http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Sedition_Law
Our Sedition Laws are very broad by definition.When the Sedition Laws were amended and re-inacted by the Howard Govt,they raised a lot of concerns by many about the restriction of freedom of speech and rightly so.

Seditious Intention.
-bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt.
-premote feelings of ill-will and hostility....so as to endanger peace,order or good Govt of the Commonwealth.

Implications.
-inclusion of Sedition along with the separate crime of treason under a new joint heading.
-increase penalities from 3 to 7 yrs gaol.
-introduction of a new concept of recklessness
-inapplicability of Sedition Intention to those not associated with an unlawful organisation.

What defines an 'Unlawful Organisation'? You can get 3-7 yrs gaol for the crime of 'Recklessness' but there does not have to be proven intent on behalf of the Commonwealth for this charge to be effected.

Anti-terrorism Act 2005 (Go to the end of Sedition Laws and Click on this)
This enact enables the use of 'Preventative Dentention' ie even if you are suspected of a terrorist act,you can be detained without legal representation.Control Orders restrict your freedom of movement and association even to the extent of not be able to contact your lawyer.Electronic tracking devices may also locked onto suspects.

Obama brought in 'Preventative Denention' also and we all seem so complacent about these intrusions upon our freedoms.This coupled with the Andrew Bolt decision should be ringing our alarm bells wide and loudly.

How can we expect freedom when we're not allowed to defend ourselves ? Defending our families/property before police can attent makes us criminals in this free country. What am I not getting here ?

Rest easy, Arjay.

If you look more closely, you will find that the changes in the law were largely cosmetic, designed to show that the Government was being "tough on terrorism" in its Anti-Terrorism Bill. Perception is everything.

According to the source you provided, there hasn't been a prosecution under the sedition laws for over fifty years. So unless you subscribe to the idea that their intent was to suppress legitimate protests against the coming New World Order, and were acting on instructions from the cabal of international banksters...

Oh. Right.

Time and time again Pericles you fail to confront the evidence.Accordin to you; Sedition Laws are not a problem because they have not been enacted for 50 yrs.Well now Howard has beafed them up with the expansion of the wars looming in the Middle East and Central Asia,they will have huge impacts on our rights and freedoms.

Denial will not change the reality.Uncle Tyranny is the paedophile in our midst and you want him to continue the abuse like many families do because you lack courage and the wisdom to confront it.

The govt; of the day has surely got the right to defend the people of the country. If that means some laws are restrictive, it is for our own safety. The world has a number of terrorists, and we have to be protected.

Here's a better idea- limit sedition to;
-advocacy or conspiracy to commit acts of violence or crime against citizens of the state
-conspiracy to commit non-democratic (or outright violent) overthrow of our present system of law or governance.
-advocating, lobbying or conspiring towards the creation a theocratic or theocracy-based government for Australia

That should cut all the real extremism immediately out of the equation.

Didn't say that, Arjay.

>>Time and time again Pericles you fail to confront the evidence.Accordin to you; Sedition Laws are not a problem because they have not been enacted for 50 yrs<<

I was merely making a factual observation. Clearly, these laws are last-resort stuff, when all else has failed, so tend not to come out of the closet a great deal. Which is as it should be.

>>Well now Howard has beafed them up with the expansion of the wars looming in the Middle East and Central Asia,they will have huge impacts on our rights and freedoms.<<

They may have been "beafed up", as you quaintly put it. But even with five years of their new "beafiness", they still haven't snared anyone. And quite frankly, given the way courts operate, I can't see the difference between four and seven years being particularly significant, in the grand scheme of things.

It would only be noteworthy, if the Howard government had been encouraged to suddenly become beafy at the behest of the coming New World Order, and were acting on instructions from the cabal of international banksters...

But that's what you actually believe to be true, isn't it?

Sad.

Tis sad that you Pericles do not have the courage to confront the truth.Live by the lie and you and your prodigy will perish by it.

KH,

I like the possibilities of those conditions. They would discomfort a few.

What if an individual were to pretend to possess information that would inspire australia to go to war? ...and for that information to be later found to not only be false, but known to be probably false (and certainly not decisive), by the individual at the time?

Is "sedition" a sufficient word?

Rusty

Nice try, Rusty Catheter.

>>What if an individual were to pretend to possess information that would inspire australia to go to war? ...and for that information to be later found to not only be false, but known to be probably false (and certainly not decisive), by the individual at the time?<<

But you know as well as I do that sedition is only for people *not* in government. When governments, or Prime Ministers who mislead governments, indulge in such practices, it is called "the ends justifying the means"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry

"I can apologise for the information [about WMDs] that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power."

So that's all right, then. Not seditious, expeditious.

Pericles,

I think the exemption for such treachery actually only applies to kings (who choose their own destiny knowing it is paramount) not to those pledged to serve in a democracy. Better information was available and conveniently ignored.

"Expediential" is another word (thanks Dan), and it describes not the vilest (whose commitment is genuine), but merely those willing to take dishonest personal advantage of misfortunes beyond their control, rather than admit their state of ignorance at the time. Coat-tail-riders are not the type to command in a storm.

Rusty