Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited
from the will-of-the-people dept
A poll conducted in the UK has found that only 9% of those surveyed agreed that student Richard O'Dwyer should be extradited to face criminal charges in the US for creating TVShack, a site that let people link to videos hosted elsewhere. So far, the government has been ignoring public cries not to allow the extradition, but this poll really seems to suggest that the public is not too keen on shipping O'Dwyer overseas.Only 9% of the British public believe he should face trial in the US for his actions, according to the YouGov research. The largest group, 46%, said O'Dwyer should not be prosecuted at all, while 26% felt he should be tried in the UK.At some point, something has to give. The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: extradition, hollywood, richard o'dwyer, uk
Companies: tvshack
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wasn't asked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wasn't asked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just love watching these groups trying to go after people like O'Dwyer. It is sad to see his life being destroyed, but it is bringing to light just how screwed up this system is. The more people who see this happening the sooner the system falls.
You can't expect to do something that 90% of the population thinks is wrong and it not have consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I hate it when governments turn pinkish-red...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
i can see that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW - I think that O'Dwyer just showed the TV industry a missed opportunity. Looks like there is a demand for TV shows this way.
I know, you think you are a law abiding person. Too bad you are supporting the US government making up laws to extradite this guy. That doesn't seem so law abiding now does it?
Moral righteousness when it's convenient is not moral at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, why have Bush and Cheney nopt been sent to Iraq for trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy crap! As a woman in America enjoying what's considered legal, (going places without a male relative escort, revealing my face, hair, legs, speaking in public, driving a car...) I'm going to be stoned to death in some Middle Eastern country for breaking Sharia law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep. Try this: Go to Canada and use a computer to hack into the Federal Reserve in the United States. Sit tight and see if anyone comes. OMG, they do come! You mean, there's repercussions for my actions on the internet? Astounding!
I'm going to be stoned to death in some Middle Eastern country for breaking Sharia law!
The U.S. won't extradite for that. But if you travel there, you may well be arrested and tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your's truly is cause you still haven't said, why US laws should mean anything in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a big difference between doing something clearly and massively illegal in most jurisdictions, and something that is legal in some but not others, is only a civil matter even then, and does no real 'harm'. So your freedom of speech lets you slag off the islamic prophet, and post pictures of swastikas - do you really want Iran and Germany extraditing you for breaking *their* laws?
Quite aside from the obvious comment: what is there worth hacking in the Federal Reserve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What UK laws? And all for links? No property, real or imaginary was used.
Sorry, I cannot go with you on this trip and stay on the high road. I know you think you are cheering for victims but, when laws have to be misapplied and no property was even used by the UK citizen, I think you are supporting a wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does the statement "You can download movies and tv at no cost from the pirate bay .se" also set off alarms in your imaginary world? Because that's functionally equivalent to a hyperlink, just less convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you read the treaty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct - and you put your finger on the error that Theresa May and the UK courts have made here.
There are laws in the UK and the US that have similar names - but they do not say the same things. If they did then O'Dwyer could be prosecuted in the UK - since his actions took place here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know the really frightening thing about all of this?
It's likely that O'Dwyer didn't break any of these laws, either.
Providing a link to infringing content is not, itself, an infringement of copyright. This has been held to be true in numerous cases.
So, O'Dwyer is not a direct infringer. He would thus have to be "aiding and abetting" the direct infringement - which is a much higher standard than contributory or vicarious infringement in civil cases. There is no evidence whatsoever that O'Dwyer actually had any contact whatsoever with the people that uploaded the infringing content, so an "aiding and abetting" charge would likely fail.
Furthermore, the direct infringement that O'Dwyer would have to be "aiding and abetting" would, itself, have to be criminal infringement. That is, the direct infringement must have been willful, and it must have been for profit (or other "private commercial gain"). There is no evidence of this, either.
So, not only is O'Dwyer being extradited for something that's legal in the U.K., he's being extradited for something that isn't criminal in the U.S., either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me guess. You cheered for Socrates to drink the hemlock and for Barabbus to be set free also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you are the one that started the stupid childish ad-homs to mask your total lack of anything approaching an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You spelled persecution wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, a young man that is running a website that was found legal in his country, and has never been to our country is being shipped over here to face charges when he's not even a US citizen.
Nope, we ARE sympathizing with the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may have missed that other sites similar to TVShack were found to be innocent in recent years. Richard O'Dwyer cannot be lawfully extradited to the USA if he has committed no crime here.
How is wanting a UK trial to prove if he has broke the law or not "cheering on a criminal"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I sympathize with all the innocent bystanders who have had their files taken from them without due process or recourse.
You cheer on the criminal.
Umm, what criminal? All I see is someone who has been accused of a crime. I'll reserve my judgement for after a fair trial. Apparently you've appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner and have already convicted him. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point you are missing is that O'Dwyer's site didn't violate any ones legal rights at all.
A UK citizen, a UK site, targeted at UK citizens and doing something found to be legal under UK law. You kind of need a crime in order to have a victim of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you can violate the laws of Iran while physically in the US, so what? That doesn't mean you should be sent to Iran to face their court system, does it?
I get the feeling I am arguing with Average_Joe here. If you can't grasp the overall wrongness of this case because you are hung up on the letter of the law, then I am done arguing with you because it's pointless.
Given that 90% of the UK citizens and probably the same ratio of people worldwide are against this extradition, I certainly hope the US government is garnering enough favors from Hollywood to offset the beating our country's image is taking from this. Makes us look like petty thugs really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone who points out the injustice and absurdity of judging citizens of one country by the laws of another doesn't actually care about justice, just illegal downloads. Right?
For yet another time, oh wise and mystical AC, tell us why we shouldn't extradite you to every country the laws of which you have broken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And of course that's still bullshit and you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No that is incorrect and shows that your thinking is sloppy.
You can be extradited to the US for remotely causing events in the US that break US law, provided that those events would also be illegal in the country where you are. An example would be remotely hacking into a bank computer in the US and stealing some money.
However if all your actions and all the direct effects of those actions are outside the US then you cannot be extradited. So if you hacked into the UK computer of a US bank then UK law would apply so you cannot be extradited - although you should expect a UK prosecution.
The O'Dwyer extradition fails on this because:
1) His actions are not illegal in the UK.
2) There are no direct effects in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you repeatedly state that you can violate US law even if you're located elsewhere, and yet not once have you responded to the obvious parallel of all the laws of countries like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, etc that you break all the time. Don't you think you should be punished for breaking those laws? Can you explain why this is different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see you cheer on the Iranians when punishing the next diplomat visiting from the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. As you say, it would be very hard to extradite you to another country for breaking their laws if your actions did not break the laws in your country. Just like it should be very hard to extradite Dwyer to the US for breaking US laws if his actions did not break the laws in the UK. But it's turned out to be very easy, and that's disgusting. No gotcha, just plain common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ARTICLE 2
Extraditable Offenses
1. An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.
Be my reading, if an offense does not meet the criteria above, then extradition is not available. Hence, it is not at all clear why people are saying that what this person has done has been held "legal" in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that no prosecution has been attempted in the UK. Hence it seems that (at best) the prosecutors are forum shopping in order to get a longer sentence ot to increase the probability of conviction.
Surely it is a misreading of the intent - if not of the letter - of extradition law to allow this.
Clearly the purpose of extradition law is to enable prosecution of offenders who have committed an offence in one country but have fled to another, not to allow prosecutors to pick and choose a legal code under which to bring charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is the public's every right to freely copy as they please and we are only nice enough to forgo this right as a means of serving the public interest. That you are making these laws about something else, about ensuring the 'rights' of privilege holders, other than the public interest, is more reason to abolish them. That these laws are designed to protect the 'victim rightsholders' is more reason to abolish them. Abolish these laws.
and your view of due process is completely backwards. Due process does not guarantee that plaintiffs are compensated for those who wrong them. Due process does not guarantee that if my house gets robbed the criminal will pay me back (or that the criminal will even be caught). Due process does not guarantee that if someone breaks the law they will be punished. No, due process is supposed to guarantee that (criminal and civil) plaintiffs do not wrongfully punish innocent people. Your view of the world is so entirely backwards its incredible. Even a good parody can't compete with how ridiculous you sound.
"Just because you disagree with the soundness of the law, you have no right intentionally violate it while violating the property rights of others in the process."
A: Who says I intentionally violate it?
B: Who the heck are you to tell me what I do and don't have a right to do? Nobody. Your right to impose your arbitrary moral standards on me and to tell me what I can and can't do and what I do and don't have a right to do is no greater than my right to do the same to you. Follow your own moral standards by yourself, don't impose them on me.
Our government should represent the public and, dang it, I want a government that does in fact represent the public and not just corporate interests. and, as a member of those whom government is supposed to represent, I want IP laws abolished. I will continue to communicate this and if enough others agree then these laws should go. You have no right to tell us otherwise. Abolish IP!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not rights, just government-granted monopolies that should only exist if there's a net benefit to the public. Don't get confused by the misleading use of the word 'right' in copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I sympathize with the victims.
Victims of what exactly? O'Dwyer provided links to material hosted elsewhere (something found to be legal in the UK multiple times).
If you are really worried about victims of infringement, why go after a third party link site and not go after the actual people reasonable for hosting the infringing material? We don't punish gun sellers for crimes committed with guns they sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet, the US got their sacrifice handed to them by the UK government. As depressing the US government is, I am really glad that I am not under the whims of the UK right now. I'll cheer when the UK government belongs to the people again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet, the US got their sacrifice handed to them by the UK government. As depressing the US government is, I am really glad that I am not under the whims of the UK right now. I'll cheer when the UK government belongs to the people again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is how it works I am pretty surprised nobody from USA has been extradited and prosecuted for "deeplinking" in Denmark...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. What he knew was that he was doing something in his own country that his own country found to be legal multiple times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their silence is very telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who are these victims you speak of that think a student who made a site for users to provide links should be extradite as a criminal?
Who are these victims you mention that think it is his fault when he is not liable for any content linked to?
Who are these victims you cry about that have their rights violated when someone post a link of infringing content?
Who are these victims you sympathize that could not withstand the pain and suffering deeply from a html link?
Who are these victims you defend that believe a UK citizen should have been aware of foreign laws when UK laws says what he did was legal in his country?
Who are these victims you support that think he deserves to be away from his family oversea and possibly serve in prison on foreign soil?
I'm most certain that at least 90% of the people doesn't fit the description of your so-call victim.
He chose to do this while profiting from it. Classic criminal.
One more time.
Who are these victims that are stupid enough to think O'Dwyer is making a 'large' revenue out of banner ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Especially not from ACs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Personally with your attitude, you are living in the wrong time and era. You'd be more comfortable and fit in better in a totalitarian authoritarian regime where the state decides on whim who is guilty. The Communist era Soviet Union for instance.
Why do you hate due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also they are only doing extradition now due to their glorious failures in convicting other site owners like with OiNK and FileSoup. It is not like they are going to go home and say "Well we failed that one, it is the law, so lets accept defeat". Nope all about how they can abuse and twist the system in a new way to strike out at their enemies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. He willfully knew that he was violating U.S. law. His mistake was in thinking that U.S. law didn't matter. Woops. O'Dwyer, Dotcom, etc. Sorry, guys, but when you so openly and so disgustingly violate other people's rights, sometimes, sometimes, the system gets it right and the law reaches out to the other side of the earth to get your ass. Selective prosecution? Surely. The right thing to do to show you punks that your choices have consequences? Yep. Worth every penny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am very certain that the laws of the United States does not apply here any more than the laws of China, Iran, North Korea or any Middle East country.
Your mistake is that we have an extradition treaty to trade wanted people for our mutual benefit. Overlooking the unbalanced nature of this treaty, and the Government's failure to add a section to pick the trial location, then the United States is well know to vastly abuse the powers it has been given.
Richard O'Dwyer is no wanted murder, rapist, armed robber etc, which this treaty is ideal for, but simply a young college student who allowed other people to post HTTP links on this website.
We should also not forget that so many of those media files were put on the Internet by their own owners for official linking to a rival service. The fact that this media was unprotected allowed such links to be copied to TVShack. The rival site and media owners did not like this and instead of restricting access to their own media then all I can say is here they are attacking their rival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, bullshit. The UK courts had already determined that the kind of site that TVShack was is legal in the UK.
Not sure why you think US laws are applicable worldwide nor why citizens of other sovereign nations should abide by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will not argue the merits of his posting links (Which is legal in the UK.) and hope some not paid and bought UK politician will finally address this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do stuff I know is wrong often. It was wrong of me to leave the dishes until the morning the other day. I'm lucky I did not attract ants inside. It was wrong of me to take that extra slice of cake last week.
No one should be extradited to somewhere else to be tried for acts that took place in the jurisdiction they are being extradited from. If they cannot be convicted in the jurisdiction they are both currently located in and committed the acts in, then that should be the end of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What victims? Those that still haven't been able to provide credible evidence for their alleged losses? Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore the Citizens!
Unfortunately, the UK Home Office can and probably will ignore its citizens, pretend this is a minor issue, try and brush it under the rug, and extradite him anyway.
Once it's said and done the story will die (at least, the UK extradition portion of the story).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignore the Citizens!
Haven't you heard the latest CCDP/Comms Data proposals? The Home Office wants to pay very close attention to all its citizens, and everyone else in the country, and find out precisely what they're saying and who they're talking to.
Unfortunately, they're doing this to make it easier to go after people they don't like, rather than to find out what they should be doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but that is exactly what they will do. the UK will do anything, particular this coalition government that is in power atm, just to keep in the US 'good books'. look at the DEA that Vaizey has just forced into law, simply to please the US entertainment industries, fucking tosser!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the best chance we have is to sue Theresa May in Court should she unlawfully ship him off and we prove later that he has broke no law here. She would not be so willing to risk her job and butt unless she is totally certain Richard has broke English law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A civil case, not a criminal case.
This dangerous blurring of the law needs to be exposed and held accountable. No theft has taken place, he simply made links, rightly or wrongly, its a civil case not a criminal one and therefore the notion of extradition is irrelevant. By the same logic the owners and shareholders of google should be prosecuted too or are they too big to be held accountable? Sue him in Britain and let him face any consequences there.
US laws are for US citizens or people residing in the US at the time of any alleged crime. End of story... its not an international terrorism case, its an alleged civil copyright abuse case. I wish our governments would stand up for their own people with the same determination that they are happy to use for mega corps and hollywood. this is sick beyond belief and abuses the notion of justice and the legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACTA dead
Kim Dotcom wins
Richard O'Dwyer wins
2012 was a good year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why extradition is wrong.
However, as a society, we accept imprisonment for a very specific set of reasons, in a very specific set of circumstances.
Very importantly, we accept imprisonment in a democratic spirit, as part of a social contract: "If I break the law, I risk imprisonment, and as a democratic citizen I accept this."
This is only acceptable because we have the ability to change those rules and circumstances in a democratic fashion. If our government begin to imprison people in unreasonable circumstances, we petition our government to change the laws, and we can change our government.
Extradition breaks this arrangement, because we have *no democratic input* into the laws of other sovereign states. If a UK citizen doesn't like the laws in the USA, they are entitled to their opinions, but they cannot be part of the democratic mechanism which might change those laws.
It is especially problematic where in the subject's own democratic system they have arguably broken no laws. We have, arguably, worked hard in the UK to maintain a reasonable stance on intellectual property, and done so within a democratic framework. United States citizens have taken their own path, and to submit to that is not democratic.
None of which is about whether what the accused did, or did not do, how bad it was, how much damage they did, or even what they were accused of.
It is about how we respect our democracy, and how we apply it.
By all means, throw democracy out as well if it serves your arguments. But don't attempt to be taken seriously following that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why extradition is wrong.
Actually extradition is fine if confined to its proper purpose - which is to allow fugitives from justice to be returned to the scene of their crimes for trial. A further condition must be that the crimes of which they are accused must actually be crimes in the place that they are extradited from. This last point addresses your concerns about democratic accountability. However in the present case NONE of these conditions is met.
My interpretation of Theresa May's attitude is that she is a coward who does not dare to do anything other than to rubberstamp the actions of officals and judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is first-rate b*llsh*t
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O'Dwyer did nothing wrong under the Laws of his Nation and never hosted anything on his site.
It is wrong of our US Gov to pick on this young man.
If allowed to happen without speaking up against it will be a crime.Next thing up they will come for any of you and they will attack google and any other search engine that hosts no files.
US Gov your day is coming soon so beware !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]