5 ms·

There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningf

There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.

lixtra 6y ago
Other sources[1] expect the US to appeal. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241
tastroder 6y ago
https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1346030852136906752 https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/13460308521369067... "this is a sitting of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. It is not a trial. The losing side may appeal against the DJ’s ruling." Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.
implements 6y ago
> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness. Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse. Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.
- vidarh 6y ago
  > Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. > > Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace. While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly) [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-tshirt-police-black-lives-matter-protest-a9549911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...
  - implements 6y ago
    I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up. If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.
      - amaccuish 6y ago
        The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
        Talanes 6y ago
        I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it. However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
        vidarh 6y ago
        Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.
lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
Either side can appeal in an extradition hearing. There's no guarantee that the High Court will grant leave to appeal. If the US seeks to appeal, it'd be under s105 of the Extradition Act. If the appeal is filed and accepted, Assange can be kept in remand pending appeal under s107. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41

lixtra 6y ago

Other sources[1] expect the US to appeal. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241

tastroder 6y ago

https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1346030852136906752 https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/13460308521369067... "this is a sitting of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. It is not a trial. The losing side may appeal against the DJ’s ruling." Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.

implements 6y ago

> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness. Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse. Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.

vidarh 6y ago
> Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. > > Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace. While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly) [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-tshirt-police-black-lives-matter-protest-a9549911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...
- implements 6y ago
  I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up. If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.
    - amaccuish 6y ago
      The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
      - Talanes 6y ago
        I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it. However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.

lawtalkinghuman 6y ago

Either side can appeal in an extradition hearing. There's no guarantee that the High Court will grant leave to appeal. If the US seeks to appeal, it'd be under s105 of the Extradition Act. If the appeal is filed and accepted, Assange can be kept in remand pending appeal under s107. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41