globeandmail.com : N.Y. Times blocks article to British Web readers
NEW YORK — The New York Times’ Web site is blocking British readers from a news article detailing the investigation into the recent airline terror plot, turning its Internet ad-targeting technology into a means of complying with British laws.
“We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law,” Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said Tuesday. “It’s a country that doesn’t have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country’s law.”
Oh really? So does it censor the feed to China, Saudi Arabia and every country that has onerous censorship laws? This will turn out to be one huge gaffe. Think about this.
I used to believe that the Internet was, ultimately, uncontrollable. I’m not so sure, anymore. It seem like China (and certainly my own country) do a very good job of censoring the Internet.
I think it is time for citizens to build their own private computer network that includes a user-agreement which bans governments from using it. I’d be OK with banning businesses, too.
It should be designed, from the ground-up, with security in mind. All packets would be encrypted, of course. Even better, it would be built so that no one can learn where the packets are coming from or going to.
While I am not enthusiastic about censorship, there are times I agree with it. Much of the British Commonwealth have laws restricting what may be published about a crime before the trial. This for the protection of the accused so that adverse stories do not prejudice any juror before hearing the actual trial. The same information may be freely published after the trial. The right of the accused to a fair trial is greater then the right of the public to know.
So, if the New York Times writes an article in their old-fashioned paper edition about this terrorist plot, is it illegal to sell that paper in the UK? If so, if someone that buys that same paper in a New York airport and takes it with them on the flight to the UK, is that person breaking the law? If I sent an article via email about this plot to a buddy in the UK, will I be wanted by InterPol?
If the newspaper is transported in paper form to the UK and it is legal, why is it any different to transport it over the internet to their UK readers?
The way I see it, this is not the New York Times problem. This is the UK’s problem. If the UK wants to block that content from entry into their country, then they should set up safeguards to prevent it. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. journalist, is it? China has been censoring the internet for a long time to accomplish these goals.
This could put a serious chill on the entire internet if journalists and news organizations have to comply with this. Is there even a way for the New York Times to know where on the planet a requesting IP address is located?
Can you imagine if every local news site is forced to edit their content to match the laws in every individual nation? That would be a total nightmare.
I have too many questions and I am hopeless unknowledgable about international internet law. It sounds like a very bad precident any way you look at it.
I’ts a bit harsh to call the loves clueless. Publishing law (this side of the pond, anyway), is essentially what you can get away with, which maybe explains why the UK but not Saudi, China etc. If a UK judge reckons contempt, then he’s definitely going to move against a paper, and it’ll be harder for the lawyers to holler free speech. Plus, this is a specific issue about a specific case, so easier for the lawyers to flag upfront.
It’s also probably not particularly relevant that the block is fairly simple to get around. The NYT has taken what it can argue are reasonable steps to prevent a contempt of court, so it’s almost certainly legally clean. And yes, keeping a lid on it in general IS the UK’s problem.
But you’re probably right to see a slippery slope here. Differential publishing laws are a king-sized headache for internationally available publications. Trouble is that I can only see that getting ‘fixed’ if they all agreed on a system, and I don’t think I’d much like whatever it was they agreed on…
I think it harsh to compare censorship in China (arguably designed to prop up a totalitarian regime) with laws in the UK / Commonwealth intended to provide the accused with access to a fair trial in court. The information is not censored as such – just withheld until after the trial.
I fail to see the advantage to a free society to have the views of jurors prejudiced against, or indeed in favour the accused with information from the media prior to the trial. Is the right to a fair trial as well as the right to free speech not an important one? Is information prejudicing free and fair trials a problem for the mankind and not the “UKs problem”? The information is provided to them in the trial where it is made as accurate as possible.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee of accuracy of the information in the media. I shudder to mention the NYT in the same breath but you only need to watch Fox News to demonstrate this. If Jurors watched Fox News to gain information about the bombings in London last year they would be under the impression that the city had been almost levelled to the ground.
You have to take the point from Mark T that paper copies of the NYT can and will be brought into the UK. That is not quite the same as being freely available to any and all future jurors to see on the net or in the UK press.
British and still wana read it?
http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/445765/877640/
To me, reading a newspaper online is like traveling to its country of origin to read it locally. So, if a tourist in New York wants to buy The New York Times, is he going to be asked to show his passport to see if he is allowed to buy it or not?
Wicked behavior benefits the economy. Where would brewing be without the drunkards? http://www.freebeer.org It’s free as in like free speech. It’s a crazy world. It sounds like trouble is brewing at the New York Times. The pirates and the sailors, the soldiers and the law, the payoffs and the rip offs and the things nobody saw. It’s the politics of information, it’s the New York Times blues. Have a beer!
Don’t lighten up John. Go in heavy, loaded for bear so to speak. Expose the whole thing. Give people the whole story uncensored, which is your style. Don’t getted boxed in, check the facts and report the whole rotten story, nothing but the rotten story so help your readers. That’s who you serve, not the New York Times. They are busy building paywalls and firewalls that are prone to breakage. Fire at will and don’t stop firing until you wreck the whole place. Bite that big apple, slice it dice it and make a pie out of it while you are at it. Bake it at 350 degrees for thirty minutes and serve it hot with ice cream. Then see what melts and who gets heavy. It’s not over until the fat lady sings. Make her sing a whole opera. It’s all apples and oranges and bananas and reading the bible, so take no prisoners!
“The right of the accused to a fair trial is greater then the right of the public to know.” An uninformed public improves your chances for a fair trial? Huh. That’s a mastubatory idea if I ever heard one. It’s the Sgt. Schultz Institute of Critical Thinking at your service. We know nothing. Maybe the news gestapo will step in and silence the public for good. Can’t have too much opinion now can we?
Hmm, the information has to be simply “withheld” until after the trial. What about appeals? Does this also count if there are appeals after the first trial? If appeals in UK courts are anything like in American courts, the information could be locked away for decades.
I can imagine that a trial can be trumped up for virtually anything that the government wants covered up. That seems like a sneaky way to control the press and the public’s access to the information.
Is it right to keep an entire county’s population ingnorant of the facts just to guarantee that you can find a dozen or two uninformed jurors to try the case? That seems like paranoid overkill.
We deal with this problem in the U.S. by simply polling the candidate jurors to see what they know about the case. The downside is that our jurors tend to bemade up of totally self-absorbed and uniformed housewives and adolescents. Hey, it isn’t perfect, but we are not kept in the dark, either. The people that want to know can get the facts and the accused still get their fair trial.
We deal with this problem in the U.S. by simply polling the candidate jurors to see what they know about the case. The downside is that our jurors tend to bemade up of totally self-absorbed and uniformed housewives and adolescents.
Right, and that is the problem. The police and prosecution is allowed to trot out all the bull crap they wish. I think we are all familiar with the “perp walk”. They do that to try the accused in the mind of the public. Does the JonBenet Ramsey case and the parent’s accusation come to mind?
If I am ever accused of a serious crime, I don’t want your uninformed housewives and retired postal workers. I want those able to think. But, I don’t want to be pilloried in the press before the trial or to have those impressionable people allowed to sit on the jury.
Hmm, the information has to be simply “withheld” until after the trial. What about appeals? Does this also count if there are appeals after the first trial?
The Commonwealth appeals are heard in the same manner as American appeals, by an Appeal Court consisting usually of three judges. It is assumed that Judges are immune to being swayed by public opinion. As in the US, Appeal Court Judges make judgments on law only, as the facts are decided by a jury. Only when there is an obvious travesty will fact be second guessed by the Appeal Court.
Mr. Fusion:
Well, the lawyers tend to like the housewives anyway. Guys like me, engineers with B.S. degrees, are almost always rejected by the defense lawyers. The defense lawyers like the housewives because they are more easily swayed. They play to the womens emotions whereas engineers and left brained types are immune to this tactic. The left brainers cannot be swayed by emotion and just want the facts. That is bad news for defense attorneys, especially if their client is guilty.
In all my years, I have been ordered to report for jury selection at least a dozen times. As soon as I am questioned and the defense attorneys find out I am an engineer, the start asking dozens of questions all aimed at getting the judge to agree that I should be rejected. I answer all the questions honestly and logically. Invariably, I am always passed over. I would guess that 90% of trials are decided before the trial even starts based on which lawyer got the jurors they wanted. Just look at O.J. if you want an example.
As for the engineers that I have worked with over the last twenty years, I can only recall two actually sitting on a jury. Enough said.
#1
You were right… The Internet is uncontrollable… ultimately…
You can implement security measures, firewalls, block paths, and bar users to information… But if you want it, if you are resourceful, if you are willing to seek and use technical knowledge, yes, the Internet is uncontrollable…
Beware those who would deny you access to information, for in their hearts they dream themselves your master…