Reading through the full 36-page ruling is worthwhile. The ruling is a victory for those concerned about abuses against journalists under the Terrorism Act — but only a fairly narrow one. For example, the court does note that publication can „amount to an act of terrorism“ if the publication „endangers a person‘s life“ and the person publishing „intends it to have that effect.“ I can understand why someone might make that argument, but it still seems troubling to argue that any form of expression alone is an „act of terrorism.“