Target Advertising Used to Censor NY Times Article 373
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 (Score:4, Informative)
http://cryptome.org/nyt-ukterror.htm [cryptome.org]
proud to be british (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Expect to see this in Canada too (Score:5, Informative)
Online Proxies (Score:1, Informative)
Re:New York Times - LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!! (Score:3, Informative)
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, but the French Yahoo auction site does obey the law.
Netcraft confirms it: Site report for www.nytimes.com [netcraft.com] -- US address, and that IP netblock is owned by NTT America, Inc.
Re:Cryptome (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Maybe now they know what it feels like... (Score:4, Informative)
Those dishes strapped to the sides of their highly visible detector vans don't do anything except make people think they're infalliable.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Informative)
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.