Slashdot Mirror
Target Advertising Used to Censor NY Times Article
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."
CNET version of the article
I can see abuse over this technology. News stories used to rejuvenate Liberals will be viewable only in liberal areas, and they'll put a different twist to the same story and make it interesting & viewable in Conservative areas. That's kinda what happens now, except it comes from different sources, but now with this new technology it could come from the same sourcd!
They have fairly strict publication restrictions on cases before and during trials, so I would expect this to happen not just in the UK (which is far more than Britain, as any Scot or Welshman could tell you, and I'm both), but also in Canada.
It's a bit more problematic, in terms of Canada, in that you could have a Canadian surf a wireless site just over the border to get his unfiltered press from a nearby US site, and go around the blockade at the border, but if you're using a fixed cable provider like Rogers Cable in British Columbia, they'll probably block certain news articles from your feed.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
How dare they use an available tool to comply with a british law!
How dare they, indeed, when said law has exactly zero jurisdiction in the United States?
Who are we, then (according to your logic), to publish stories about human rights atrocities in China? We should be bowing down to oppressive regimes who want us shot for being able to do so, or at least thrown in jail for life!
i am a soviet space shuttle
I remember hearing that they have or used to havevans that go around neighborhoods with detectors tuned to the oscillator of the tv, so they knew which households had tv sets on and then check those against the license records.
:)
Watching that episode of "A Teacozy Built for Nigel" will cost you dearly on an unlicensed set
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
It's not the government that threatens people here. It is individual judges presiding over a criminal case. If you publish a story concerning the defendant or details of the case, the judge can get upset that it might influence the jury and so journalists can be prosecuted for contempt of court. I don't think journalists go to jail, they just get fined, but still British newspapers are careful not to discuss details of cases that are sub judice.
Judges do not throw around the contempt of court charges just for fun; I think they only do it if they feel there is a serious risk that a fair trial might be prejudiced by the press coverage. If that happens then generally the criminal trial in progress is abandoned and the defendant is automatically found not guilty.
All this may be completely unnecessary, after all the US and perhaps other countries have jury trials without worrying that press coverage might influence the jury.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Who are we, then (according to your logic), to publish stories about human rights atrocities in China?
You are aware that pretty much every US web business with any presence in China does just that?
So if China passes a law that makes it unlawful to publish information that reflects badly upon them, then by that logic, the NY Times can not publish anything critical of the Chinese government?
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
It's absolutely right that you can't state a man is guilty of an offence for which he's been charged until it's proven in a court of law. You can state that you personally think he's guilty; you can state that he allegedly committed the offence; but unless you want to be hauled up in front of the judge and asked for the evidence you apparently have that he definitely did it, saying that he did is libellous.
If the US had a similar system, there might be less "trial by media" and more trial by judge and jury. Not that the UK is perfect, but it's better.
So the NYT has taken the eminently sensible decision to block access to UK readers. Americans get their freedom of speech, which apparently overrides all other rights in criminal cases; Brits get to look up anonymous proxies. (Yes, I have read the article. Yes, it's fantastically prejudicial. Hopefully having read it is enough to get me off Jury service.)
We have a perfect example of why the UK has this kind of law in the Karr/Ramsey case here in the US. The press had wall-to-wall coverage of the man's trip back to Colorado, including what he ate for dinner on the airplane. If the DNA evidence hadn't proven his innocense, he would have already been tried and convicted in the press. I don't care who it is or what they're accused of, that sort of thing is neither fair nor just!
This is *not* off topic, it is an example why the NYT was correct to following a very fair law. The First Amendment doesn't give us a license to destroy someone's right to a fair trial, and publishing too many facts prior to a trial threatens to do just that. It's a pity that there aren't laws in the US to give similar protections as the UK does to those who haven't yet had their day in court.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
"I'm surprised this is being labelled censorship by some people -- it's complying with the law and ensuring that a very important trail isn't jeopordised."
Well, that I suppose is obviously the question; should the right to a fair trial trump the right to free expression?
IMO the answer is clearly "yes" (not least because the fundamental value of free expression is the ability to criticize government actors and government policy, not write anything about anyone). The harm to free expression is in any case minimal, because there is a temporal constraint on such restrictions; when the trial ends (or is abandoned) the reporting restrictions are for the most part lifted (restrictions on naming minors and so on notwithstanding).