It's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's another to censor them. That's the central problem with the United Kingdom's decision to condemn The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary by Martin Durkin arguing exactly what its title implies.

A response to the global warming awareness popularized by An Inconvenient Truth, Durkin's film was considered disingenuous from the perspective of British broadcast regulator Ofek, which ruled that Channel 4 violated the country's boundaries of impartiality when it broadcast the movie last year. Apparently, Durkin manipulated his subjects in order make them verify his questionable stance that global warming was a conspiracy.

Now, I find it hard to buy into any movie that puts its ugly one-sided argument right in the title, but there's something to be said for freedom of speech in this case. What's the U.K. doing with these nonsensical impartiality laws? Since when do documentaries have to remain objective and avoid agendas? Even your average PBS program takes a side. The ruling suggests a totalitarian mindset where art is subjected to a group think mentality, and that's scary. What if The Dark Knight were banned for condoning torture? Maybe that's an extreme comparison, so try this one: What does Ofcom think about Michael Moore?

This sounds like something we might expect from Michael Moore, but even he probably wouldn't dare. The UK's Channel 4 has produced a fake documentary (is it a mockumentary if it's a drama?) called Death of a President about the proposed fictional assassination of George Bush, to be aired on their More4 channel in October. The film, which will use "shockingly real" special effects to show the U.S. leader being shot by a Syrian sniper in 2007, is sure to be too controversial to garner American distribution, but it will be premiering next month at the Toronto International Film Festival (where it is being called DOAP).

Another upcoming film on More4 is The Trial of Tony Blair, which is more of a satirical look at the imagined resignation of the British Prime Minister. Both programs are intended to spark discussion and debate, but the Bush one will probably be regarded, at least here, as being potentially dangerous. And likely too popular.