The fact it impacts press freedom, judicial impartiality, and foreign interference in a UK court, I feels like a lot of this extends far beyond this case, and I feel that the public should be aware of this to some degree.
What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
I completely agree with you here, which is why I'm so glad that the last few articles Murray did on this have been posted here and getting at least some attention.
> What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
Sharing the articles by Murray and others is, I think, the best way. Protesting is a: somewhat unhelpful, because that doesn't seem to get picked up by the media either, and also because the government will most likely object to large protests due to the covid situation.
However, as Murray noted in other articles, news of the entire trial seems to get you shadowbanned from social media:
> Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.[1]
1: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
I couldn't think of a better example of why these practices need to die a swift death, if societies the world around want to have any chance of preventing a total downfall of discourse.
Its customers are mega-corporations, political parties, governments. If some content spreads too quickly it not only gets shadowbanned to slow its spread, it gets reported to the authorities. Many regimes worldwide have taken note how China and Saudi-Arabia are handling the emergence of social networks. They want the same features. Even western democracies churned in and want FB to do more about "fake news". Tell me, what is the remedy against those ailment? How exactly does a social network slow down what is known as a "troll farm"? And that is the nice case where disruptive enemy propaganda is just that and not some dysphemism for a grass root dissident pro-human-rights civil movement.
The highest paying customers are not paying for shoe-ads, or to talk to their friends or plan events, they pay for censorship, surveillance and control of popular opinion. You are not a customer, you are cattle. No go and consume your feed.
As a result, your traffic from FB will rapidly drop until you pay them off, that's just business if you want to spread on FB.
Another good outlet to support is
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/declassified-uk/
Put the word out to friends NOT to support the Guardian, which has become an Intelligence asset since Katherine Viner became editor and actively worked to frame the story on Assange.
Good background here,
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...
This is a criminal case heard at a magistrates court, if I understand correctly, the media are not permitted to cover the trial, until the case is decided. Media breaking the restrictions are subject to contempt of court.
The media can, and is, covering the hearing. There are more than a dozen news articles about this hearing by major newspapers including the NYT.
Assange's extradition hearing isn't relevant to most people, and quite frankly it doesn't deserve or need to be covered outside of the major papers.
But if you aren't, then yeah, not relevant.