Fraccy says "Because they are not terrorists"

Plecican says "Sedition is in the eye of the beholder"

Then.. an explanation is given about 'educational revolution'....

Ok.. I'm trying to stay focused here :) struggggle..

But CONTEXT has to have meaning for the use of the term and how it should be interpreted.

To me.. speaking in a historical/political context..and as the article outlines the function of a Socialist Propaganda Unit is to lure/entice/attract a significant layer of the working class to the cause so that.... eventually they will be in a position to have a "revolution".

Now.. this is not talking about:

-Democratic 'revolution'
-Educational 'revolution'
-YouNameIt revolution....

it is talking about a violent revolution of which we see examples in many places and times where Marxists have carried them out.

So.... we KNOW what 'Socialists/marxists' "mean" when they use the term 'revolution'... we see it in Cuba... how it began? we all know that.

It's one thing for the public at large to 'guess' what people 'mean' by their vocabulary.. but it's another when the group concerned actually defines it themselves.. in such a case we have no option but to accept their interpretation.... am I right?

"Socialism" in the sense of the overall good of society should be the goals of the individuals in it... is noble.. but that isn't really true socialism.. which is far more and more menacing and involves way more 'control' than we see now. In fact the only way a true Socialist 'state' can function is by total control. If they don't..those with individual abilities and gifts tend to get out of control.

The best form of government is some kind of middle path, where the values it promotes are altruistic and noble...leaving the rest up to the people.
Just like you cannot 'legislate' faith in God.. you cannot legislate generosity.. but you can I guess impose very heavy taxes on people who will subsequently hate ur guts and work towards your ousting :)

Sedition is thought crime. All laws pertaining to it should be abolished.

Don't bust a garter Poly. :)

I agree with you about the middle way David but your middle way and my middle way are guaranteed to lie on a different part of the spectrum. If you are as even-handed as you believe and advocate for the middle-way why have we never seen a post from you about the negatives from the Extreme Right and the extremes of Capitalism?

Methinks you protest too much about socialists. Who do you think will look after the most vulnerable and those without economic power? Do you think that Conservative groups would have factored in social policy without the pressure from the Left (if we must stick with labels)

Fractelle asked a brilliant question about Jesus. If Jesus existed I supsect he would not have been Conservative. Jesus fought against the prevailing ethos of the day and may have even been considered seditious.

It really doesn't matter whether is a good idea or a bad idea. It also doesn't matter whether some find the ideas expressed on the web site loathsome. All that matters is whether the speech presents a clear and present danger. Speech addressed to a mob firing them up to lynch a person or burn a house down is an offense under common law called incitement. Speech advocating unspecified violence at an unspecified future date does not present a clear and present danger and is allowed in a free society.

There is a risk that a person will be inspired to violence by the site. Banning the site produces a deadening effect that those with criticisms of the government and present system will be inhibited in criticism. Taking the second course means we have a less free society. The Chinese would ban a site advocating overthrow of their system. We do not want to inhibit criticism of ours. It is a mechanism for improvement where faults in our system are pointed out.

No course is risk free in this case. If we want to keep a free society we must take the first risk.

<<"the goal of the 'propoganda' unit is clearly spelt out">>

Except the socialists spelled "propaganda" correctly. Their hostility to capitalism is far less disturbing than Polyboaz's war on syntax.

And full marks to CJ Morgan (10:09). I'm saving that one to disk.

davidf>"Speech addressed to a mob firing them up to lynch a person or burn a house down is an offense under common law called incitement."

If that's "an offence" why weren't the people calling to lynch that sexual offender recently arrested or charged? is that a case of selective, corrupt law enforcement, with it applying to some but not others? It seems then that speech wasn't the problem and only action toward such an end would constitute a crime.

davidf>"All that matters is whether the speech presents a clear and present danger."

I do not think speech presents a clear and present danger on any occassion. Action does....and only action. Isn't that obvious? Any other "offence" is really a thought crime.

While your comment sounds reasonable and balanced i think it proves that thought crime is becoming far more acceptable concept (..........by the way you better check up on sedition it assumes any thought crime against the state, on any occassion, any time).

Everyone even people inclined to intellectual, rational debate now appear entertain the notion that thought crime or speech poses "clear and present danger". Can't you stop and think about what you are saying before parroting the government for a minute? Your comment would have been reasonable to me if you understood the difference between spoken or written words and actual action. They are vastly different.

Why do adults repeat to children the proverb, "sticks will break my bones, but words will never hurt me", whilst constantly, flagrantly abusing that concept in general society? Why are Australians acting worse than children all the time? The government does not always know better, nor it is always more respectable than the Australian population.