UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article (Guardian)(NYT)

[ovidsen]

I'm going to go and give the article another read.

Julia Day
Tuesday August 29, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

The New York Times has blocked British readers from accessing an article published in the US about the alleged London bomb plot for fear of breaching the UK's contempt of court laws.

Published in the US yesterday under the headline "Details emerge in British terror case", the article claims to reveal new information about the alleged terror bomb plot that brought British airports to a standstill earlier this month.

Online access to the article from the UK has been blocked and the shipment of yesterday's paper to London was stopped. The story was also omitted from the International Herald Tribune, the NYT's European sister paper.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1860584,00.html

On the fly edit! NY Times has this story, too!

Times Withholds Web Article in Britain

By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: August 29, 2006

If Web readers in Britain were intrigued by the headline “Details Emerge in British Terror Case,” which sat on top of The New York Times’s home page much of yesterday, they would have been disappointed with a click.

“On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain,” is the message they would have seen. “This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/business/media/29times.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Note that the link to the NYT story above has link to orginal article.

[dipsydoodle]

1. I wouldn't recommend

anyone posting that information here. If subjudice influenced an expensive case you could find that pursuit of the offendor was relentless. NY Times is obviously aware of that and acted in good faith.

[saigon68]

2. WELL IN MY OPINION THE uk CAN GO FUCK ITSELF

[truebrit71]

3. Hmmm...why, exactly?

I just read the article and can see why it was withheld...there is a ton of info in there that is new....

BTW Agent Mike, I do NOT currently reside in the UK.

[warrens]

8. It's illegal in UK to print crime details before a verdict

Same thing in Canada, actually. It's considered prejudicial to name names or print allegations attached to a person.

[truebrit71]

10. No, I understand that, I wanted to know why the UK should go...

..and fuck itself as the previous poster said....

[Henny Penny]

16. This wasn't being printed in a UK newspaper ...

this was something in a foreign newspaper that might have made the UK govt look bad. This is censorship and there's a lot of it about in the UK. A lot.

[MrPrax]

4. What article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/world/europe/28plot.html?ex=1314417600&en=3bd0e2112e48e451&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss">This one posted at the NY Times... called "Details Emerge in British Terror Case" by By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ELAINE SCIOLINO and STEPHEN GREY

Hope I don't accidently hard copy it and send it out in the form of an email to people who might lie about whether they are in the UK or not and haven't been able to find it posted on a mirror somewhere...

Yeah the British shouldn't know just how crummy the evidence in anticipation of an expensive show trial...

[dipsydoodle]

5. The whole point is that it can't be linked to the UK

in that way and if someone re-publishes it intact it will be easily tracked just using continous word sequence searches. Trust me on that - look up GCHQ sometime.

[MrPrax]

18. But you can spoof your IP?

These blocks are usually through the country IP codes...that's quickest way to go about mass blocking a site. it's not really complicated or 'spooky'...that is the same way forums/webpages/game/IRC block people...through their normal IP addresses.

It's not complicated to get around.

Plus there are some many people out there with email that anyone who can't read it in the UK could email someone or PM them and then have that person just send them the story...that's what they do in China ;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Bit late for that - it was posted here yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2480314

And I found the article, in full, on a Canadian newspaper website (link in that thread). I don't think they'd go after individual members, or this (mainly US) website, for linking to it, or even posting bits of it - but it might be grounds for excluding anyone who does read it from a jury (which, for small numbers of people, is unlikely to happen - but a well publicised internationally-known paper like the NYT might have to be more careful). There was a piece from a British media lawyer predicting this in The Guardian a few days ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1854550,00.html

[w4rma]

6. Trying to protect Blair? (nt)

[54anickel]

7. Great, this sucks. The gubbermints are taking over the info highway and

what we can and can't read. Sure this was done "voluntarily" by the Times but how much longer before it's all filtered based on content i.e. China's version of Google. Alas, soon we'll all be mushrooms once again - kept in the dark and fed BS.

[dipsydoodle]

9. It's not what YOU can't read

it's what can't be read in the UK without breeching the laws on sub judice. It cannot be allowed to influence a jury prior to selection. In a straight forward trial of bank robbery for example the jury would not be expected to have any knowledge of prior convictions etc. - that's just a simple example. Our laws are intended to protect both the innocent and the guilty prior to trial. If that's not the same in the USA there's not much I can do about it.

[ovidsen]

11. Thanks for making that clear

...from your first post.

While I'd LOVE to post the offending paragraphs from the NYTimes, by not doing so I acknowledge the intent of the British legal system to at least try for a fair trial.

I also show a small tad of respect for my British cousins. 'Taint my place to try and subvert your laws. That's your perogative! :7

[dipsydoodle]

13. That's good

The law is actually there to protect the innocent as well may be the case here. :)

[54anickel]

12. Well, from what I read there's nothing damning in the article to the

suspects, names, prior convictions, etc. It is mostly damning to the investigation itself and the US pushing for the raid before a proper case could be made.

But thanks for explaining the differences in the law. I still see a slippery slope, maybe a fallacy - maybe not. It does change the culture of the "internets".

[MGKrebs]

14. We just sequester the jury if we don't want them to see anything.

TV, paper, radio, whatever. However, that is relatively rarely used as it is a hardship. I think the "justice system" assumes a certain amount of critical thought on the part of jurors to be able to distinguish between what they see in the papers and what they see at the trial. Also, jurors must take an oath saying that they will consider only the evidence before them in maing their decision. Not only that, attorneys can strike jurors if they think that they will not be able to act impartially.

If it's not like that in the UK, there's not much I can do about it.

[dipsydoodle]

15. "not be able to act impartially"

It's not quite that simple. Jurers are called in bulk from our electoral register to serve at a Court - Old Bailey for example or maybe just the local Crown Court. There may be a number of trials occuring at that point. Selection is done from the pool. It's quite common place for jurors to simply say "I don't agree with the system" just to get off jury service because it inconveniences them. The usual answer to that is "tough" - would you prefer to be charged with comptempt of court. Exceptions are made for very lengthy fraud trials etc which are complex and could go on for 6 months at least.

It's only recently and in exceptional circumstances that prior convictions etc can be mentioned during the trial. The original ban was so as to avoid affecting impartiality based on he/she did it once so it follows they did it this time.

[Henny Penny]

17. I'm sure they'll take great care in jury selection in a case such as this.

I note Sky news today was perfectly at liberty to tell us that one of the suspects had "a book on explosives!". Still that would not predjucice anyone would it...? it was probably "The Anarchist's Cookbook" and there is doubtless a copy on a very large number of schoolboy pcs.

[iverglas]

30. way to avoid the issue

We just sequester the jury if we don't want them to see anything.
TV, paper, radio, whatever.

The issue here is a PRE-TRIAL publication ban, so you tell us about how things are done in the U.S. DURING TRIAL. Hardly on point.

The justice system can assume what it likes about jurors. The justice system in Canada and the UK apparently prefers to assume something close to reality -- that juries are composed of human beings who bring their entire experience to their task. (In fact, that's the whole point of the beasts.) And that few people are capable of disregarding, or perhaps willing to disregard, what their experience tells them, in favour of what some strangers in a courtroom are telling them. That's really just kinda contrary to human nature, especially when it means doing something that ultimately offends the innate human desire for justice itself -- like acquitting someone who one is convinced is guilty of a serious crime.

There are obviously points to be made on both sides of the question, as there are on most questions. Acknowledgement of that fact tends to further useful discussion.

[iverglas]

28. the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal

It's one of those individual rights that we in the UK and Canada (and I'm sure some other places) do take seriously.

The same issue arose during the Paul Bernardo trial in Canada. A publication ban was imposed at the preliminary inquiry, as it actually is routinely (although not automatically), even in minor criminal cases. Many US media decided to flout it.

By the way, a preliminary inquiry is the rough counterpart of a grand jury hearing in the US -- a procedure to determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to support the charge and proceed to trial -- except that the hearing is open to the press and public, and it is a judge who decides whether the prosecution has met its burden. The accused is present and represented, and may call evidence but seldom does. Quite different from the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in the US, about which one seldom hears any complaints ... in the US or from interested foreigners.

The point is to avoid poisoning the jury pool or putting the judge under undue pressure. (Trials on serious charges may be held before judge alone in Canada, at the option of the accused.) We do take the constitutional guarantee:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

seriously.

Free speech is also an important right, and is recognized as being important not just for the individual, but for the society, it being crucial that the public be informed about matters that affect it.

It's one of those balancing acts. And the act must be performed as transparently as possible, and the actor must be seen to be balancing the interests fairly and objectively.

There was a case in Canada last year where this may not have been done. Charges were laid against several individuals in BC who were federal Liberal Party back-room boys and employees of provincial Liberal Party cabinet members. There were rumours that drug money had been used to influence the federal Liberal leadership campaign, and that there had been corruption in the process of privatizing a major provincial transportation asset. The judge had promised to order disclosure of the RCMP's warrant information on a particular date, giving them time to complete the investigation ... and then a provincial election was called, and oddly, he reneged. That one smelled.

There is a case in the US right now involving the same balancing act. A Pennsylvania state representative is being investigated in relation to the death of a neighbour child, apparently shot with one of the representative's guns. His home was searched. The media are seeking disclosure of the warrant information. The judge has reserved decision:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-08232006-701829.html

It makes no more sense to jerk the kneee and screech "censorship" in a situation like this than it does to screech "censorship" against a law prohibiting the advertising of snake oil to cure cancer. There is are private interests and public interests in play that must both be considered -- and let's not forget the private interests of the media seeking to publish information. The media are not more impartial than courts.

Different societies, with different histories and traditions and priorities, can do things differently without one being a utopia of liberty and the other being a hellhole of oppression. Just as individuals of goodwill can have different opinions on an issue without one being a paragon of liberal virtue and the other being an evil fascist.

And this is indeed a situation in which individuals with similar values -- valuing both free speech and the right to a fair trial -- might honestly differ. But those on both sides would, as always, be wise to know what they're talking about first, and to recognize that someone who disagrees is not necessarily an agent of the imperialist oppressors.

[YankeyMCC]

19. So now American companies must comply with UK law?

[dipsydoodle]

20. Wasn't actually aware that the USA

complied with the laws of any other countries anyway. Notwithstanding that, on this occasion, the NY Times took legal advice and decided to block it from the UK. Best ask them if you want to know why. As I've pointed out above our sub judice laws are intended to protect the innocent - do you have an issue with that ?

[YankeyMCC]

21. I'm not questioning the law

I'm questioning the jurisdiction and applicability to a US company.

[iverglas]

29. then inform yourself, maybe

The UK ban does not affect a US company or individual -- or any other company or individual -- operating elsewhere than in the UK.

If the NYT had sold the paper in the UK, it wouldn't have mattered where the company was based. It would have been doing something in the UK, where it is subject to UK laws. US citizens aren't immune from prosecution for crimes committed in other countries either, you know.

The NYT apparently took legal advice, based on which it decided that transmitting the published material to the UK via the Internet could be a violation of the publication ban in the UK. It decided to protect itself against possible liability by blocking that transmission.

Interesting example of what I said in my other post: that the media are not impartial arbiters of what is and is not an interference in free speech. The media have their own interests to think of. They have pecuniary interests both in publishing (selling newspapers) and in not publishing (avoiding liability).

The NYT may have decided that the publication ban was reasonable, and complied with it in the public interest, or it may have decided that it couldn't afford the potential costs of violating it, and complied in its own interests. We can't know. Just as we can't know, when the media are opposing a ban, whether they are acting in their own interests or the public interest.

The courts are there to protect both public and private interests, and decide which should be given priority when they are in conflict. The courts are not always acting impartially, perhaps. But they are at least ultimately accountable to the public, which the media are not.

[YankeyMCC]

31. WTF is with the attitude?

This is a discussion board I asked a question.

If you want to answer it fine...no need for the BS

I see the NYT compiling with this legal advice as similar to google and microsoft submitting to China's censorship laws. Plenty of room for questioning and examination in these matters. Asking a question is not passing judgment, I make no statements about what is correct or not here merely that there is room and need for scrutiny in these decisions and actions.

It always amazes me how cranky people get when they're unable to do a little critical thinking or even be exposed to someone asking them to do so.

[iverglas]

32. yeah

This is a discussion board I asked a question.

An innocent question in search of information:

So now American companies must comply with UK law?

An entirely sincere quest.

I see the NYT compiling with this legal advice as similar to google and microsoft submitting to China's censorship laws.

Bully for you. And you did notice that I myself said that it was not actually possible to tell whether the NYT was complying out of respect for the decision made by the appropriate authority as to how best to balance public and private interests in a free and democratic society or out of concern for its bank account.

What you actually did, however, was say something not quite comprehensible: a not quite accurate statement about US companies and UK law, followed by a question mark. If what you meant was what you have now said, you didn't do a great job of conveying that meaning.

Now it seems that you are likening a UK court's pre-trial publication ban to China's generalized censorship policy -- I'm not sure how else you could see the NYT's compliance with one as similar to another company's compliance with the other. Except if you're saying that they're both financially motivated, regardless of the merits of what they are complying with, which you may well be, and which would be a valid point on that limited aspect of the issue. It is, of course, entirely possible for someone to comply with something for financial reasons, while there are other perfectly good reasons to comply with it.

Asking a question is not passing judgment, I make no statements about what is correct or not here merely that there is room and need for scrutiny in these decisions and actions.

Well, forgive me. Your question did not actually raise any issue for scrutiny, as far as I could see. US companies must comply with UK laws when they act in the UK. Duh, eh?

It always amazes me how cranky people get when they're unable to do a little critical thinking or even be exposed to someone asking them to do so.

Yeah, and what nasty things some people will say about other people ... without actually coming out and saying them ... and without the slightest foundation and in fact contrary to all available evidence. Yeah, I'm unable to do a little critical thinking. Yeah, that's obvious to anyone who's ever read one of my posts.

If your post had evinced some critical thinking, I would have been happy to respond to it. At this point, I STILL don't know what issue you are raising or what point you are making about it. It's a discussion board; why no discussion?

[rooboy]

26. They've ALWAYS had to comply with the laws of other countries...

if that product is to be consumed outside the USA.

[YankeyMCC]

33. But is the internet the same as a physical newspaper?

And even if it is a physical newspaper should information be controlled like this?

Should a newstand at an airport ask for Passports before selling the hard copy?

[iverglas]

34. what is it you're not understanding?

But is the internet the same as a physical newspaper?

Obviously it's not "the same". There are points of similarity and points of difference. Any of them may be regarded as key, by anyone, to the question of whether they should be treated similarly. One would hope that someone taking a position either way would be able to offer reasons for taking it.

And even if it is a physical newspaper should information be controlled like this?

Why don't YOU try sharing YOUR thoughts on the matter? Isn't this a discussion forum?

Should a newstand at an airport ask for Passports before selling the hard copy?

Why would it do so, let alone should it do so? Surely a newstand requesting a passport would be a violation of laws prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services to the public on the ground of national origin ...

The ban has fuck all to do with the nationality of an individual buying a newspaper or otherwise accessing the information. Did you sincerely and honestly think it did?

The ban has to do with the information being accessed by individuals in the UK. UK courts have no jurisdiction over what anyone, including UK nationals, does outside the UK.

So if your newstand is in the US, it is a red herring. If it is in the UK, it is covered by the ban. Was this all not clear?

[YankeyMCC]

35. congratulations you're only the 2nd in 2 years nt/t

I know you don't understand but frankly I give a crap.

[ConcernedCanuk]

23. If the guardian and the NYT have the article - so do hundreds of bloggers

.
.
.

Anyone that is real interested in finding the article can just google it with some of the specifics - -

It's out there - believe me - I ain't gonna tell anyone where ya can find it -

There's lurkers here that would alert whomever is mandating the "blockage"

I found another source in 5 seconds

I know I could find more if necessary

Sorry guys,

Y'all wanted "globalization" , well . . .

That includes information

Sucks, don't it?

[leveymg]

24. Google seems to be cooperating - no mirror sites come up.

Now, that's REALLY alarming!

Anyone able to find a copy posted anywhere?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Yes, three are other site carrying it - see post #22

and I found the link via Google News (in the UK), and it still appears there.

[leveymg]

27. I looked last night,

not for a very long time, but couldn't find a copy, except at the NYT site. Tried a search by title and by the first 10 words of the first sentence -- which usually works. But found no copy on the first couple GOOGLE pages.

I didn't see your link at Post 22. That didn't show up in a short GOOGLE search. You might want to see if it does today, and let us know.

Thanks.