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.
While you may not have to follow local laws, it's general considered respectful to follow them.
The laws are there for a reason, we tend to put quite a lot of emphasis on keeping juries impartial in this country (the UK): the law is in place, as I understand it, to make sure no media outlets are publishing material which is likely to sway juries either way before the facts have been fairly weighed in court, even for major cases. It's the price we pay for the system of "innoccent until proven guilty", and, at least in my view, is a fair one.
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!
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.
If your censoring yourself, it's not violating the First Amendment as far as I know: you have chosen not to say something.
This fact is, this isn't some all encompassing nazi-esque law, just a law designed to make sure we all have the right of innoccent until proven guilty. Even if they don't have to follow it, they can choose to, in the same way that respectable newspapers tend to steer clear of slander, even if they have the right to say whatever they want - it's just not good journalism.
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.
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
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.
I see nothing in the story that is not simple facts about the case and what has reportedly been found in a police investigation.
Precisely. A proper impartial jury is not supposed to know anything about a case prior to the start of the trial.
(For the defense) Depending on how UK law works, it could be used as evidence that members of the Jury have been biased towards believing that the suspects are guilty before the trial begins. In the US, sometimes measures are taken that include moving the trials several hundred miles from the area the crime was commited to find an impartial jury. If an impartial jury can not be found, I don't know if that is grounds for a misstrial or a case dismissal. In the US, if it is found afterwards that the jury was not impartial, it is grounds for an apeal.
Reading the article there is information mentioned that could bias an individual against the defendants.
I see only the facts that a great many people likely want to learn about the investigation, facts that the investigators have chosen to reveal.
Interesting to note is that some of the quotes mentioned are from people who were not supposed to talk about the investigation. The facts that people want to learn could wait until a jury has been selected. As for the publishing of information, any that the investigators have officially revealed I see no reason why that information should not be published (if the investigators have publisized it, it would be their fault and not the NY Times for doing so). It would be some of the non-officially published information that could cause problems.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.