5 ms·

Fair, sadly this is the best coverage we can get on one of the most important trials in recent history in regards to press freedom. The fact that there is neith

Fair, sadly this is the best coverage we can get on one of the most important trials in recent history in regards to press freedom. The fact that there is neither wide spread protest/voicing of support in the media, or at least coverage is depressing beyond belief.

foldr 6y ago
This isn't a trial, it's an extradition hearing. It's not newsworthy primarily because nothing particularly surprising or interesting has happened or is likely to happen. We know what Assange is charged with and, to some extent, the nature of the evidence against him. All that remains is to wait for the decision. The trial, if there is one, is likely to get more coverage.
- k1m 6y ago
  I guess the International Bar Association calling the hearing a "serious undermining of due process and the rule of law" and having Amnesty International denied access to monitor it isn't all that surprising or newsworthy.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Indeed it isn't, as there is a long history of such absurd hystronics in commentary on the Assange case. The thing about "monitoring" is particularly stupid. It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. What AI can't do is appoint itself to a position above the British justice system.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      I agree with you that a lot of the commmentary around Assange is stupid, but I wanted to point out that... > It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. ...because of covid the normally public courts are allowing far fewer people in to view the hearings, and the online substitute is difficult to access. As I understand it AI applied to be allowed to view the court session remotely, and were denied permission, and the reasons for that denial are unclear. The Transparency Project talks about difficulties reporters and bloggers face accessing the English family courts, and some of these are similar problems. www.transparencyproject.org.uk/
      - foldr 6y ago
        That's a fair point, but I'd say two things in response. First, what you're saying just goes to show that any issues there have been are unlikely to be the result of anti-Assange conspiracies. Second, journalists from a variety of news sources - some of them sympathetic to Assange - have been able to view the hearing. It's not as if some major shenanigans could be pulled without anyone knowing. Nor do I think that the British justice system is so corrupt that it needs to be "monitored", like elections in a banana republic. By the way, AI's website claims that they will be remotely monitoring the hearings (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-extradition-hearing-will-be-a-key-test-for-uk-and-us-justice/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-ex...). Are you sure they can't see them? Edit: I found the following on Twitter. The explanation given makes sense to me. https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1303288781714468865?s=20 https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/130328878171446886... (Twitter sucks. Scroll down in that thread to see the screenshot of the explanation.) See also this HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776
- HugeAcumen 6y ago
  Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the import of these proceedings in good faith. He was provided reputable links many times, which he deemed "conspiracy theories", refusing to engage in the facts within. A significant portion of his recent history, in fact, is people begging him to read the facts; his replies come in the form "you Assange conspiracists ..." I don't want to break HN rules on calling people out, but the above are straight facts that people really ought to be aware of before trying with this guy again. It astounds me that people are putting Chomsky, Hersh, Pilger, Ellsberg, etc, who have all made dire warnings about this extraordinary case, in the box of "Assange conspiracists" - and getting away with it.
  - foldr 6y ago
    You're mischaracterizing my recent post history and attacking me personally rather than what I'm saying. I'm not a mod, but yes, I'd say that is against the guidelines.
    - dang 6y ago
      I've given the users attacking you a thorough scolding for breaking the site guidelines, but you've also been breaking the site guidelines by using this site for flamewar, by posting excessively on this issue and dropping swipes like "you Assange conspiracists" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007). It's not surprising that you provoked this sort of reaction from others on the opposite side of the issue from you. That's not cool, and if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using this site as intended, we'd appreciate it. To use HN as intended means primarily posting thoughtful, substantive comments on topics of intellectual curiosity. Internet polemics are tedious and nasty, and that gets truer as the topic gets hotter and more sensational. Assange threads, for example, already years ago became repetitive to the point of utter pointlessness. Nobody's convincing anybody—people are just beating each other with the same talking points over and over. If that's the game you want to play on the internet, please do it somewhere else.

foldr 6y ago

This isn't a trial, it's an extradition hearing. It's not newsworthy primarily because nothing particularly surprising or interesting has happened or is likely to happen. We know what Assange is charged with and, to some extent, the nature of the evidence against him. All that remains is to wait for the decision. The trial, if there is one, is likely to get more coverage.

k1m 6y ago
I guess the International Bar Association calling the hearing a "serious undermining of due process and the rule of law" and having Amnesty International denied access to monitor it isn't all that surprising or newsworthy.
- foldr 6y ago
  Indeed it isn't, as there is a long history of such absurd hystronics in commentary on the Assange case. The thing about "monitoring" is particularly stupid. It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. What AI can't do is appoint itself to a position above the British justice system.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    I agree with you that a lot of the commmentary around Assange is stupid, but I wanted to point out that... > It's a public hearing and any organization can "monitor" it all they like. ...because of covid the normally public courts are allowing far fewer people in to view the hearings, and the online substitute is difficult to access. As I understand it AI applied to be allowed to view the court session remotely, and were denied permission, and the reasons for that denial are unclear. The Transparency Project talks about difficulties reporters and bloggers face accessing the English family courts, and some of these are similar problems. www.transparencyproject.org.uk/
    - foldr 6y ago
      That's a fair point, but I'd say two things in response. First, what you're saying just goes to show that any issues there have been are unlikely to be the result of anti-Assange conspiracies. Second, journalists from a variety of news sources - some of them sympathetic to Assange - have been able to view the hearing. It's not as if some major shenanigans could be pulled without anyone knowing. Nor do I think that the British justice system is so corrupt that it needs to be "monitored", like elections in a banana republic. By the way, AI's website claims that they will be remotely monitoring the hearings (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-extradition-hearing-will-be-a-key-test-for-uk-and-us-justice/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/uk-assange-ex...). Are you sure they can't see them? Edit: I found the following on Twitter. The explanation given makes sense to me. https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1303288781714468865?s=20 https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/130328878171446886... (Twitter sucks. Scroll down in that thread to see the screenshot of the explanation.) See also this HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491776
HugeAcumen 6y ago
Before people engage with this gent I would point them to his recent conversations here. Many people, at length, have tried to engage and explain to him the import of these proceedings in good faith. He was provided reputable links many times, which he deemed "conspiracy theories", refusing to engage in the facts within. A significant portion of his recent history, in fact, is people begging him to read the facts; his replies come in the form "you Assange conspiracists ..." I don't want to break HN rules on calling people out, but the above are straight facts that people really ought to be aware of before trying with this guy again. It astounds me that people are putting Chomsky, Hersh, Pilger, Ellsberg, etc, who have all made dire warnings about this extraordinary case, in the box of "Assange conspiracists" - and getting away with it.
- foldr 6y ago
  You're mischaracterizing my recent post history and attacking me personally rather than what I'm saying. I'm not a mod, but yes, I'd say that is against the guidelines.
  - dang 6y ago
    I've given the users attacking you a thorough scolding for breaking the site guidelines, but you've also been breaking the site guidelines by using this site for flamewar, by posting excessively on this issue and dropping swipes like "you Assange conspiracists" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24408007). It's not surprising that you provoked this sort of reaction from others on the opposite side of the issue from you. That's not cool, and if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using this site as intended, we'd appreciate it. To use HN as intended means primarily posting thoughtful, substantive comments on topics of intellectual curiosity. Internet polemics are tedious and nasty, and that gets truer as the topic gets hotter and more sensational. Assange threads, for example, already years ago became repetitive to the point of utter pointlessness. Nobody's convincing anybody—people are just beating each other with the same talking points over and over. If that's the game you want to play on the internet, please do it somewhere else.