Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Target Advertising Used to Censor NY Times Article

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the half-measures-and-wasted-effort dept.

avtchillsboro writes to tell us The New York Times has adapted technology usually used for targeted advertising to censor a recent article from British viewers in an attempt to comply with local publishing rules. The New York Times explained that this move "arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial."

5 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Cryptome by Threni · · Score: 4, Informative

    As always with this sort of thing, it's on Cryptome:

    http://cryptome.org/nyt-ukterror.htm

  2. proud to be british by eneville · · Score: 3, Informative

    All us brits use public proxies anyways. Nothing to see. We can all read about it in the papers tomorrow.

    --
    Why UNIX?
  3. Re:Expect to see this in Canada too by Ignignot · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know there is the whole "I don't consider myself British, now I'm Welsh or whatever" that's gone on - but Britain and UK are synonymous at least as far as wikipedia goes. Britain can mean either the island or the UK. And either one includes both Scotland and Wales. Maybe you are confusing this with people confusing England and the UK, which are actually not the same.

    --
    I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
  4. Re:Maybe now they know what it feels like... by keesh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Popular myth that they like to perpetuate. The way it really works is that they know who owns a TV because you have to provide a name and postcode when buying one (UK postcodes are far more specific than US ones), and they know who doesn't own a TV licence.

    Those dishes strapped to the sides of their highly visible detector vans don't do anything except make people think they're infalliable.

  5. Re:so what? by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

    Americans get their freedom of speech, which apparently overrides all other rights in criminal cases
    Not at all. The judge in a case can issue a gag order, and even seal indictments, evidence, etc., to prevent anyone involved from talking or leaking information.

    On the other hand, if information is leaked, the papers usually have the right to publish it. The person who leaked it may be in contempt of court and headed to jail, but the paper or journalist won't get into trouble unless they refuse to name a source.

    It is freedom of the press that is paramount in this example. Free speech can be curtailed if the judge feels that it would lead to the violation of another right, such as due process.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.