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."

Cryptome

[Threni]

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

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

Re:

[Slashdot Fool]

Or could it be that I'm a twat who puts underscores where they don't belong?

*kicks self*

so what?

[tritonman]

If they have to follow the british law, they have to follow it, else get sued like MS is getting sued by the EU.

Re:so what?

[DragonPup]

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?

Re:

[xoyoyo]

The NYT could get sued, but a more likely result in a case like this is that a conviction could be ruled unsafe even if all the evidence indicated that the (hypothetical) suspects were guilty. That's a fairly extreme thing to happen, and I can't think offhand of a conviction that has been overturned because of media intrusion, but the possibility exists in British law.

So the NYT has taken the eminently sensible decision to block access to UK readers. Americans get their freedom of speech, which apparently

Re:so what?

[SydShamino]

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.

Re:so what?

[ceoyoyo]

So what you're saying is that these are the differences between the British and US systems:

UK: We'll disclose all the details to the press, who have the responsibility to oversee government and communicate that oversight to the public but we require that they don't make that information public for a well-defined amount of time so the defendants can get a fair trial.

US: We won't tell anybody anything at all if we can possibly help it. If for some reason it does leak out, too bad for the defendant. We didn't like him anyway.

Re:

[thebdj]

Actually, I think the NYT would have a pretty strong case against any suit against the government. Unless the NYT has some sort of permanent position in the UK (e.g. a remote newsroom or UK based hosting servers), it would be very hard to apply another countries laws on a US media company with no ties to said country. This is rather unlike MS who almost assuredly has offices in the EU and around the world, making them much more open to attack of this sort.

In reality, I think if the NYT wanted to stand u

Re:

[Xrikcus]

You think that a law attempting to increase the chance of a fair trial is tyrannical? Should the right of the press to publish (and is it really to anyone's advantage to do so?) really override the right of a defendent to get an unbiased trial?

Re:

[donscarletti]

Ok, so you are bringing up the third reich when discussing a law protecting defendants from media interference before their trial. Yeah, keeping the media away from the accused until they can be fairly tried, yep, that's very faciest. Nazi Germany in particualar was very opposed to things like show trials etc. which is why they didn't publicise those accused of crimes and for example Ernst Rohm's charge of sodomy was so quietly, privately and fairly delt with.

If the US had similar laws the OJ trial might h

To the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see... move along.

Re:

[fistfullast33l]

Funny, my firm blocked that site. Gues it wasn't as work friendly as I thought.

CNET Version, Libs & Conservatives

[neonprimetime]

CNET version of the article [com.com]

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!

Huh?

[Matt Perry]

From the article:

In adapting technology intended for targeted advertising to keep the article out of Britain, The Times addressed one of the concerns of news organizations publishing online: how to avoid running afoul of local publishing laws.

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.

Re:

[blackcoot]

it might be local if they host a data center in the uk. but then i'm not a lawyer, merely a techy prone to speculation.

Re:Huh?

[ChowRiit]

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.

Re:

[RyoShin]

Having impartial juries without media influence sounds like a damn good idea to me; I wouldn't mind seeing similar laws in the States. Too many high-profile cases are now "Trial by Media", where the media puts all sorts or horrible twists on the case to get ratings, and the sheeple (the same ones who can't get out of jury duty) just absorb it and take it with them.

What was that case a few months back, the one with Scott Peterson? I didn't follow it much, but from what I remember most of the evidence was cir

Re:Huh?

[ChowRiit]

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.

Re:

[Buran]

On the contrary.

Good journalism doesn't involve censoring oneself because someone else wants you to do so. In fact, good journalism can and often is the very act of doing the opposite. If you're going to argue that journalistic censorship is a good thing, you then open the door to arguments such as "we shouldn't be talking about Falun Gong and the people who practice it because China hates that" or "we shouldn't be publishing anything that dictator X of country Y feels doesn't advance his/her causes" (in th

Re:

[Ironsides]

Good journalism doesn't involve censoring oneself because someone else wants you to do so. In fact, good journalism can and often is the very act of doing the opposite. If you're going to argue that journalistic censorship is a good thing, you then open the door to arguments such as "we shouldn't be talking about Falun Gong and the people who practice it because China hates that" or "we shouldn't be publishing anything that dictator X of country Y feels doesn't advance his/her causes" (in that case, we woul

Re:

[Buran]

I see nothing in the story that is not simple facts about the case and what has reportedly been found in a police investigation. I see nothing that is even close to exposing any battle plans. 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.

Police do this sort of thing all the time if there is public interest in a case. And news organizations cover that sort of thing all the time. As well they should, as they're th

Re:Huh?

[Ironsides]

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.

Re:

[ChowRiit]

Good journalism is about telling the truth in an unbiased way. This law prevents people from creating bias in legal cases before the result has been reached by a jury with ALL the facts. Publishing a view on someone's guilt or innocence before it's been proven either way is NOT good journalism.

Re:

[Buran]

Publishing a view on someone's guilt or innocence before it's been proven either way is NOT good journalism.

I'm confused (genuinely) about where in the article the NYT said anything about that. The paper presented information about the investigation thus far, details that the UK police themselves, among others, have revealed. Why did they do so if the information doesn't belong in public view?

Re:Huh?

[ipfwadm]

If you're going to argue that journalistic censorship is a good thing, you then open the door to arguments such as "we shouldn't be talking about Falun Gong and the people who practice it because China hates that" or "we shouldn't be publishing anything that dictator X of country Y feels doesn't advance his/her causes" (in that case, we wouldn't know about illegal warrantless wiretapping here in the US, for example, because the publishing of the story was not in line with the power grab plans of the government).

Did you even read the article? The law is to prevent the press from basically convicting a defendant in the public's eye before the trial even begins, so as to help ensure a defendant gets a fair trial. And yet here you are talking about dictators and the Falun Gong, as if it were Google in China all over again.

Just look at the U.S. press coverage at the beginning of the recent JonBenet Ramsey snafu for a perfect example of what the media can do. The day it all started CNN was saying how this might finally provide closure for the Ramsey family. Can the guy even get back into the U.S. before they convict him?

All that said, I'm not sure this law is a good thing; allowing the press to publicize that a prosecutor doesn't have much evidence can help prevent and/or stop witchhunts that would otherwise go on if the media couldn't get involved, for example. But you're really blowing things way out of proportion.

Re:

[Antony-Kyre]

Wouldn't it be considered libel for newepaper? (Well, until the day we invent the talking newspaper.)

Re:

[E++99]

It's totally unbecoming of them to all of a sudden censor themselves in violation of the First Amendment of the United States, which is the law governing a U.S. newspaper.

A) The First Amendment of the United States [Constitution] is a law governing the U.S. Congress, not U.S. newspapers.
Therefore,
B) It is not possible for the New York Times to be in violation of the First Amendment.
And furthermore,
C) It is not self-censorship that is unbecoming, but the lack of it. The founders didn't advocate a system of

Re:

[Buran]

The First Amendment of the United States [Constitution] is a law governing the U.S. Congress, not U.S. newspapers.

Directly, yes. That translates to, however, the fact that no law exists in the US (whose law applies here) that states that a newspaper must censor itself in any way. Therefore, no US newspaper has any business refusing to publish this story "on the advice of legal counsel" because no law exists that forces the censorship.

How, again, does UK law apply in the US? I'm still waiting.

Re:

[BitterOak]

You follow the law of the nation you're in, not the law of the nation you're from. And the NYTimes is in the U.S.

That's generally true, but it is possible that the New York Times may have a business presence in the U.K. which changes that situation a bit. They most likely distribute newspapers there, as they are the largest U.S. newspaper, and they may have offices there, both for distribution and for their British correspondents. When a company has a business presence in a country, they do need to be

Re:

[Buran]

For their UK operations, whatever those may be, yes.

For their US operations, no.

The website is a US operation.

Re:

[ChowRiit]

Purely legally? Well, they're a multinational corporation - I'm no lawyer but I rather suspect they could be sued in this country, even have assets in British territory seized I would imagine, if they were breaking British law (the same happens to Britains who break American law). But, as I've tried to explain in my other posts, I think it's more than just a legal requirement - it's just generally good journalism, and the right thing to do (in my view).

Re:Huh?

[Lewisham]

This very much depends on how we want to talk about "publishing" and how the judge wants to read the UK law. As far as I am aware, placing something on a web page is publishing, where it is read is the locality, and each time it is read it is considered to be published (including web caches and the like).

A good analogy: If I make a UK-banned book in France, I cannot sell it in my bookshop in the UK.

The New York Times has the same problem; by letting people read the stuff from the UK, it is falling foul of UK laws. They must have some form of presence in the UK which could be brought before a judge, and hence why the NYT are understandably wary.

If you are going to be in an international business, you have to respect international laws, and understand that the Internet is not the Wild West of extraterritorial unchallengeable space that some made it out to be in the early days.

Personally, I think the law is a good one, and America would be right to think about adopting it (see: JonBenet case - "The parents did it!" "The guy in Thailand did it!" Actual court of law: "there is no proof", and every single jury member who read this prejudicial stuff has potentially been perverted)

Re:Huh?

[Shaper_pmp]

And if there's a mistrial and a retrial is necessary? Or if the media whips up enough hysteria that political pressure interferes with the legal process? It happens all the time - elected representatives using public outcry to get a leg up on the popularity scale.

If potential jurors hear anything about the case it could prejudice their neutrality, and the article in question is more or less a laundry-list of evidence the police say they found and a complete description of the operation from start to end. It's all the police's side, with no attempt to present the defendants' side of it.

Not that I'm saying they're not guilty (they're pretty obviously guilty of something), but nevertheless, for a fair trial jurors must be unbiased going into the trial.

The UK government has hyped this operation beyond all possible reason - supposedly sober ministers were constantly making comments about "mass murder on an unimaginable scale", "further attacks imminent" and the like, all on national media. There wasn't a person in the UK who hadn't got the message within a few hours of the arrests, and thanks to the government's scaremongering[1] it's now a huge story that you can't very well stay away from.

I'm generally dead-set against censorship or suppression of journalism, but when it's necessary to a fair trial it's understandable. The UK government it blatantly going to get convictions out of the trial - they wouldn't have made it as public a story as it is if they weren't sure. The only question is whether the alleged bombers were actually remotely as serious a threat as they've been trumpeted to be, and if the media can restrain itself to avoid causing a mistrial.

Of course, I don't necessarily expect someone from the USA to agree, but equally I don't think you can hold up the USA justice system as any kind of shining example with a straight face either.

[1] Scaremongering... kind of like "inciting terror"... which is, y'know.. kind of like terrorism. If the terrorists are trying to incite terror, the government should be fighting them by trying to keep people calm. I don't care that they aren't the ones allegedly planning to blow things up - if the government's making the situation worse, they're doing the terrorists' job for them...

Re:

[gEvil (beta)]

I'm guessing it's because they have offices, and hence a corporate presence, in Britain.

Re:

[Half-pint HAL]

This is an area of internet law that the world's judges and lawyers still haven't come to an agreement over.

Apple have several different iTunes sites, with different pricing structures and licensing agreements because, regardless of where the server is hosted, they are publishing the material to people that they know are in a different country, and there are different copyright laws, publishing agreements and standard prices in different countries. If they were allowed to use not-in-your-country as a lega

Re:

[terrymr]

Becuase the NY Times offers a print edition in the UK and no doubt has offices there they would likely be subject to the laws in Britain at least in as far as that edition of the paper goes.

Re:

[peter_gzowski]

From what I understand, there are rules which govern jurisdiction when the actions of people in one "state" have impact on those in another "state". In some situations, a court may determine that it has the ability to adjudicate against a foreign defendant, even internationally. IANAL, and I've only started to read about this, so take this with a grain of salt. The NY Times could be said to be "publishing" in the UK, depending in your definition of publish. Perhaps a better word would be "distribute".

proud to be british

[eneville]

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

Re:

[jb.hl.com]

And watch those same newspapers be taken to court for breaking the same law the NYT is trying not to break.

(I hope. The jaded, Private Eye reading side of me doubts it tbh...)

Not much to do with advertising

[Kelson]

Looks like they're just using IP-to-geographic mapping to determine whether to show the article or not.

Sure, it's been most widely used for targeted ads, but it's also been used for other forms of content negotiation -- selecting a default language where the browser doesn't request one, for instance, or defaulting to the US or international version of CNN.

Re:

[szembek]

Exactly! I read the summary twice trying to figure out what the hell it meant and then resorted to reading the article. All that happened is: The New York Times made it so that people in Britain couldn't read a certain article. Big deal, they resolve your IP before showing you the article. The crap about targeted advertising is completely irrelevant, what they did was trivial. While their actions may be significant, the method of implementing these actions is not.

Expect to see this in Canada too

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Expect to see this in Canada too

[Ignignot]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:

[chrisbtoo]

the UK (which is far more than Britain, as any Scot or Welshman could tell you, and I'm both)

Is that because the Scots and the Welsh have a good view of Northern Ireland?

Re:

[nagora]

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),

Er... Scotland and Wales are in both Britain and the UK. Great Britain (as opposed to Lesser Britain - AKA Brittany in France) is the main island, and so includes England, Scotland, and Wales, while the UK additionally includes Northern Ireland, but not the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, both of which are part of the British Isles. I've neither the time nor the energy

Re:

[nagora]

Most people in Scotland would not agree with your definition of Britain, although some Welsh might

Are you seriously suggesting that most people in Scotland do not think of themselves as being in Britain?!!? I know that many Scotish Nationalists would not, but they are a clear minority. Scotland is British and part of the UK in the legal sense as well as the cultural and geographical ones. I fear that you are thinking that British=English, which it most certainly does not.

interesting

[larry bagina]

maybe slashdot could license this technology to censor stories about Cringely and Dvorak?

The Fourth Estate!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Next ... Custom Self-Modifying News Articles

[Ron Bennett]

The next logical step in this evolution is custom self-modifying news articles based upon the reader's location, user preferences, user history, etc...

And many people would probably welcome this - they want to read the news they want to believe - ie. Iraq is going great, the economy is dandy, and ... wait that sounds like FOX News already LOL!

Anyways, I'd like to see a website started somewhere that specifically archives news articles in their various forms; Archive.org doesn't do that the last I checked fo

Just IP Intelligence, no big deal.

[gb506]

This technology is in use all over the place, along w/ geotargeted marketing, law/regulations compliance is a leading reason for using IP Intelligence.

Click to Find Hot Singles in (your town here) Tonight!!!!

How is this a big deal?

[TheFlyingGoat]

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?

Re:

[jdunlevy]

In this case it may be innocuous, even beneficial. But what if it were, say, an article about human rights in China that includes information the government in China considers "state secrets." Should the New York times voluntarily block users in China from seeing that content in order to comply with the law in China?

Re:

[jdunlevy]

If it's about ethics, why publish the story at all for anyone?

Re:

[jdunlevy]

If it's about ethics, why publish the story at all for anyone? Further, if the NYTimes, by choosing to follow a particular British law is in essence showing its support for that law as ethically correct, wouldn't that also suggest that the NYTimes should be lobbying to have the same sort of law implemented in the US of A?

Re:

[jdunlevy]

You make a good point: a law can be regarded as ethical or unethical, but it can also be seen as "not unethical" -- an important third possibility I'd not been taking into account. And surely it would only be unethical laws that one would ethically have to resist. So fair enough.

Re:

[0123456]

"I fail to see how so many slashdotters can be so oblivious to this concept."

So presumably they'll also be blocking things the Saudis dislike, the Iranians dislike, the North Koreans dislike, the Chinese dislike, etc, etc, etc?

NYT avoiding Contempt of Court charge

[LevKuleshov]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [ojr.org] 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.

Proxies

[Ironsides]

Well, since no one appears to have said it yet, I guess this is one reason to support your local proxy server. The people in the UK should be able to just connect through a US based proxy server and see what their law does not allow them to see.

Re:

[Ironsides]

If TOR ransomizes your IP, that could be a problem as well. It means that I can't try to claim to be in a specific jurisdiction if I wanted to. Say, BBC Content only available in the UK or NY Times content only available in the US.

Balance. Heard of it?

[kirun]

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 [bbc.co.uk] 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.

Quite right too...

[Gerv]

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.

Red bullseye

[macshome]

Anyone else read the headline as if Target the retail chain was censoring advertising?

Public opinion has really changed!

[og_sh0x]

Wow. This is it folks. The tables have turned. A sizeable number of posters on Slashdot are siding with complying with a foreign law. Now this is aside from the fact that the NYT has a British presence, which is the reason I see that NYT is doing this.

A lot of you are talking about respecting laws of other countries simply because that would be the courteous thing to do. Courtesy has no place in international law. We could almost call it a precedent. Ask your 1998 self if it would be thinking these same tho

Welcome to the Internet

[ingo23]

The publisher is free to do whatever they want with their publications. If they want to remove some content or pull it out altogether - they have a right to do it.

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 wi

Uh oh

[Bluesman]

I think this story is a non-issue, since compliance with local laws is a good thing and it was decent of the New York Times to go to such lengths to respect them.

However, the more important issue here is that now that this technology exists and has been shown to work in situations like this, how long before something like this will be required to be used before you publish anything on the Internet?

I'll bet won't be long before some county government (or other small entity) in the sues a national/internation

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

Hmmm... the Right Coast?

Re:

[OctoberSky]

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 b

Re:Geography Lesson

[Reality Master 101]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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)

Re:Geography Lesson

[Ed Avis]

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.

Re:Geography Lesson

[cyberwench]

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.

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.

Re:

[plague3106]

I think the presumption of guilt is a societal issue, not one of news coverage. People seem to think that you must be guilty, why would you be charged otherwise?

Re:

[LordSnooty]

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

But what is there that the public needs to know AHEAD of a court case? Let the court do its job, then discuss the case all you please, afterwards. The current embarrassment you USians must be feeling over the Mark Karr case is surely testament to that principle. What sickens me is that the media start to lay into the police - if there wasn't all

Re:Geography Lesson

[DM9290]

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.

Re:Geography Lesson

[Angostura]

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 [cnn.com] 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.

Re:

[Rakshasa Taisab]

"I don't think the NYT needs geography lessons, I think someone else needs lesson in politics."

Their president?

Re:Geography Lesson

[Garabito]

Really? You honestly believe that local laws have no relevance and should have no relevance to the publishers of Internet-based material?

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?

Re:

[HTH NE1]

Would Chinese law keep you from publishing a story critical of their goverment?

That would depend on how/if my country goes about enforcing any extradition treaties with China, or whether China engages in "extraordinary rendition".

Re:

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

If you have a suable Chinese branch with arrestable employees located in China, then yes.

Re:

[plague3106]

Not quite the same; they were taking US citizens money, which makes it fall under international trade and thus subject to some of the laws here.

Re:

[thefirelane]

I think Yahoo tried that same excuse against France... didn't work so well.

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

If you're been reading the editorial pages, the NY Times would prefer Queen Elizabeth (UK) over King George (USA) any old day.

Re:

[nomadic]

Courts can exercise judicial power over things that happen in their geographical jurisdiction. If you're publishing something in the UK, whether electronically or in print, you're supposed to follow the laws of that country.

Re:

[Goodgerster]

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.

Re:

[dr_dank]

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 :)

Re:Maybe now they know what it feels like...

[keesh]

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.

Re:

[anothy]

close: it's not "a device capable of handling video", but "a device capable of receiving television transmissions." your computer doesn't normally qualify, despite the fact that it can handle a wide variety of video no problem; a television tuner card in said television would qualify. there's cases of folks with actual televisions getting off unlicensed if they can convince the inspectors it's never used for actual television (typically, if it has no antenna of its own), but i don't know the details of that

Re:

[Buran]

To try to watch BBC online content outside of the UK. Denied!

I tried a random link from the site and it works:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm [bbc.co.uk]

I'm in St. Louis, MO.

Re:

[Buran]

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!

Re:

[Lewisham]

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?

Re:

[Buran]

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, b

International Presence

[everphilski]

But the NY Times does have an international presence - they have a printing shop in Toronto, Canada and 26 foreign news bureaus. If there were tensions between them and the UK, maybe perhaps the UK would oust their bureau. That would hurt. Preventative maintenance.

Re:

[Buran]

I don't see any problem censoring any UK website the NYT has. If they want to have a website that obeys UK law, then they can start up nytimes.co.uk. But I do have a problem with foreign laws suddenly applying to US-based, US-domained, and US-owned sites.

Re:

[Buran]

It's intended for French users, isn't it, by the fact that it has a French domain, and also the organization on record is "Yahoo France". And the netblock is owned by Yahoo Europe. Sounds French to me.

Re:

[BobTheLawyer]

Perhaps they are worried about being fined by a UK court - I'd bet the NYT has assets in the UK so they can't simply ignore a UK court decision. Perhaps they think the English law of contempt of court is reasonable, and are happy to comply with it. Perhaps they don't want the defendants to argue that the trial has been prejudiced because of the NYT's article, and the case to collapse?

Your comparison with China is a little overheated, isn't it?

Re:

[Buran]

Your comparison with China is a little overheated, isn't it?

No, I don't think it is. Not at all. It's a well-known (outside of China, anyway) subject in which the press has repeatedly censored itself about a given subject because it's inconvenient to somebody for the coverage to exist.

And the particular site in question is a US-based website -- I checked. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me. But, US organization, US netblock so it's based in the US. And hence US law applies. Now, if there were

Re:

[BobTheLawyer]

Not correct. Anybody, anywhere, who publishes something which is distributed, physically or electronically, to anyone in the UK is subject to the UK's contempt of court rules. The question is whether or not they care about this, as the laws almost certainly can't be enforced in the US or any other foreign jurisdiction. My post gave some reasons why the NYT might care in this instance.

There's nothing unusual about this - many countries apply their laws to foreigners with whom they have no connection at all.

Re:

[Buran]

So why, then, aren't US-based bloggers who live and work in the US and have never been to China, not in jail or dead? Why can I put a picture of a model aircraft I build that has the swastika on the tail on my website and not be prosecuted by the French? Why can FineScale Modeler publish photos of the same and expect to "get away with it"?

Contempt of court for not obeying a court assumes the court in question has jurisdiction over you in the first place.

Re:

[schwanerhill]

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!

But the UK isn't China. From the article:

"I think we have to take every case on its own facts," said George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company. "But we're dealing with a country that, while it doesn't have a First Amendment, it doe

Re:

[Buran]

But, as I have said, if you start down the slippery slope that web news should be restricted, then you can argue that it all should be. That's why I brought up China -- the best-known-these-days example of severe news restrictions. That's a slippery slope that we shouldn't be starting down. Especially not in the United States.

How is this off topic?

[Prototerm]

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.