The Guardian this morning reports that the New York Times cancelled an entire shipment of yesterday’s edition for the UK for fear of breaching contempt laws in relation to details they published about the airline terror plot - they have also blocked web-access to the story for UK citizens.
I’m sure that is all eminently sensible from a legal point of view, however it can’t help but spark my curiosity. The temptation of the illicit, combined with a desire for freedom of speech and all that.
The link to the story is here - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/world/europe/28plot.html - though if you are UK based you won’t be able to read it.
If you choose to put that link into an anonymous web-surfing proxy, such as BrowseAtWork.com, that is of course entirely up to you.
The story is 4 pages long by the way…
redtamarin[at]gmail.com
Loading ...
Hmmmm. So if the NY Times publishes the article in the UK it could prejudice the trial and result in a group of alleged terrorists walking free. So what makes you think that the above post wouldn’t have the same effect?
I’d take it down if I were you.
Delbert Wilkins said this on August 30th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
because the above post says nothing about the case….duh!
bornin84 said this on August 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
If I reposted the complete text, there would be legal implications. Telling people the information exists is not a problem (the Guardian told us all) and telling people where the information was (ie. the blocked website) is also not a problem.
Not particularly subtle hints about how to get around the blockage? Well, I could have suggested that you fly to America and pick up a copy of the original paper, or hop on a train to France and read it online from there - they would have both subverted the blockage. I just suggested a less time-consuming method
Red Tamarin said this on August 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Fair enough.
Delbert Wilkins said this on August 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Full mirror:
http://booc.coob.org/nytterror.html
Moof said this on August 30th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
…why should I want to read it, other than someone has seen fit that I shouldn’t? Tempting though this is, does it provide further insight into the alledged acts of terrorism beyond the UK press reporting.
The impression I have from the UK press and Dr. Reid is the alledged terrorists are ‘banged to rights’, ‘it’s a fair cop, Gov’, and so maybe I am already predudiced - is this not the case then?
Simon Templar said this on August 30th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Just read it and find out?
Moof said this on August 31st, 2006 at 1:51 am
So essentially, the “terrorists” were planning to commit acts under the motivation of British action in Iraq, and they hadn’t really gotten to the point of being able to actually do anything.
Why would the pro-war Labour leadership be anxious to prevent that from getting out???
Eskimo Nell said this on August 31st, 2006 at 2:51 pm