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."
As always with this sort of thing, it's on Cryptome:
http://cryptome.org/nyt-ukterror.htm
If they have to follow the british law, they have to follow it, else get sued like MS is getting sued by the EU.
Nothing to see... move along.
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!
But they aren't publishing in Britain so the laws aren't local. I don't see what the problem is or why they felt the need to do this.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
All us brits use public proxies anyways. Nothing to see. We can all read about it in the papers tomorrow.
Why UNIX?
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! --
Actually, that's because the BBC is funded through television licensing. If you haven't paid your TV license (which you must pay if you own a device capable of handling video) then you aren't permitted to watch the BBC's online videos.
maybe slashdot could license this technology to censor stories about Cringely and Dvorak?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The fourth estate! Protecting the interests of the firs^H^H^Hsecon^H^H^Hthir^H^H^Hfourth estate since 1780 BC!
Remember, Our Privilege Helps Secure Your Freedom*.
*May not actually help, assist or otherwise aid securing freedom. The fourth estate is distributed in the hope that it will aid freedom but WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEE; without even the implied guarantee of USEFULNESS IN AIDING FREEDOM or FITNESS FOR CONSUMPTION. Any freedom inducing effects are purely coincidental. May induce totalitarianism in excessive doses.
May the Maths Be with you!
Apparently you sir need a lesson in globalization...Recent research has shown that empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited and as a corollary the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it's important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe strongly there will always be a need for us to have a well articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you. .... .... ....
What happened, I blacked out.
Click to Find Hot Singles in (your town here) Tonight!!!!
You know, this is why one should make restrained posts. I don't expect everyone to know everything, but making an arrogant post like this just makes you look like an idiot when you're corrected.
Specifically, the New York Times publishes an International Edition under a different name. So they've probably had some threats made to them by the UK government. Considering the arrogance of the New York Times, I'm sure they would've told them to pound sand, unless there was money at stake.
(I know, I know, the NY Times would never lower themselves to worry about mere money)
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Really? You honestly believe that local laws have no relevance and should have no relevance to the publishers of Internet-based material?
I'm sure the Brits from Bet on Sports currently languishing in a U.S jail for running a gambling Web site accessible in the U.S would agree with you. It seems to me that the NYT is making a good will effort to avoid breaking a law against prejudicing trials in the UK which has widespread support in the UK.
I don't think the NYT needs geography lessons, I think someone else needs lesson in politics.
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
The Times may not be located in Britain, but I'm sure they have readership there. If they have the technical capability to follow the laws of a certain region, then they should. If this were real censorship, they'd be hiding the article from everyone.
As much as I dislike the Times, I think this is a non-issue. If people are upset about the Times doing this, they should contact their politicians in Britain to change the law that the Times was following. If you're not from the UK, then it doesn't affect you anyway, so what are you complaining about?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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?
NYT are doing this for one very simple reason: if a British judge finds that material has been published that is prejudicial to the outcome of the trial, the people who tried to murder thousands by blowing up planes mid-flight can get off scott-free. In this respect, I guess it's the British equivalent of not reading someone their Miranda rights -- slip up on it and the whole case goes out of the window (not a brilliant analogy, but you get the picture).
The NYT has been in trouble in the UK courts before as it has published material prejudicial to a trial, albeit in a much less important case. They could receive a huge fine for contempt of court if people had to be released because of publishing prejudicial information.
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.
As for whether NYT has to comply with British law: Firstly, the print edition of the NYT is distributed in the UK. Secondly, publish anything online and you are automatically suspectible to be taken to court in criminal or civil proceedings IN ANY COUNTRY!!! The Australian high court, for example, has ruled that in the case of libel "each time material is downloaded, it will enliven the defamation laws of the place where [downloading] occurs."
This is very obviously utterly disturbing... but it's the way things are at the moment and responsible news organisations, such as the NYT, are compelled to act accordingly.
Conquest's 3rd Law: Every organisation behaves as if it is run by secret agents of its opponents.
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?
Definition: By "right" here, I mean what I consider to be somebody's rights, rather than what the law considers. I'm not saying I'm the ultimate judge of everything here, just stating my opinion. With that necessary diversion over:
I never quite get this idea that one right, whatever you may pick, say, "freedom of speech", is a total absolute that overrides all other rights. "Free speech" is one right. "A fair trial" is another right. Sometimes, like in this case, the rights conflict. It's clear if all the papers printed headline stories before a trial asserting that the accused is guilty, they wouldn't receive a fair trial. It's hard enough for terror suspects to get a fair trial anyway, given the number of high-profile arrests (on suspicion of being brown) and subsequent low-profile releases without charge.
So, in these situations, you need to compromise. It's not as if we're secretly being censored in these matters - this evening, one of the stories on PM on BBC Radio Four was the police statement to the effect of "reporters are reminded of their duty not to prejudice the trial". So, we know that the Daily Mail has to hold back from its desired Bring Back Hanging For These Sick Terrorist Traitors opinion piece (but is free to change "terrorist" for "pedophile", "illegal immigrant" or "single mother" as required).
In any case, most people would already accept that certain things cannot be defended under free speech. Few would argue that banning contract killings interfered with the "free speech" of the orderer, as they had to use words to make the contract. Again, I suspect little support for perjury being swept away as a free speech issue. If perjury is wrong because it damages the cause of justice, then printing newspaper stories that ruin somebody's chance of a fair trial is also wrong.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Do you honestly believe that you have to comply with the law of every country with Internet access in the world if you post something online? Would Chinese law keep you from publishing a story critical of their goverment?
You are aware that pretty much every US web business with any presence in China does just that?
Their China-based sites have to follow local laws. That's what "presence in X" means -- operations in a given country. (or do you think I have a "presence in" China for just having a website? I don't have one, and Chinese law can stuff it.) But US-based sites do not have to. And the NY Times is a US-based site.
That's why a US court ruled that the US-based Yahoo auction site did not have to pull Nazi memorabilia, but the French Yahoo auction site does obey the law.
Netcraft confirms it: Site report for www.nytimes.com -- US address, and that IP netblock is owned by NTT America, Inc.
i am a soviet space shuttle
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.
And that's been working so well. =) I've had the chance to compare the Canadian and U.S. systems now. The trials in Canada really do seem to be more fair, overall, than those in the U.S. I think the publication bans help with that, to a large extent. That said, publication bans make me extremely nervous - but I recognize their usefulness. In some cases they've been over-used, but I think most judges use them, well, judiciously.
I think that the lack of presumption of innocence in the U.S. is really having a deleterious effect on potential jury members, and perhaps the over-publicising of the events and the trial are responsible for that to some extent. I'm sure it's not the only factor, but I think it's a significant one.
~ Leilah
Anyone else read the headline as if Target the retail chain was censoring advertising?
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.
What is wrong with it is the UK (or any other country) government trying to impose their own laws onto a company in another country just because UK citizens can access that information. If I buy a NYT newspaper in NY and bring it to London, do I have to cut out the pieces that are not legal in UK?
At the same time UK did not see any problem with BBC radio broadcasting programs over the Soviet Union while even listening to those broadcasts was pretty much illegal in Soviet Union.
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)
A journalist could be sentenced to a prison term. It would depend on how serious and willful the contempt of court was.
In the UK as well as Canada it is believed that the right to a fair and OPEN trial belongs not merely to the accused, but also to the PUBLIC. That this right is so sacrosanct that in certain circumstances it justifies prohibiting people from publishing their own take on the court proceedings before the trial is completed. (if you want the scoop you are free to attend court personally). Publication bans prevent both sides from engaging in a outside the courtroom trial of public opinion. A very wealthy and very popular defendant could easily sway public opinion in FAVOUR of him and yet be as guilty as sin.
In canada at least it is also considered contempt to picket the courthouse in regards to a case currently being heard there. This is as it should be. If you have any material evidence to offer undoubtedly it will be either FOR or AGAINST some position and in the adversarial system (as is used here) certainly you would be permitted to testify (UNDER OATH) about what you have.
For all the others.. heckling and bantering is strictly irrelevant and should be kept as far away from the court room as possible. It doesn't make a fact any more or less true simply because 100 protesters WISH it was.
Even where there is no jury, a publication ban can still be ordered. And the reason is that the public is served best by either getting the raw proceedings first hand (by attending courst) or waiting until the trial is over and all parties have had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence (under oath) and make their submissions. This way the public also has the benefit of getting the judge's findings at the same time (which is necessarily withheld DURING the trial). This way as well, the personal biases and opinions of the media, politicians or other parties is minimized. Justice must be seen to be done and that means it must be seen ACCURATELY.
If the trial procedure itself is sufficient to destroy a persons life (because of the public spectacle of it) then there will be a number of cases where innocent people will refuse to defend themselves and plead guilty. this brings the entire process into disrepute and begs the question of whether other guilty pleas were in fact sincere (because the person was guilty) or merely convenient (because the spectacle of trial was worse than defending yourself and being aquitted).
Incidentally in Canada it is not even legal to transcribe the court proceedings yourself. You must get the official transcript. this transcript is produced by the court reporter who is an independant party under oath to transcribe as accurately as possible. Other people could easily lie about what they heard under oath and interfere with justice that way.
At the end of the day.... all the public media attention on court cases is purely about entertainment value anyway. It has nothing to do with justice, and where justice is required, justice trumps free speech. In so far as justice is the fundamental protection for ALL rights in a society, the requirements of Justice necessarily trump ALL other rights in society.
If you dont like having your free speech impeded by the process of Justice, imagine how someone who is convicted feels to have their liberty impeded?
If you think Justice has no right against your speech, then you should also hold that justice has no right against the liberty of a person who stands accused.
In any event, these publication bans are merely temporary bans DURING the trial. It is not censorship.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Interesting article. To my mind, the people at fault are the coppers (and Home Secretaries) who, in a bit of a bind (let too many prisoners go free when they should have been deported, beaten with a stick over the Lawrence thing *again*) think "Let's create a media splash" with a half-assed case so they can look like they're doing their job. I don't expect my local coppers to run screaming to the media every time they nick someone for shoplifting. Even in the case I was (tangentially) involved in, no hoo-ha until the little bugger got sentenced, which is the right and proper way to do these things - confident as I was that the guy was not only guilty, was taking the piss and was guilty, that's not really the point - I could have been wrong (and, normally, I am wrong...)
I would have found it hard to argue if some of the recent cases had been thrown out courtesy of Ian Blair, who does seem better at PR than policing...
Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum
If you have a suable Chinese branch with arrestable employees located in China, then yes.
The New York Times knows its place, and knows where America stands in relation to Great Britain. Ever since The Betrayal of 1776, America has smugly seen itself as superior--morally and physically. It has deceived itself, and the writers of the New York Times know this. They accept that their newspaper is inferior to the British-born "Times" and accept the British Crown as sovereign and governor of its dealings.
Soon England will prevail over the rogue colonists and the glorious empire shall be reborn. This is the America's first cry to return to the crown's protection. More will follow.
England Prevails