The big issue is the realisation for the liberal establishment that not all creationists are scientifically illiterate, the belief which they have tended to cling to whenever a creationist asks them a hard question about evolution and they can't answer. The reality is that SOME of 'creation science' is asking legitimate questions which evolutionists find hard work to explain (e.g. the irreducible complexity of some biological systems that requires a BIG leap of faith to believe emerged spontaneously, some rock formations with fossiled trees extending through far too many layers). People who ask these hard questions tend to get disdained rather than engaged with; this is bad science.

There WILL be legislation proposed very soon for a similar restriction on US companies. That it is stupid, irrational and anti-privacy won;t stop some ignorant legislators from suggesting it. So in that sense alone it does affect the US...

Adblocker plus on Firefox = no ads EASY!

For better or worse, Obama isn't President of the whole world...

There will be a jury - though one may be sceptical about how unprejudiced they will be - and the judge will be responsible for ensuring real fair play. The issue is, of course, about trust of these institutions given there is no chance for the gawping public to follow the details of the case. Given the inability of the public to accept jury verdicts when the they are 'sure' that the opposite answer is the right one, one has to doubt that the gawping public offers a great deal. I admit I'm thinking out loud here - I really don't know the right answer, I'm just not 100% sure 'open justice' really doesn't descend into witch hunting on a regular basis.