What you can and can't say in England

You can’t cover the trial of the Pakistani plane bombers in England, once they’re charged—even though the British will soon be receiving updates from satellite and internet sources which are not bound by the same restrictions. It’s against the law to do so, and apparently that law is strictly enforced:

…prepare yourself for the great silence. From the moment that charges are laid, nobody in public life or in the media will be able to utter a word about an alleged conspiracy which potentially threatens the lives of thousands of innocent people. Or, at least, what words they do speak will have to avoid any risk of assuming the guilt of the accused. So, in effect, any discussion of the case will have to be so abstract and oblique as to be pretty useless in terms of keeping the public informed about the details of the danger it might be in, and particularly the source of that danger.

It’s also against the law to wage jihad on the internet in Britain. But that law is not enforced, reports the New York Times’ Dexter Filkins. Filkins is a pretty good reporter; I first heard of him on NPR talking about his time embedded with Marines in Fallujah. He doesn’t disappoint in this expose of illegal hate-preaching, both in mosques and on the web. The law is not being enforced, some experts claim, because it is vague and untested. Well, I think Mr. Filkins’ article has identified several ideal test cases.

Incidentally, how often do you see an NYT article end like this?

Indeed, almost no one here is predicting that the recent attacks and plots described by the government will be the last, least of all the Islamists themselves. “Anyone who supports Tony Blair,’’ said Khalid Kelley, an Irish-born convert to Islam, “is not a civilian.’’

So to sum up: Legitimate press reporting on Islamic terrorist trials? Illegal, and enforced. Hate-spewing and incitement to jihad from Muslim clerics? Illegal, but for no really good reason I can see, not enforced. Hmmm.