Ruddock to the rescue

There is no threat to freedom of speech - Opinion - smh.com.au

I have posted before about how much of the commentary on the sedition laws appears to have been based on an major misunderstanding in relation to the definition of "seditious intention"

Phillip Ruddock in the Sydney Morning Herald today (link above) confirms I was right. See this:

"One source of misunderstanding is that people have taken the term "seditious intention" to be an offence.

Seditious intention, for the purpose of this bill, is a definition - not an offence. Although it contains reference to things such as disaffection against the government, you cannot be charged with "seditious intention". The section of the act that mentions seditious intention is part of a wider provision setting out the requirements for declaring an association "unlawful",and in that context, it does not apply to individuals."

However, possibly this bit of the article is a little misleading:

"The existing and proposed laws allow for free speech by making sure people can call upon a good faith defence."

This is true for individuals, but I think that even the final bill does not make allowances for associations to make comment "in good faith". If so this is probably a legitimate ground for complaint against the provisions. The risk of leaving the legislation as it is more theoretical than practical, though, when one considers that the AG would have to convince a Federal Court judge to declare an association as unlawful.

Anyway, it is good to see the government finally speaking against the mistaken impression given in the media about what the sedition laws were covering.