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...