| NY Times Blocks Website Access in Britain |
|
|
|
| by Tom McGregor | Sun, Nov 8, 2009, 12:55 PM |
 People who are using the internet in Great Britain will no longer have access to the New York Times, since the publisher of this newspaper fears an onslaught of libel suits for its liberal bias. Ironically, if British readers want to read the New York Times, they would have better luck logging on to the New York Times whenever they visit China, which seems to be a glaring contradiction: Internet access to the NY Times is available in Communist-controlled China, but not in democratically-controlled Great Britain.
The NY Times also intends to stop selling copies of its newspaper in Britain since it has become a money-losing venture and it faces the threat of draconian libel laws. The Times of London reports that, "an article that would be regarded as free speech in America under its constitution's first amendment becomes actionable in the High Court in London once it is deemed to have been published here, however small is the readership. Such is the United Kingdom's reputation as a world center for 'libel tourism' that newspapers are pondering whether it is stil worth sending a few copies for British subscribers or for sale in hotels. According to the Times of London, "the warning comes in a memorandum submitted to a Commons select committee on behalf of U.S. newspapers including The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. It says: 'Leading US newspapers are actively considering abandoning the supply of the 200-odd copies they make available for sale in London - mainly to Americans who want full details of their local news and sports." The litigation attorney for the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, David McGraw, is quoted as saying that, "what the memorandum was trying to say is that the American media generally may be tempted to get out if libel suits proliferate." Meanwhile on a letter dated November 4, 2009, the New York Times legal department threatened legal action against the Dallas Blog for paraphrasing and linking NY Times articles. The NY Times claims that this is a clear violation of Section 43(a) of the U.S. Lantham Law, which strictly prohibits blogs from paraphrasing articles from other news websites, since it can be perceived as changing the meaning of the original article. The letter stated, "we hereby demand that you immediately remove the aticle from your site and cease and desist from any further use of any New York Times content in any manner whatsoever." Apparently, it's alright for the NY Times to sue another media organization for libel, but when it faces a lawsuit over libel then the issue becomes a topic of free speech and a so-called grave violation of human rights. To read the entire article from the Times of London, link here: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (1)
...
written by Jason K , November 10, 2009 Interesting.. from boston.com regarding libel suits by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz brought in English courts... "Bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened suit in England 33 times against those who linked him to terrorism. He runs a website boasting of his victories. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all have settled with him." But this is only a New York Times issue.. right Tom. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
