Is upholding a British court publication ban;
The New York Times said on Tuesday it had blocked British Internet readers from seeing a story detailing elements of the investigation into a suspected plot to blow up airliners between Britain and the United States.The story was published in Monday's paper. Under British laws, courts will punish media organizations that publish material that judges feel may influence jurors and prevent suspects receiving a fair trial.
"There has not been a prosecution for contempt over anybody publishing outside this jurisdiction (Britain), but logically there is no reason why there should not be," said Caroline Kean, partner at UK media law firm Wiggin.
While restricting what British media can report has been effective in the past, the Internet has made it far harder to stop information published by foreign outlets, which may breach Britain's laws, from being seen by UK readers.
Because there's no higher responsibility for today's American journalism than that of ensuring a foreign accused terrorist gets a fair trial.... except for ensuring they first get a fair warning.
Odd, the wisdom of the New York Times decrees "the public's right to know" about ANY top secret US government intelligence activity the Times can find out about. This especially includes successful, on-going, top secret anti-terrorism programs. Yet the Times sees no British "public's right to know" about a successful British law enforcement/intelligence investigation into terrorism.
Of course, one possible explanation is that Britain is governed by a good (i.e. left wing socialist) Labour government, whereas America is governed by The Evil Republicans and The Evil Bushitler.
IMO, the only useful purpose for the New York Times is to line the bottom of bird cages and pet litter boxes.
The NYT is a pathetic piece of garbage I wouldn't wrap a fish in!
Like Dave, I was perplexed as to why the NYT suddenly had a conscience, especially after spilling information that might jeopardize the fight on terror. Then it dawned on me, the NYT doesn't want the Brits to know all the details of what the investigation turned up on the accused terrorists! Bloody well can't have the public finding out just what those islamofacists have been doing now, can they.
Somewhere, Walter Duranty is smiling and fondling his Pulitzer. Somewhere hot, I hope.
It's actually easy to reconcile.
The purpose of keeping top secret government programs secret is to protect the American people (and us) from terrorist activities.
The purpose of the British publication ban is to protect the accused terrorists' right to a fair trial.
By thier actions the NYT shows us once again who they think is worthy of protecting (and also who isn't).
Uust did a quick search of the NY Times site. If anyone is interested, outside of the censored UK of course, the URL for that specific NYT censored article is http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/world/europe/28plot.html
Now, don't anyone copy and paste that NYT article into an email to any British friends or acquaintances! That would be, ahem, naughty! ;-)
I don't know which organization is a bigger piece of trash, the NYT, the BBC, or the CBC. That's a real tough call. Can anyone make a call here?
"I don't know which organization is a bigger piece of trash, the NYT, the BBC, or the CBC. That's a real tough call. Can anyone make a call here?"
Do you think that there are people here who willingly subject themselves to all three on a basis regular enough to make that call? Wouldn't that be a new record for masochism?