Why should bloggers be concerned about posting information that appears on the New York Times website? Because unless you are restricting your readers like the NYT, information on the liquid terror plot has the potential to be illegal in Britain.
In an unprecedented move on Monday, the NYT blocked UK readers from accessing
an article on their website. The article is an in-depth look at the emerging evidence against the UK Liquid Terror plot suspects. While outlining some of the evidence connecting the suspects to a plot, it also is critical of the official's reaction. While the language they used such as "Highly Likely" and "Unprecedented Scale" were used repeatedly two weeks ago in describing the plot, those same remarks now are being called by senior officials as "unfortunate".
Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty states that this is the first time `Geotargeting' has been used for restricting access to content on their website. This technology is used in advertising by the NYT for targeting readers by their geographic location. However in this case the geotargeting program has been altered to restrict access by location. So, why should we be concerned?
Since it obviously restricts those living in Britain to finding out details of this story, it goes a step forward from just keeping it out of the local papers. While the Times admits that the program is not 100% foolproof it does make it much more difficult for those living in Great Britain to find out details of an investigation of a terror plot happening in their own country. The British officials obviously have no problems with scaring the hell out of their population with false talk of "unprecedented" and "highly likely" attacks but when it comes to giving their people an analysis of the investigation all steps are taken to bury it.
This is certainly a strange move by the NYT and goes a few steps further than ever before in restricting information on the internet. Assuming that all those living in Britain who are also interested in the details of the case would be potential jurors and need to be `shielded' uses a line of thinking that is becoming increasingly more common these days. This is the kind of thinking that we see here with our NSA surveillance program which spies on 280 million Americans because we are all potential terror suspects. It's all in the name of the greater good. It's for our protection. Or in the case of the NYT's information blackout, it's for the protection of the suspects. Wait a minute... couldn't it be that it's not to protect the suspects but actually, and I know this sounds really out there, but to protect the officials involved who in their own words "hyperventilated"?
A recent Guardian/ICM poll shows that only 20% of Britons believe their government is telling the truth about the terror threat. It would appear that they don't want anymore criticism even though it's hard to imagine those numbers dropping much lower.
So like it or not we now have a precedent for targeted blackouts of information on the internet from a major source of news. I personally find it troublesome as more and more doors are being allowed to open in order to restrict information. I also see this as another sign of our free press giving in to fear of prosecution from the government. And with the strong relationship we've built with the UK in fighting terrorism, the lines of distinction between our policies and theirs are quickly blurring.
It also brings up another issue concerning those who blog news stories. If the NYT felt pressured by lawyers into taking all the necessary steps in blacking out the news story from it's website as well as Monday's UK print editions, are bloggers who report details on this information libel?
Well, no blockquotes here.