Selective courage

Behold, the New York Times: staunch defender of free speech and the First Amendment. Willing to go to jail to protect sources. Publisher of sensitive national information in the name of democracy. Unless it might get them in trouble in Merry Old England, that is:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York Times decision to block British online readers from seeing a story about London terrorism suspects raises new questions on restricting the flow of information in the Internet age, legal and media experts say.
The New York Times said on Tuesday it had blocked British Internet readers from seeing a story detailing elements of the investigation into a suspected plot to blow up airliners between Britain and the United States.
The story was published in Monday's paper. Under British laws, courts will punish media organizations that publish material that judges feel may influence jurors and prevent suspects receiving a fair trial. ...
The New York Times article cited unnamed investigators providing information not given publicly by British police.

So, let me get this straight: it's OK to leak classified information and violate U.S. laws on the premise the U.S. government might be threatening American liberties. But it's not OK to do the same to inform British subjects of what appears to be a growing threat from home grown fifth columnists. The Gray Lady is acting as if Gen. Lord Cornwallis came out on top in that little dustup in 1781. In doing so, they're helping ensure Islamists come out on top in the current one.