws he might know a little bit more about these laws & reasons for concern than either you or I.
I'll take My que from him. In other words be concerned, be very concerned.

Further to Sylvia Else's view that we need not be too concerned about the sedition provisions, I refer you to a legal opinion, that of a Senior Counsel, Peter Gray SC. His view is that the laws could indeed affect our day to day lives. They could apply to e.g.:

"a play or film or television program depicting in a sympathetic or even non-hostile way the policies or strategies or motivations of the Iraqui insurgents, or of al-Quaida, or of other groups which may from time to time be at war with or engaged in armed hostilities with Australia
• .. a newspaper or magazine article, or book, which took a similar noncritical or explanatory approach, even if based on factual material which was completely accurate
• .. a song, or picture, or written work, which expressed corresponding sentiments or which utilised the musical or artistic or literary traditions or styles associated with the culture of a hostile organisation or country in a way which signified sympathy with or admiration of that culture
• .. any imaginative/creative work (literary, visual or other) which repeated or included seditious views expressed by others"

Like Bosk, I'm more inclined to listen to a knowledgeable legal opinion than the assurances of Philip Ruddock.

I'd probably feel more sympathy for the poor victimised journalists who are worried about losing their freedom of speech if they had actually instilled in me the belief that they are acting in the interest of reporting the facts and getting to the truth. I'm sure there are journalist out there who do still hold these ideals but these days the majority of articles i read in major newspapers are injected with subtle bias and sensationalism. At least here at onlineopinion i know i'm getting opinions. So, as much as i dislike the idea of sedition and would hate to see freedom of speech degraded, a few whinging journalists really doesn't move me very much.

Bosk,

I would be interested to read Justice Kirby's specific comments on the sedition laws. However, I would be surprised if a sitting judge of the country's highest court (which is the High Court, not the Supreme Court) has made specific reference to the meaning of those clauses. Even if he has general reservations about these laws, that does not mean that he necessarily disagrees with me on the way the words are to be interpreted.

AMSADL,

One reason we have a multi-level judicial system is that even judges can get the law wrong. It is not unusual for the High Court to reverse a decision made by several judges sitting as a state's Supreme Court. Judges are amongst the most capable lawyers the country produces - it's why they get made judges. Clearly, there is room for disagreement as to the meaning of the law even within senior counsel.

I am sure there are senior counsel around whose view on this is the same as my own, but their opinions don't make good media copy, so you won't hear them.

Please forgive the intrusion.

I am in the US where the current subject of attack is the New York Times. Lindsay's article made some very good points about freedom in my opinion.

I quoted Lindsay's article and sent it and the following note to a few friends:

"Looks like Australia is way ahead of us on starting to suppress newspapers. We can all look forward to the day when 'Ze newzpapers vill print only ze official vord from ze government rulers. Zey vill have supreme authority over ze news...'"

What surprises me additionally is seeing the responses to the article on your web site.

Your right-wingers are almost as rabid as our own.

I am not a liberal and I am not a right-winger. I am middle of the road usually. I don't like war but I think any war that takes longer than 30 minutes is ill-planned and ill-conceived. What puzzles me about rabid right-wingers is this: Why concentrate on restricting your own freedom when you could solve the terrorist problem by nuking a few selected countries?

I've always thought of Australia as the country whose people are the most like the people in the US. My father fought alongside your people in World War II in the South Pacific and always had the highest regard for Australians.

I love liberty. I fear that, due to fear, we will legislate all our freedom away both in Australia and here in the US.

Thanks...