It's sort of funny when you think about it. The decision and it's "implications" were probably weighed over a relatively long period, as the lawyers involved hemmed and hawwed about the implications of preventing UK citizens from viewing the page. Of course, what they forgot about was that you cannot, no matter how hard you try, prevent people from viewing specific web pages if they really want to; so all their important decision making amounts to pretty much nothing since all the people accessing it before are still accessing it anyway.
In this case it's sort of like if the website was a certain house, and the court ruled that no taxi driver may drop a person off there; it wouldn't take long for people to just tell taxi drivers to drop them off at the house next door instead. And if they outlaw that, then what's to stop somebody from skydiving and going through that houses skylight? etc.
