You can't read it on nytimes.com

Today’s New York Times had a fascinating article about the alleged terrorist plot in London to mix liquid explosives blow up a number of airplanes.

But I can’t link to it. The Times explains: “Publication of this article on nytimes.com has been delayed temporarily on the advice of legal counsel. It is also being omitted from the British circulation of The International Herald Tribune. This arises from British laws that prohibit publication of information that could be deemed prejudicial to defendents charged with a crime.”

I’ve never seen anything like that before. I can understand the legal position: the Times article is filled with the kind of detail that British papers would never publish before a case came to trial. But in the Internet age, such restrictions seem a bit like Canute trying to hold back the tide.

3 thoughts on “You can't read it on nytimes.com

  1. Felix

    Can you not link to it because you’re in England? I can see it no problem, being in New York. But I guess if you try to follow my link from England, you’ll get some kind of error message. Did you read the article after someone emailed it to you?

    Reply
  2. Felix

    Interestingly, the NYT article also has the first explicit mention in the NYT of Lucozade. Up until now it’s just been “a British sports drink” or similar: I got the impression there were some legal reasons why it wasn’t being named. Wonder what changed.

    Reply
  3. Lance Knobel

    I couldn’t link to it at the time because it hadn’t yet been posted on the site (as the explanation I quoted noted). There’s an interesting follow-up piece today on the withholding.

    I read it in the paper, which I get every morning on my doorstep here in Berkeley. Still helping the dead tree industry.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *