Hmm, I hope Juliet doesn't mind her journal comments
turning into a spirited debate. (If you do mind, Juliet,
let me know and I'll shut up.)

Ah, the vexed question of how far we should extend
the right to freedom of speech. There are no easy
answers, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise. Personally
I think incitement (to activity of any kind) can usefully be
distinguished from the expression of beliefs; but of
course there's no magic formula for making that distinction
in any particular case and there are murky grey areas.
Similarly, although I do worry about the wide scope
of our conspiracy laws, conspiring to do
something is not the same as saying what you think
about it!

I suspect that our actual differences are rather slight.
If the lives of innocent people (or even guilty
people for that matter) can be saved by seizing IM's
disks - which, though I have doubts, is not impossible -
then seize them by all means! But I think it's incumbent
on the authorities in such a situation to explain as
clearly and publicly as possible why they felt it necessary
to do such a thing.

In other words, there need to be checking mechanisms
to ensure that official powers designed to prevent 'terrorism'
are not misused. Is that unreasonable?