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."
so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not much to do with advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
And yet, the NY Times is in a nation in which the freedom of the press from censorship is held to be sacrosanct, even when the government finds it inconvenient (the NYTimes unleashed the Pentagon Papers, as well as having started the furor over wiretapping). 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.
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 why Yahoo didn't have to censor Nazi items from its auction site when the French whined about their being available. Guess what, France? Your law doesn't apply here. The French Yahoo site has to follow the law (and it does) but not the U.S. site.
U.S. judge says 'au revoir' to French lawsuit against Yahoo [infoworld.com]
So UK law can just piss off (as I think the Brits say it).
Re:Maybe now they know what it feels like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
And people whine when this is done in China... (Score:1, Insightful)
How is this a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
NYT avoiding Contempt of Court charge (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, the correct analogy, would be making a UK-banned book in France and selling it in a bookshop in France. Somebody in the UK then uses a specialised telescope which allows him or her to read the book (located in France).
Balance. Heard of it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 circumstancial, and he just got crucified by the media because he was cheating on his wife.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good journalism is also about knowing when to delay publishing a story. As an example, a lot of WW2 operations were revealed ahead of time and the germans were getting inteligence from the newspapers. Had the reporters not kept quiet about D-Day, it most likely would have failed.
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Not much to do with advertising (Score:1, Insightful)
If the NYT has reporters stationed in the UK or the NYT is sold in the UK, the UK law could apply to them. I work for a company that has a website localized by country using IPs and the main reason that they do it is that there are things that you can say about products in one country that you can't say in another. Their products are sold in that country, so they assume that the law applies. If it detects you incorrectly you can click a few links to get the correct country. I can offhand think of two other sites that are localized by country for the same reason (and that's just ones that my friends work on). (This is a feature of our Akamai account, actually. That's how not news this is.)
This is a complete non-event. The only reason that this is news is that the website handled the content improperly. What should have happened is that the link doesn't display if you can not view the content. That's what our system does and that means that the localization happens invisibly to the user. The user should never know that content was blocked because of their location. It should happen without the user's knowledge.
The NYT needs a new web developer. That's the big news item in this article.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
In reality, I think if the NYT wanted to stand up for free press, they would tell the UK to shove it or block them their own damn selves and not make the NYT bow to them. Remember, we fought a revolutionary war to be free from the UK's tyranny.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Welcome to the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
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 with BBC radio broadcasting programs over the Soviet Union while even listening to those broadcasts was pretty much illegal in Soviet Union.
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
I would have found it hard to argue if some of the recent cases had been thrown out courtesy of Ian Blair, who does seem better at PR than policing...
Re:so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Geography Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 have not turned into a complete circus.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...