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?