Davidf, I distinctly remember reporters on the scene reporting on people calling for the lynching of that person. I think they even had rope tied for such a fashion, calling for his execution etc. Outside the house, that's why police were on site. When I said "calling" I was referring to people *on the scene* advocating his death or lynching. I see no such requirement in law for there to be a "mob present" when one "incites violence" (in the eyes of an observer) and the sedition laws certainly don't have one.

I don't know who Justice Holmes is, but I disagree with his reasoning. Judges do not have perfect reasoning and are influenced by their attachment to the legal system and prevailing thought on the rightness of government control (if you live in a dictatorship, the judges will have remarkable thought process perfectly in line with oppressing people, completely logical).

It's rare for a judge to be fully independent of the system they are a part of and have grown attached to thinking is Just. One who stands for the citizen (in Australia), in other words.

I made a comment about the "yelling fire in a theatre" hypothetical situation (as you can see flawed from the outset in it's assumptions when you think about it) here..... if you care to read it http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2113&page=0#45030 In short yelling fire only causes harm when IDIOTS believe a COMPLETE STRANGER and don't have the DECENCY to act rationally and safely. In other words, harm from someone yelling fire is a direct consequence of those people who are gullible and irresponsible...it's their fault. No reasonable person would uncritically stampede in response to a complete stranger like that...it's an hypothetical situation that suits authority even though it has nothing to do with reality. To put it another way, in the minds of judges it is "reasonable" to blame the yelling person because of the inherent regard they have for the authority of the State (appeal to authority). Judges execute people overseas with perfect 'logic'. They are tools of the current state, even in democracy.

Jesus would be neither a socialist nor a capitalist...he would be a 'communalist' :) as He indeed was.

He and his disciples went here and there..and they relied on hospitality of those they visited but were also supported.. believe it or not..by the women..who accompanied them.

He was a 'team effort' person, the women supported them 'from their means'... which must mean they had independant means.

Plucky.. my middle way is simple. Government controls major infrastructure, (this might be debatable) ,Education, Health and Corrections, Defense and Immigration.

i.e. Those things which relate to the overall well being and security of the nation.

That doesn't mean their can't be private education and health, but it DOES mean we cannot in a million years have 'prisons for profit'.

If we take Jesus parable of the 'talents' and apply it to economic life.. he would be a capitalist in the sense of each of us having a given amount of capital.. and time to make something of it. But his parable was really about the spreading of the Gospel... now how to make $$

So.. I think the Lord recognized that people have personal intiative, and skills.. and should use them to the max. They should use them for the max for the Kingdom of God. So, if they can make a few dollars.. they should at all times be thinking of those in need.

Plucky.. I've condemned capitalism plenty of times.. and 'the Right' on economic policy...you just havn't been readddding all I write :) shameeee...and now you pick on me too ? awwwww

I'm conservative on moral issues, "Centrist" on economic issues. "very Right" on Immigration :) Ultra/extreme/hyper/super-duper 'Right' on seditious influences.

I can accept pretty much all that the SA website says EXCEPT it calling for eventual 'revolution'.. if they denounce that it might be acceptable.

Sancho..picking on my spelling is a pretty clear evidence of a lack of argument :)

CJ morgan,
Have those whitches have a cure for rabies, distemper? I think I know someone who might need the antidote.
POLYCARP I hereby revoke you internet trawling privileges. >:-|
Surfing requires the surfer to be on the top the water not the bizarre life forms depths. As penance you are required to go to Sydney and march in the next Gay Mardi Gras parade.
:-)
Seriously, we’ve already done the free speech thing to death.

All,

I don't know if anyone else picked this up but the site was the 'Alternative' Socialist.....
Alternative as in alternative medicine, alternative lifestylers, alternative as in alternative reality. Hardly mainstream anything. Most likely a bunch of arrested adolescents with angst against everything not black or emo. Their annual general meeting is held in a conference call to Lifeline. Their idea of terrorism is likely to be playing their music too loud.
I have to hand it to Polycarp he can sniff out the weird and bogus then present it as a serious question.

The real philosophic in-depth point is that their apparent definition of Socialism is at least 50 years out of date.
Communism as writ never actually happened. The USSR was a dictatorship by definition masking as Communism.

Much the same as Democracy never really existed. We as citizens get to decide from a selection of candidates and a bunch of policies chosen by a closed/controlled minority on behalf of powerful elite. Where’s the difference with China’s system today?

Sounds like the current perverted Version of Capitalism we are enduring today.
This too isn’t as it was conceived (level playing field, beneficial to the masses etc)

In short the question asked is moot based on definitional reality.

Dear Polycarp,

What an interesting thread.

But a difficult one.

At least for me.

Are Socialists Seditious?

I don't know.

That's like asking - Are all Muslims terrorists?
Are all Capitalists vultures?
Are all Homosexuals immoral?
Are all Heterosexuals wife beaters?
Are all Christians Holy People?

et cetera.

Some may be - I guess. There are extremists,
fanatics, and people prone to violence
within any group. It doesn't necessarily
follow however that the entire group is to
be blamed for the actions of a small minority
within that group.

We have laws in this country that protect us
against extremists. We live in a democratic
society where thankfully there is a distinction
between freedom, liberty and the right to the
pursuit of happiness as opposed to the interest,
control, and domination of the state over the
individual. So sedition under our democratic
legal traditions is something that has to be
proven.

Porkycarp: << 'from their means' >>

Truly amazing - Porky's channeling Marx now: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Now, what about the point that Jesus was executed by the Romans for their equivalent of sedition?

Foxy this:
"We live in a democratic
society where thankfully there is a distinction
between freedom, liberty and the right to the
pursuit of happiness as opposed to the interest,
control, and domination of the state over the
individual."

Is simply not true for Australia. Take gay marriage... These people are being ACTIVELY DENIED the same rights as heterosexual people. You have religious groups implementing censorship schemes for the entire population, regardless of whether they want it or not. There are ALL SORTS of cases that demonstrate your view of this country is more or less rubbish. Seriously. We are probably the least free democratic, western country of them all. you seem to have no idea and believe all the government propaganda about freedom.

So to recap, straight off the mark, in 2004 the Australian government ACTIVELY DENIED, "the right to the pursuit of happiness". They have done this in many cases. Whether they are Labor or Liberals makes no difference.