6 ms·

This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to

by harry8 6y ago

This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to this trial really support his point of view. The comment should not be dead, to be clear about it. I disagree in that I still hope it's merely arrogance and exceptionalism by the UK courts thinking, unlike courts in poorer parts of the world, they are utterly above reproach in all things and so there is no need for Amnesty International at the trial of a publisher who has reported and published evidence of war crimes. For all that arrogance I hope the court will make the correct decisions according to statute and precedence. The job that has been done on Assange has been astonishingly effective. People don't /like/ him enough to notice his rights being removed are precisely their own rights and are removed for all. I put him with Tony Blair, George Bush jnr, Hilary, Donald, Boris as someone I would cross the road to avoid having to talk to - as is my right. It's also my right to note that it matters not at all in defending the rights of all of these people to fair due process because even the worst asshole imaginable's rights are yours and mine. Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Blair and Bush jnr in particular deserve fair trials so they can rigorously defend the extremely prevalent belief that they did kill people, knowingly, making decisions supported with jusification made in bad faith to enable the actions leading to the carnage. I would completely support their rights and Amnesty being present at their trials. The rule of law and equality before it is the most important thing to ensure civilisation continues.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Looking at that user's history, I can't find a single living comment. In just the first few pages are these standout examples of why: "Endless babel from that region of the US we care the least about: NY" "The feminazi apparati found you." This article may be totally reasonable, but your example of an unfairly silenced user doesn't appear to be.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 6y ago
It reads more like exceptionalism on AI's part. AI: "We demand access to monitor the trial." UK: "You are free to monitor the trial as a member of the public." AI: "No, we demand physical access and the right to a reserved seat to monitor the trial." UK: "From the Crown's point of view, you are a public institution and have the same rank as any other public institution. The auditorium seating is ----> thataway." This is not to say that AI having reserved seating to oversee the trial couldn't be useful, but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  >but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer. Sounds more like a justifiable way of minimizing the legal support available to the defendant, and control the flow of information to the public.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    They're a charity and a private institution, not a legal arm of the UK, an oversight organization of the EU, or a division of the UN. They have as much legal authority as any other private institution. Not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea for AI to have the privilege of oversight of any court proceeding in the UK. But I believe such a thing would have to start as law from the Houses, not the discretion of an individual judge. If there is precedent to the contrary, I will stand corrected.
    - k1m 6y ago
      According to Amnesty, "Amnesty International monitors have gone to Guantanamo Bay, Bahrain, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, among many others, to observe trials as officially recognized fair trial monitors." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913 I guess it's too much to ask of the UK though.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
MertsA 6y ago
In short, It's basically weev all over again.
btilly 6y ago
Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Actually there is evidence that his actions started a number of civil wars. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective, but certainly it lead to dead people. See https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-how-the-diplomatic-cables-sparked-the-2011-arab-revolutions/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-how-the-diplomatic-c... for more.
- acqq 6y ago
  I don't see that the linked article or the one linked from there to support their claim (1) provide support for the claims you state. 1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tunisia-first-lady https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tuni...
  - btilly 6y ago
    His actions were far from the sole cause, but they certainly contributed. The chain of causality being that he created Wikileaks and solicited releases of confidential US information. The confidential US cables then became public. The information in those cables helped start civil wars. This may seem tenuous, but it was pretty much what he was hoping for. http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/conspiracies.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/cons... describes what Assange hoped Wikileaks would accomplish before it had accomplished anything. Said purpose was to make it harder to maintain authoritarian conspiracies. Given that, the fact that his actions caused trouble for authoritarian conspiracies in the Middle-East is an intended consequence.
Fnoord 6y ago
> This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to this trial really support his point of view. Not really (non sequitar). He's shadowbanned (see their submissions and comments). The particular comment doesn't add much either; its merely an opinion, nothing more. Not a well argued one either while we're at it. That doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be allowed to have the opinion, nor does it mean they're right or wrong. It merely means its a shallow post.

by harry8 6y ago

happytoexplain 6y ago

Looking at that user's history, I can't find a single living comment. In just the first few pages are these standout examples of why: "Endless babel from that region of the US we care the least about: NY" "The feminazi apparati found you." This article may be totally reasonable, but your example of an unfairly silenced user doesn't appear to be.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 6y ago

It reads more like exceptionalism on AI's part. AI: "We demand access to monitor the trial." UK: "You are free to monitor the trial as a member of the public." AI: "No, we demand physical access and the right to a reserved seat to monitor the trial." UK: "From the Crown's point of view, you are a public institution and have the same rank as any other public institution. The auditorium seating is ----> thataway." This is not to say that AI having reserved seating to oversee the trial couldn't be useful, but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer.

mywittyname 6y ago
>but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer. Sounds more like a justifiable way of minimizing the legal support available to the defendant, and control the flow of information to the public.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  They're a charity and a private institution, not a legal arm of the UK, an oversight organization of the EU, or a division of the UN. They have as much legal authority as any other private institution. Not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea for AI to have the privilege of oversight of any court proceeding in the UK. But I believe such a thing would have to start as law from the Houses, not the discretion of an individual judge. If there is precedent to the contrary, I will stand corrected.
  - k1m 6y ago
    According to Amnesty, "Amnesty International monitors have gone to Guantanamo Bay, Bahrain, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, among many others, to observe trials as officially recognized fair trial monitors." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913 I guess it's too much to ask of the UK though.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago

MertsA 6y ago

In short, It's basically weev all over again.

btilly 6y ago

Of my list of assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Actually there is evidence that his actions started a number of civil wars. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective, but certainly it lead to dead people. See https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-how-the-diplomatic-cables-sparked-the-2011-arab-revolutions/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-how-the-diplomatic-c... for more.

acqq 6y ago
I don't see that the linked article or the one linked from there to support their claim (1) provide support for the claims you state. 1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tunisia-first-lady https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tuni...
- btilly 6y ago
  His actions were far from the sole cause, but they certainly contributed. The chain of causality being that he created Wikileaks and solicited releases of confidential US information. The confidential US cables then became public. The information in those cables helped start civil wars. This may seem tenuous, but it was pretty much what he was hoping for. http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/conspiracies.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/cons... describes what Assange hoped Wikileaks would accomplish before it had accomplished anything. Said purpose was to make it harder to maintain authoritarian conspiracies. Given that, the fact that his actions caused trouble for authoritarian conspiracies in the Middle-East is an intended consequence.

Fnoord 6y ago

> This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied access to this trial really support his point of view. Not really (non sequitar). He's shadowbanned (see their submissions and comments). The particular comment doesn't add much either; its merely an opinion, nothing more. Not a well argued one either while we're at it. That doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be allowed to have the opinion, nor does it mean they're right or wrong. It merely means its a shallow post.