Basically in light of new 'anti-terror' legislation that is being rushed through by Charles Clarke I had an idea:
In a nutshell one of the proposals of the legislation dictates that it will prevent the encouragement and support of terrorist acts. My idea was thus to create a series of websites that glorified the massacre at Falluja, the killing of 100,000+ civilians and the use of Napalm by US/UK forces and various other acts of 'terrorism' that have been proved to have been carried out by the US / UK goverments.
Not a pleasant idea so far I hear you cry, well I would tend to agree, but what I was hoping to achieve is as follows:
By glorifying these acts by our own goverment and a great deal of publicity (this may be a problem, but the ideal would be to have the story picked up by one of the mainstream media outlets) you then force the government into a situation where either they have to operate a blatant double standard and situation where the law is only enforced against the approved terrorist model (i.e muslims) or they have to prosecute me for running the sites and thus admit to the fact that the atrocities glorified are indeed acts of terrorism of which they are guilty.
So what am I asking:
While it sounds good on paper, how realistic would this be from a legal standpoint i.e to prosecute me would that then be an admissable admission of guilt

How easy is it to get things like this picked up by the mainstream press - has anyone had dealings with the press on trying to get a story picked up by them.

Any other thoughts that might refine the idea and make it workable - an organised campaign to get people to complain about the content of the sites to their MPs / newspapers etc that would build public support against the sites etc and thus force the government to take action against the sites.

All feedback appreciated