SSeditious intent

The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, complains 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."
http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/there-is-no-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/2005/11/13/1131816804690.html

The thing about criminal laws is that the devil is in the details. It is an ancient rule of crimes that there is no crime that is not fairly defined. Intention is a critical element of the malice required for defining any serious crime. If you can be fast and loose with defining the intent, the actual criminal act can reach wider than you might have thought. And that is why people are concerned with the SSedition provisions of the latest "terror" laws.