Dear Steel,

Justice Holmes who used 'clear and present danger; as a criterion for restricting speech gave as an example yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

You asked: "If that's "an offence" why weren't the people calling to lynch that sexual offender recently arrested or charged?"

One may advocate anything. The people who called put no one in danger. That was not inciting a mob with access to the offender. There was not an element of 'clear and present danger'.

You may not think that speech presents a danger in any case. I advocate you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. I have not committed an offense by such advocacy. If you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre you are guilty of an offense and may even cause death and injury by your speech.

Comrades,
I think you can trace most of the social norms we now take for granted, such as pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits back to those evil Labor Party Socialists who are obviously intent on overthrowing society by bankrupting the paper tiger running-dog capitalists first.

I doubt that Jesus (apparently himself unemployed during his final years) had the need for his Apostles to be locked into any Workchoices or EBA conditions.

I also thought Jesus was tried and executed for the crime of sedition.

rache Brother or is it sister there we have it we are evil, Boaz bloke no not a chance we should stop them saying what they want.
If we did free speech would be in danger on any subject.
The likely hood of this group over turning us is nil.
We are already in part socialist ,just compare our health to Americas.
Right now looking right then left are you sure capitalism can survive the thieft and miss management America has hit us with?
Is not the buying of fail banks in America socialism?

It is interesting that off all the loony lefters here, none of you could bring yourselves to criticise an organisation which advocates the implementation of a political system with, or without the support of the majority of people. That’s called totalitarianism. Seems the leftys are quite comfortable with totalitarianism if they’re in charge.

Rache,

I think you misunderstand socialism. The Labour Party reforms including pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits are social democratic in nature, not socialist.

Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations that work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system

Socialism in the traditional sense, aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense, aims to replace it entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

rache: << I also thought Jesus was tried and executed for the crime of sedition. >>

Excellent point, rache - I'd thought that myself. I've also seen numerous references to Jesus and the early Christians as promoting a preindustrial kind of socialism.

<< I think you misunderstand socialism. The Labour Party reforms including pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits are social democratic in nature, not socialist.>>

It's funny you say that, because people who think terms like "loony lefters" have a place in adult discussions are usually the first to draw feeble connections between social democrats and communists.

Any time the Labor Party makes a move, it's immediately denounced as a hotbed of closet Maoists. If Rache is mistaken, it's because you and your fellow partisans have worked so hard to confuse people.