Comment Re:Worrying precedent (Score 4, Insightful) 216
This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.
This was about a question in Parliament. i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK. The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.
The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK. (note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).
The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.