I think it's semantics but I'll concede the point. Murdoch wouldn't have been outright forbidden by the law (or whatever you want to call it). But when the go

I think it's semantics but I'll concede the point. Murdoch wouldn't have been outright forbidden by the law (or whatever you want to call it). But when the government of a nation expressly attacks a specific future action a company would have to be insane to then pursue that action. It isn't like the Congress censuring one of its members or the President because in that case it's two parties of equal power. In this case the Parliament has power over News Corp and is specifically saying "don't do this". So in my view it is effectively a law against the takeover