Times Blocks Article to U.K. Web Readers

Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:00 PM EDT
advertisement
This article is over 14 days old and has been removed by requirement of the Associated Press.
  • 10 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
2.1
1.1
0.7
{"commentId":269842,"authorDomain":"djd"}
djd

And this is what I see here in the UK:

This Article Is Unavailable

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.

{"commentId":269842,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"djd"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:36 PM EDT
{"commentId":269857,"authorDomain":"hassinger"}
Swift2

It's funny, because here in the US we can get stories in the Guardian, and at the BBC News site, that the Bush administration put pressure on the Brits to break the story when they did, instead of waiting for any of the suspects to do things like get a passport or buy an airline ticket. As a result, the prosecution will undoubtably be more difficult. Why would the Bush admin want knews like that to come out when it did? Well, do you have to ask?

{"commentId":269857,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"hassinger"}
    Reply#2 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:44 PM EDT
    {"commentId":269888,"authorDomain":"djd"}
    djd

    is this the first paragraph?

    LONDON, Aug. 27 - On Aug. 9, in a small second-floor apartment in East London, two young Muslim Inen recorded a video justifying what the police say was their suicide plot to blow up trans-Atlantic planes: revenge against the United States and its "accomplices," Britain and the Jews.

    {"commentId":269888,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"djd"}
      Reply#3 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:08 PM EDT
      {"commentId":269912,"authorDomain":"igeldard"}
      Ian Geldard

      The title should identify which 'Times' as there is a London 'Times' as well!

      {"commentId":269912,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"igeldard"}
        Reply#4 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:28 PM EDT
        {"commentId":269942,"authorDomain":"thelisteningpost"}
        Parallax

        I've read the article in question (I live in England) and can't see much wrong with it. Though I suppose it's down to the nitty gritty of the language.

        {"commentId":269942,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"thelisteningpost"}
          Reply#5 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:48 PM EDT
          {"commentId":269981,"authorDomain":"oped"}
          Ugly Bastard

          If a country wants something censored, that country should censor it.

          I don't like the idea of US companies complying with foreign censors.

          {"commentId":269981,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"oped"}
          • 2 votes
          Reply#6 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:13 PM EDT
          {"commentId":270002,"authorDomain":"lll"}
          lll

          Just Google for a list of proxies in different countries...

          {"commentId":270002,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"lll"}
          • 1 vote
          Reply#7 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:40 PM EDT
          {"commentId":270034,"authorDomain":"djgh"}
          David Hay

          It's not really censorship - more timing. It's just so that the jury aren't prejudiced by the information in the article before the trial.

          {"commentId":270034,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"djgh"}
            Reply#8 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:21 PM EDT
            {"commentId":270050,"authorDomain":"djd"}
            djd

            I actually found the article in full on another site within a couple of minutes. I checked that it was the right one using a proxy as nobody had confirmed that the paragraph I'd quoted above was the right one. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that would influence a jury, and if there were, does anybody really think that it'll not be public in the UK by the time this comes to trial?

            {"commentId":270050,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"djd"}
              Reply#9 - Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:43 PM EDT
              {"commentId":271097,"authorDomain":"thelisteningpost"}
              Parallax

              I agree with djd. There really isn't much in the article that would sway anyone either way.

              {"commentId":271097,"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052","authorDomain":"thelisteningpost"}
                Reply#10 - Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:50 PM EDT
                {"canLink":false,"threadId":"39512","isPrivate":false}
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                {"threadId":"39512","contentId":"344052"}
                Start TrackingStart Tracking
                Stop TrackingStop Tracking
                Back To Top | Front Page