'NYT' Terror Story Not on Its Web Site Due to British Laws

[sabra]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003053879

'NYT' Terror Story Not on Its Web Site Due to British Laws


NEW YORK In a rare move, a story at the top of The New York Times this morning does not appear on its Web site.

The in-depth article, by three Times reporters, is headlined, "In Tapes, Receipts and a Diary, Detail of the British Terror Case."

A note inside the paper on the jump page, A8, reads: "Publication of this article on nytimes.com has been delayed temporarily on the advice of legal counsel. It is also being omitted from the British circulation of The International Herald Tribune. This arises from British laws that prohibit publication of the information that could be deemed prejudicial to defendants charged with a crime."

[AX10]

1. Could Blair be worse than Thatcher?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Preventing the evidence being published is better for the defendants

It means the state doesn't get the chance to establish its version of what happened in the jurors' minds, before the defence has a chance at rebuttal. The amount of information already released has been surprising - I suspect the defence lawyers will make some claims that the jurors will have been unduly influenced by what's been written already. See, for instance, this piece by a media lawyer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1854550,00.html

[izzie]

2. It has been ages since I have read about their courts but

I recall it staying in my mind that it was fairer than how we do it. Guess I will have to drag up the information and re read about them. Seemed to me it was in a 101 intro to law in college. It did not go into anything to deep but that one had to sort of know a little about every thing. You know how those 101 intro classes are. You end up doing more work than when you get into details.News I think about the person is kept out of the public eye to be fair to them.

[mcscajun]

3. Not a bad idea, overall. When you think about how we routinely

convict suspects in the press, barrooms, over-the-watercooler discussions, bulletin boards, etc.

Right now, it's the JonBenet Ramsey case, next month it'll be someone else, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

Keeping much of the detail out of the news makes it easier to get fair juries, too.

[izzie]

5. I would think it fairer to keep it all out of paper until court

I am sure the papers would say that was unfair but I think the person in trouble should be most important and not the right for the public to know right at the time of the arrest. I guess there must be draw-backs to that but we do hear all about these people after the facts from England so I see no harm in that way. Does Canada put out so much before court ?