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.
UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.
Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.
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.
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.
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-johnso...
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.
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.
> "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
> (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
> (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],
> within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
> 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?
In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London.
Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over.
[This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration]
If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.