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."
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.
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.
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.