Questions of legal jurisdiction over online content are nothing new at all. Over the years, we've pointed to plenty of legal cases that raised issues about online publications, and whether the content was liable under local laws in countries outside of where the publisher (or its servers) were based. Unfortunately, there still isn't a general agreement on what laws apply, and that makes things risky. Apparently, the NY Times didn't want to risk any such lawsuit in the UK, so when it published an article yesterday about the British terror case, it used some of its geographic ad targeting technology to also block out visitors from the UK from reading the content. This is to stay on the right side of British laws that "prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial." Of course, the Times then went on to publish an article proudly stating how they blocked the content from UK readers, which makes you wonder how effective the ban really is. By calling attention to it, it seems pretty likely that plenty of folks in the UK will be able to read the same (or similar) content from plenty of other sources. This isn't to call out the Times for the practice, but to question whether such laws are actually still possible in a world with a global internet.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- UK Retailer Goes Legal After Shipping PS Vitas To Customers Who Just Bought A Game
- Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its New York Copper Lines
- Meet The Dedicated Fan Who Makes Your Broken PC Games Work
- FBI Bungles Malware Attempt As Courts Begin To Question Its Legality
- Crowdfunded Prize For Open Source Jailbreaking iOS7 To Improve Accessibility