'Now we can censor ourselves!' crows New York Times
Note: not an actual quote from anyoneA couple of days ago, the New York Times posted an article describing the method by which they prevented British citizens from reading an article about the alleged terrorist plot that was recently foiled.
The short version is that they modified software used to localize advertising to localize their content, preventing the story from appearing to anyone with a British IP address. Their reasoning was that British law prevents the media from revealing details about cases prior to trial.
Now, the purpose of this law is clear, and rather admirable: they don't want people tried by the public before they can be properly tried with all the evidence. Just think of how many publications had been shouting recently that they'd found Jon Benet Ramsey's killer, only to discover that — oops! — the DNA didn't match.
But something like this just gives me an uncomfortable feeling in my gut. I react with guarded displeasure to censorship of any kind, although I can admit that there are circumstances where it can be justified.
Keith Olberman bitch-slapping Donald Rumsfeld, although not about censorship, is a very eloquent reminder of why governments shouldn't be allowed to restrict speech. Tony Long, the copy chief for Wired News, makes several additional points on the same topic.
Editor Jill Abramson's assertion that "this was preferable to not having it on the Web at all" smacks of Google's justification for censoring search results in China, a position which Google co-creator Sergey Brin later suggested may not have been wise (no link handy for that, sorry).
Preventing the Brits from seeing a story about terror plots is certainly a far cry from kangaroo courts and people disappearing in the middle of the night. But you can see it on a map from here — especially in our current political climate — and that scares me.
They do get one point, though.
At least the Times posted the article explaining what they'd done (again, much like Google openly admitting they were censoring results, especially to those receiving the results). I can certainly give them some credit for that.
posted by Smitty @ 5:43 PM
3 Comments:
One difference here being that there isn't a free press in Britian. Never has been.
Worse, there's a lot more censorship that goes on here then anyone realizes, usually in the form of "We'll give your paper $XXX to keep mum on this particular item..." I read some articles a few years ago that said that the shrub admin's payouts to the media were more than double what Clinton's were. Yuck. (Wish I could remember where I read that- it was during the campain)
There's another troubling bit to this story- that our press compromised it's freedom for another country's laws. Britian's aren't so bad, but what about China's? Or some of the Middle Eastern countries ruled by fundimentalist religious groups? Will they start censoring reports on those countries to fit into those countries laws?
-Sharon
Governments shouldn't restrict free speach??? Really??? What an interesting, innovative, and sentimental idea! Thank god we have you to point out these social problems to us...
YOU'RE RETARDED
Yes, and thank god we have you to, uh... do what, exactly?
I mean, I can certainly see the criticism that I'm not contributing anything new to the discussion here -- which is a first for a blog, I know -- but I'm missing how your own contribution is superior.
Perhaps I missed the day when we discussed the merits of the "you're retarded" argument in philosophy class. Could you kindly explain?
Post a Comment
<< Home