p2pnet - rss feed: NYT blocks online UK story
p2pnet.net News:- Advertising targetting technology was used by The New York Times to make sure online Britons saw only the news UK laws say was fit to print.
Through software normally employed to pin-point internet addresses for specific advertising, the NYT blocked online publication of Details emerge in British terror case on its UK site to avoid prejudicing a trial, states OUT-LAW.com.
This was to, "ensure that it did not publish the article in electronic form in the UK in order to stay legal in Britain," according to the story. "The publisher has used its advertising system to identify the location of UK readers and block the article from them."
Issues of libel, defamation and the prejudicing of trials, "have always been problematic in online publishing since information on the internet can generally be read all over the world," says OUT-LAW.com. "While a US newspaper might be perfectly within its rights publishing an article on suspects in a UK trial, it must ensure that that article is not published in the UK if it is to avoid prejudicing that trial, an application of what is known as the sub judice rule."
Britons who click Details emerge … see only, "This Article Is Unavailable. On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial."
The NYT had already planned to make sure print versions and newswires available in Britain didn’t carry the article, and that it, "wanted to try to extend the same restrictions to the website," adds OUT-LAW.com.
"The ominous language of seven recovered martyrdom videotapes is among new details that emerged from interviews with high-ranking British, European and American officials last week, demonstrating that the suspects had made considerable progress toward planning a terrorist attack," says the blocked NYT item, which is still easily readable via the US site.
"Those details include fresh evidence from Britain’s most wide-ranging terror investigation: receipts for cash transfers from abroad, a handwritten diary that appears to sketch out elements of a plot, and, on martyrdom tapes, several suspects’ statements of their motives."
It’s believed to be the first time that the paper has stopped British readers accessing one of its articles because of worries about UK law, says The Guardian Online, adding:
"Earlier this month, the home [UK] secretary, John Reid, and the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, issued a joint warning to the media to avoid coverage of the current terror investigations which might prejudice future trials.
"The statement threatened possible contempt proceedings against publications that failed to show appropriate ‘restraint’."
Also See:
OUT-LAW.com - New York Times bars UK readers to avoid court wrath, August 30, 2006
BBC - Google makes novels free to print, August 30, 2006
The Guardian Online - UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article, August 29, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
August 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
If it used to prevent predudice of a trial then fair enough. But I wonder how long it will take before it used to censor political views. It is the human way that everything that starts off being used for good becomes corrupted by evil.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:37 am
I dunno why the NYT is so worried about being prosecuted in England for an article that is on a US based web site. France tried the same thing with Yahoo and failed. As it turns out, the laws of foreign countries are not enforcable inside the borders of the US if they conflict with US law.
Too bad.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:30 am
The NYT in this case was just trying to be respectful of the laws of Britain.
That is all.
They have little duty to the British people anyway.