The issues of libel, defamation and the prejudicing of trials
have always been problematic in online publishing since information
on the internet can generally be read all over the world. While a
US newspaper might be perfectly within its rights publishing an
article on suspects in a UK trial, it must ensure that that article
is not published in the UK if it is to avoid prejudicing that
trial, an application of what is known as the sub judice
rule.
The New York Times has said that it has found a way to ensure
that it did not publish the article in electronic form in the UK in
order to stay legal in Britain.
Users in the UK who click on a link to the story headlined
'Details emerge in British terror case' receive the following
message: "This Article Is Unavailable. On advice of legal counsel,
this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain.
This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits
publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior
to trial."
The newspaper said that it had already planned to make sure that
print versions and newswires available in Britain did not contain
the article, and that it wanted to try to extend the same
restrictions to the website.
Richard Meislin, who is the managing editor of internet
publishing at the group, told The New York Times that its web
advertising technology could already identify the location of the
internet address of its users, which was helpful in targeting users
with specific advertising. He told the paper that it was used to
ensure that no UK residents could see the offending article.
"The approach of The New York Times is very clever," said George
Lubega, a litigation expert at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind
OUT-LAW.COM. "They are saying they are doing all they can not to be
in contempt of court while still exercising their right to publish
in other countries."
Lubega said that any contempt of court charges would be criminal
and that reporters could end up in jail. Simple attempts to avoid
the law, he said, would be unlikely to be successful. "If you
publish in America and the information finds its way back to
Britain in any way that is predictable, i.e. the original US
publishing was a sham, then you are in contempt of court," he
said.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
