[BREAK] You looking for a good movie idea? Try this. Old Tom Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams are brought back to modern times. They're placed in a room, and have no idea where they are. They are told that, after being given a few facts, they will need to make an important choice. It will involve their giving their support to land "A "or land "B." Here are the facts they are given: Country A has been increasing their legal actions against the press, including jailing reporters for not revealing sources and threatening to imprison reporters who report "secrets" that embarrass the rulers. Country B has been increasing freedom of speech and is known for having a brutal and fearless press. Country A happily used deception and misdirection against its own citizens in order to start an illegal war against a non-aggressor. It also used its influence, great power and, some say, promises of future financial gains to the leader of country B, in order to garner Country B's verbal support. By not providing for the bloody aftermath of their illegal attack and invasion, Country A's occupation of the foreign land has led to over a half-million deaths, a future of illness from depleted uranium for both Country A's folks and the poor inhabitants of the occupied territory. Plus, a civil war rages as Country A stands as one of the causes. Country B let slip some memos and meeting minutes showing how Country A had used said deception, and casting aspersions on the sanity of the war criminal running Country A. Country A has had a string of "accidents" which involved munitions fired at/near reporters who had displeased the rulers of Country A . Country A has used both known and hidden cells (many in foreign countries) to illegally detain persons without charges, without legal representation and without trial. In many cases, Country A's representatives, military and/or civilian, have tortured and, occasionally, killed these individuals. Country B has publicly condemned Country A for violating the individuals rights, International Law and various treaties. Country A had their legislature place such torture and detention without charge and/or evidence into Country A's laws, and had the same legislature grant the rulers and their agents blanket immunity from war crimes committed prior to the legislature MAKING WAR CRIMES LEGAL! Country A's leaders, while pretending to lean towards a theocratic government at home, are reluctant to press for peace in a part of the world where 3 major religions were conceived and where violent death, in the name of a God, has become a constant. Country B pleads with Country A on this point, but finds a deaf ear. Country A's rulers believe themselves to be omniscient, and couldn't/wouldn't recognize a problem if it jumped up and bit them on their collective asses. In fact, instead of recognizing the problems, Country A's regime seems to be planning more aggressive wars, and has no apparent shame over what it has done to its subjects, or the rest of the planet. Well, there were many more such facts still to come, but the 3 bewigged gents had, by then, broken free of the room and were asking passerby where they could go to pledge allegiance to country B, Imagine the shocking end to the film, when our heroes find they are choosing Britain over the country they gave so much to birth. ===== [/BREAK]

High Court in Britain Loosens Strict Libel Law - New York Times October 12, 2006 High Court in Britain Loosens Strict Libel Law By SARAH LYALL LONDON, Oct. 11 — Britain’s highest court ruled Wednesday for the first time that journalists have the right to publish allegations about public figures, as long as their reporting is responsible and in the public interest. The ruling, a unanimous judgment by the Law Lords, is a huge shift in British law and significantly improves journalists’ chances of winning libel cases in a court system that until now has been stacked against them.

More Here