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.
Sounds more like a justifiable way of minimizing the legal support available to the defendant, and control the flow of information to the public.
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.
I guess it's too much to ask of the UK though.
Just like the Internet Watch Foundation. Being a private charity does not mean much for the UK.
It's appropriate for the court to take steps necessary to ensure not just a fair trial, but the apparence of a fair trial.
If you fail to ensure the apparence of a fair trial, you undermine the court.
It saddens me that the court can't ensure a trial that is beyond criticism, especially in a case this controversial. It gives serious credibility to people claiming this is a sham trial. Because a fair trial should go out of it's way to also appear fair.
If you want to write some justifications for why the government is refusing to let the public watch a video of the proceedings, then knock yourself out.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...
It's AI that's requesting special treatment. I think it'd be cool if the UK passed a law making it so, but it seems less cool if a trial judge decides unilaterally to go outside of the norms and allow it. Isn't AI's goal to make sure norms are followed?
Did you read her Twitter thread you keep posting? The reason she is requesting "special treatment" is so that the spots allocated to the public wouldn't be used. They are trying to use their authority to push for more people allowed to attend.
>Isn't AI's goal to make sure norms are followed?
No, the goal is to try and ensure that a tryly public trial is held.
"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.
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-c... for more.
1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-tuni...
This may seem tenuous, but it was pretty much what he was hoping for. 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.
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.
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.