Post it to your blog people.

Interesting how they jump “on the advice of legal counsel” but hey, it’s ok to print about SWIFT and NSA call monitoring.

That’s what I’m sayin’… Does anyone think that the Times would have done the same if the U.S. government asked them not to publish it or “advice of legal counsel” said they shouldn’t. No, they’d try to play the whistleblower, most likely with a lot of false information, as usual, so long as it worked against the President.

Which leaves them with two choices: either relax their laws governing matters sub judice or stick with the fines and end up basically exporting their free-speech jurisprudence to other jurisdictions by forcing foreign online media outlets that do business in the UK to conform to it.It’s not a huge deal; it’s only one story, albeit an important one,

It is a huge deal AP and we all know it. It goes to the very heart of why an internet? To expose FREE IDEAS and FREE THOUGHT and FREE INFORMATION and all the things that follow those ideas to be accessable to ALL. Period. It is a HUGE deal indeed.
Brit laws regarding this and many other “Free Speech” ideas are pathetic. That is why in particular that Saudi princeling who supports terrorists keeps suing in Brit courts. Disgusting.