Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited

from the will-of-the-people dept

A poll conducted in the UK has found that only 9% of those surveyed agreed that student Richard O'Dwyer should be extradited to face criminal charges in the US for creating TVShack, a site that let people link to videos hosted elsewhere. So far, the government has been ignoring public cries not to allow the extradition, but this poll really seems to suggest that the public is not too keen on shipping O'Dwyer overseas.
Only 9% of the British public believe he should face trial in the US for his actions, according to the YouGov research. The largest group, 46%, said O'Dwyer should not be prosecuted at all, while 26% felt he should be tried in the UK.
At some point, something has to give. The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy.

Filed Under: extradition, hollywood, richard o'dwyer, uk
Companies: tvshack

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Quinn Wilde, 7 Jul 2012 @ 3:58am

    Why extradition is wrong.

    Imprisonment is intrinsically wrong. It is unarguably a fundamental violation of human rights.

    However, as a society, we accept imprisonment for a very specific set of reasons, in a very specific set of circumstances.

    Very importantly, we accept imprisonment in a democratic spirit, as part of a social contract: "If I break the law, I risk imprisonment, and as a democratic citizen I accept this."

    This is only acceptable because we have the ability to change those rules and circumstances in a democratic fashion. If our government begin to imprison people in unreasonable circumstances, we petition our government to change the laws, and we can change our government.

    Extradition breaks this arrangement, because we have *no democratic input* into the laws of other sovereign states. If a UK citizen doesn't like the laws in the USA, they are entitled to their opinions, but they cannot be part of the democratic mechanism which might change those laws.

    It is especially problematic where in the subject's own democratic system they have arguably broken no laws. We have, arguably, worked hard in the UK to maintain a reasonable stance on intellectual property, and done so within a democratic framework. United States citizens have taken their own path, and to submit to that is not democratic.

    None of which is about whether what the accused did, or did not do, how bad it was, how much damage they did, or even what they were accused of.

    It is about how we respect our democracy, and how we apply it.

    By all means, throw democracy out as well if it serves your arguments. But don't attempt to be taken seriously following that.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.