The Computer Corner
By Charles Miller, Nov 3, 2006

Barred by the barristers

I have written before that I do not want to devote this column to rehashing the news, but here I go again. I read an article recently on a newspaper website, and then when I went back later in the day to find it, the news article was nowhere to be found. The fact that this article disappeared so quickly means that a lot of Atención readers probably missed it.

The news article in question concerned the fact that the New York Times recently decided to block British online readers from seeing a story about some London terrorism suspects. This action raises, or should raise, a lot of questions on the subject of censorship and the free flow of information on the internet.

The New York Times said it had blocked British internet readers from being able to read a story giving details of the investigation into a suspected plot to blow up airliners in flight between Britain and the United States. Under British law, it is illegal for news organizations to publish material that a judge rules may influence jurors and prevent suspects from receiving a fair trial.

I understand this is a longtime law governing the British media, but now British common law comes face-to- face with the internet age. What British readers of the New York Times got when they clicked on the news article in question was the following message: “On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.”

The first fact Atención readers should glean from this is how very easy it was for the New York Times to block every computer connected to the internet in England from being able to access this article on the website. Technically, this is no problem at all. If the Times wants to write an editorial likely to inflame political passions in Mexico, and then block every single computer in Mexico from being able to read that editorial, there is nothing to stop them from doing that, technically. Ethically, the question opens a Pandora’s box.

Clearly, the New York Times was aware that British courts may impose heavy fines and even jail terms on editors who prejudice British juries. Some might see it as commendable that the New York paper sought to cooperate with the British judicial system. The opposite point of view might hold that self-censorship of a news organization outside the jurisdiction of British law is a bad precedent.

No matter which side of this argument you embrace, the question hasfar-reaching implications for the traditional news media in the internet age.

Even my old hometown newspaper, the Marshall News Messenger, now has an internet presence. Does their internet website now mean that every writer for the local paper in Marshall, Texas, needs to be aware of British law? What about Australian law? Let us not forget Ethiopian law.

Blocking access to news articles is unlikely to have the intended effect. Censoring the news might actually create an enhanced interest as the blocking becomes a story in and of itself. Experienced internet users have discovered many creative ways to circumvent state-sponsored censorship in totalitarian states such as China.

The larger question is the extent to which the media, all of which is now global thanks to the internet, should subject itself to the legal restrictions of individual jurisdictions.


Charles Miller is a freelance computer consultant, a frequent visitor to San Miguel since 1981 and now practically a full-time resident. He may be contacted at 044-415-153-8528 or via email at FAQ@SMAguru.com