UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article

[friedaweed]

So we know about it but can't talk about it.

Having read the NYT article - which is more detailed than the syndicated version - I think there is an interesting legal question over whether the British "officials" who spoke to the paper were committing contempt of court.

Exactamundo
So why do it?
Surely they are aware of the complications of such a move and must be aware of the fact that it's bound to leak through the web.

China + Google come to mind or has the stench of sons nappies turned me into azzer. It's a clamp down on the net test case conspiracy i tell thee.

 

[TeeJay]

This makes no sense.

Think about it, there is no such thing as an unfair trial. The "fuck up" would be that no trial is possible because published info is presumed to have prejudiced potential jurors , which wouldn't do at all for the authorities.

Same principle as the Daily Mail headline and the alledged killers of Stephen Lawrence - they could never be tried after that headline.

It does make sense:

I want to see these people face trial - but I want that trial to be fair.

"Fucking up chances of a fair trial" can equally mean that the trial can't be held as much as the trial itself has been prejudiced but still goes ahead because the trial judge doesn't think that the damage to the jury has been too severe.

In either case a fair trial has been undermined. Why does this "not make sense"?

 

[TeeJay]

So why do it?
Surely they are aware of the complications of such a move and must be aware of the fact that it's bound to leak through the web.

Who is this "they" you are talking about?

 

[London_Calling]

You said:

Do you think they should help fuck up the chances of these people getting a fair trial?

Which is a mis-statement at best.

Better would be:

Do you think they should help fuck up the chances of these people being put on trial?

 

[newbie]

Having read the NYT article - which is more detailed than the syndicated version - I think there is an interesting legal question over whether the British "officials" who spoke to the paper were committing contempt of court.

why would it be?

Hearsay discussion of the 'facts' (or spin) of a case prior to trial is commonplace. What's not allowed is publication.

There's probably a ton of beauracratic remedies for breach of confidentiality- as Kelly found out.

 

[laptop]

Who is this "they" you are talking about?

That'll be the "they" in my post to which friedaweed was responding.

It's called "reference".

 

[friedaweed]

Wires crossed here me thinks

Who is this "they" you are talking about?

Well if you read the quote i was referring to in the same post you'd see in bold "the British "officials" who spoke to the paper" .

"Are you gonna bark all night little doggy or are you going to bite"

 

[friedaweed]

That'll be the "they" in my post to which friedaweed was responding.

It's called "reference".

Muchas grassy ass senor.
Thought i was going mad there for a moment.

Is teejay trolling for a piece of ass

 

[laptop]

Is teejay trolling for a piece of ass

Dunno.

Is it squirting?

 

[friedaweed]

Dunno.

Is it squirting?

Shhhhh he's gone to sleep

 

[TeeJay]

Which is a mis-statement at best.

So you think there has never been a trial that wasn't as fair as it should have been?

You do realise that a judge might decide that although media coverage has had a detrimental impact on a trial, nevertheless it will still be allowed to go ahead.

"there is no such thing as an unfair trial"

Sorry, but this is laughable.

 

[TeeJay]

That'll be the "they" in my post to which friedaweed was responding.

It's called "reference".

Amazing that you can't manage a straight answer, but then again you do fancy yourself as some kind of para-legal don't you?

 

[laptop]

That was a grammar lesson.

 

[TeeJay]

Is teejay trolling for a piece of ass

Wtf does this mean?

Are you the ass?

And by "trolling" do you mean "asking a question relevant to the debate at hand"?

Trolling = the lazy person's catch-all phrase to define anything they don't like.

:yawn:

 

[London_Calling]

I think you're confused.

The point is that potential trials can be prejudiced because the media have released info that might have influenced prospective jurors.

If you want to make some political point about unfair trials . . you're in the wrong thread; the point here is about the jury pool being potentiall poisoned, and that preventing a fair trial - in that case, the matter is un likely to ever see a court room, so there's not much scope for it being unfair.

 

[TeeJay]

That was a grammar lesson.

Oh, I thought you were trying to be witty.

 

[friedaweed]

Wtf does this mean?

Are you the ass?

And by "trolling" do you mean "asking a question relevant to the debate at hand"?

Trolling = the lazy person's catch-all phrase to define anything they don't like.

:yawn:

Nope i just find your continuous misinterpretation of what I've said and subsequent questioning a tadge in my face.

You've not said anything i don't like i just don't get your unprovoked pushy attitude. It comes across as though you're spoiling for something you're unlikely to get her mate.

In my book currently you're appearing to be the ass

Like i said i think your wires are crossed here.

 

[TeeJay]

I think you're confused.

The point is that potential trials can be prejudiced because the media have released info that might have influenced prospective jurors.

If you want to make some political point about unfair trials . . you're in the wrong thread; the point here is about the jury pool being potentiall poisoned, and that preventing a fair trial - in that case, the matter is un likely to ever see a court room, so there's not much scope for it being unfair.

If you read the thread you will see I have not made any political point - be it about Tony Blair, foreign policy. This thread is to do with fair and unfair trials - this one specifically - so I fail to see why talking about this would be out of place on this thread. In fact my main point has been that trials can be prejudiced by prior media releases, so I fail to see what exactly you are disagreeing with (unless you are confused).

Re. "the matter is unlikely to ever see a court room" - as a matter of interest, how often is a trial completely called off due to a prior media story? As opposed to the judge instructing a jury to disregard various things and taking 'contempt' action against a paper, but continuing with a trial all the same?

Does anyone actually think that this release is a deliberate attempt to get the trial scrapped - that some of the "officials" (police? prosecutors? intelligence services? other government officials?) knew full well that this would prejudice any trial and went ahead deliberately? What would be their motivation for doing so?

 

[laptop]

Meanwhile, here is what the Guardian's lawyers reckon it's safe to say:

UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article

 

[friedaweed]

Meanwhile, here is what the Guardian's lawyers reckon it's safe to say:

UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article

Not much there then
If we said something on here would Ed send these guys around

 

[TeeJay]

Nope i just find your continuous misinterpretation of what I've said and subsequent questioning a tadge in my face.

You've not said anything i don't like i just don't get your unprovoked pushy attitude. It comes across as though you're spoiling for something you're unlikely to get her mate.

In my book currently you're appearing to be the ass

Like i said i think your wires are crossed here.

I just find digressions/derailments like this boring and pointless.

I'd prefer to simply discuss the thread topic ie "UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article". I do respond to posts people make and I do ask questions as part of a discussion. Sorry if you feel this is too hostile - I suppose different people have different tolerance levels for 'hostility' in debate and discussion and different styles/approaches. I won't pretend mine isn't fairly "full on", but I as far as I know I am not "trolling for ass" - whatever that actually means.

 

[friedaweed]

I won't pretend mine isn't fairly "full on"

Maybe trampling all over people to get your point across is why you've been left here talking to yourself then.
I can't be arse cutting and pasting your interaction with me on this thread to prove my point but maybe you'd have the courtesy to retrack and read the thread when you've stopped hyperventalating.
You might then see why you've come across as such a pushy knob

 

[TeeJay]

*What*Ever*

I am glad you can't be arsed cutting and pasting because I can't be arsed with you full stop

Meanwhile back on planet topic...

 

[fela fan]

Well, the question i'd like to ask posters is: did the NYT pull the article for legal reasons or political reasons?

The fact that great lengths were taken to stop internet users in britain from accessing the article lends credence to the political reason.

On the other hand, reading the article left me wondering just why, politically, the government would not want british people to read it.

Am i allowed to discuss any possibilities as to why they wouldn't want british people to read it?

 

[Lock&Light]

Am i allowed to discuss any possibilities as to why they wouldn't want british people to read it?

What is there to discuss? These matters are sub judice (sp).

 

[ska invita]

The not prejudicing court cases bit is fair enough I think.

On the other hand, this sort of filtering is a very bad precendent.

Perhaps it's time to seriously consider things like http://tor.eff.org/

As a sideline, did anyoen read this article about Google and how every search you carry out on it is recorded and kept with your IP address? Frightening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1859629,00.html

Definitely need to get anonymous I reckon....

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, the question i'd like to ask posters is: did the NYT pull the article for legal reasons or political reasons?

The fact that great lengths were taken to stop internet users in britain from accessing the article lends credence to the political reason.

On the other hand, reading the article left me wondering just why, politically, the government would not want british people to read it.

Am i allowed to discuss any possibilities as to why they wouldn't want british people to read it?

As has been said, the information is sub judice and technically can't be released into the public domain for fear of prejudicing the jurors, as has been repeated several times on this thread.

Fucking irresponsible of the NYT to publish in the first place TBH - their editor would have been well aware of UK law on pre-publishing stuff.

And besides fela, the actual article is basically saying that the guys did it (hence it could prejudice a jury) so I doubt that there are any 'political' reasons to suppress it.

Or are you looking for an opening to bring one of your Amazing Mirror Theories into play about how the UK govt DON'T want people reading an article saying that 'They did it', aside from legal reasons?

 

[TeeJay]

Well, the question i'd like to ask posters is: did the NYT pull the article for legal reasons or political reasons?

The fact that great lengths were taken to stop internet users in britain from accessing the article lends credence to the political reason.

On the other hand, reading the article left me wondering just why, politically, the government would not want british people to read it.

Am i allowed to discuss any possibilities as to why they wouldn't want british people to read it?

For legal reasons IMO.

They obviously wanted to publish the story in their US and other (non-European) editions, maybe because it was a good scoop. However, they didn't want to cause legal problems for themselves so they pulled some paper copies of their european editions and did a few hours of programming on their website - hardly "great lengths" re. their website to be honest - they already had their website set up to recognise where people were from so they could taylor their advertsiing to each viewer. It is also very easy to circumvent by typing the link into a proxy website.

 

[laptop]

Not much there then
If we said something on here would Ed send these guys around

If he had time to call them before the Attorney-General sent these guys:

round to his, then probably.

 

[TeeJay]

...Fucking irresponsible of the NYT to publish in the first place TBH - their editor would have been well aware of UK law on pre-publishing stuff...

Interesting issue tho' isn't it? How far should newspapers (or anyone for that matter) respect laws in foreign countries? For example a lot of stuff published in the UK would be illegal in many dictatorships around the world.

How far should the New York Times pay attention to UK law and reporting restrictions when deciding what to publish in the US? Maybe in this case they shouldn't have published the information (although IMO the real 'villians' are all the officials (eg police and prosecutors) who leaked all this information to the New York Times in the first place.) but it must be hard knowing where to draw the line with foreign laws.