Freedom to Read Celebration, Supporting the Merritt Fund, and Featuring Banned Author David Levithan – ala.org

Join the ALA Intellectual Freedom Round Table (IFRT) and the Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) along with banned author David Levithan, library professionals, authors, and friends for this 2022 Freedom to Read Celebration, Merritt Fund fundraiser, and reception. The organizations will honor the recipients of the FTRF Roll of Honor Award, John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award, Gerald Hodges Intellectual Freedom Chapter Relations Award, and Eli M. Oboler Memorial Award.

Were excited to have author David Levithan launch the evening by sharing his remarks, and experience, with intellectual freedom and censorship. David is a childrens book editor and the author of several books for young adults, including Lambda Literary Award winner Two Boys Kissing; Nick & Norahs Infinite Playlist, Naomi and Elys No Kiss List, and Dash & Lilys Book of Dares (co-authored with Rachel Cohn); Will Grayson, Will Grayson (co-authored with John Green); and Every You, Every Me (with photographs from Jonathan Farmer). David was named the recipient of the Margaret A. Edwards Award for his contribution to YA literature. His newest book, Answers in the Pages, was released through Penguin Random House in May. This title has a timely topic as it addresses speaking up and coming out as parents lobby to ban a beloved book from the school curriculum.

The following 2022 intellectual freedom award recipients will be honored at the event.

Add the celebration to your Conference Scheduler.RSVP to attendEvent Date: Friday, June 24th at 7pm - 8:30pm ET.Location: Marriott Marquis, Univ of DC & Catholic UnivCost: Suggested Donation: $20.00 (checks and cash preferred) to benefit the Leroy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund (one free drink ticket included)

FTRF and IFRT wish to thank Penguin Random House for their generous sponsorship of the Freedom to Read Celebration.

About the Freedom to Read FoundationThe Freedom to Read Foundation has been working on behalf of librarians and others to protect the First Amendment for over 50 years. Because FTRF is a non-profit, the staff and trustees may also litigate on behalf of First Amendment issues, as well as educate and advocate. The FTRF board of trustees includes representatives from each of ALAs roundtables. This ensures that librarians representing all forms of library work can bring their voices and concerns to FTRF and carry back valuable information.

About the Intellectual Freedom Round TableThe Intellectual Freedom Round Table of the American Library Association provides a forum for the discussion of activities, programs and problems in intellectual freedom of libraries and librarians; serves as a channel of communications on intellectual freedom matters; promotes a greater opportunity for involvement among the members of the ALA in defense of intellectual freedom; and promotes a greater feeling of responsibility in the implementation of ALA policies on intellectual freedom.

About the Office for Intellectual FreedomEstablished December 1, 1967, the Office for Intellectual Freedom is charged with implementing ALA policies concerning the concept of intellectual freedom as embodied in the Library Bill of Rights, the Associations basic policy on free access to libraries and library materials. The goal of the office is to educate librarians and the general public about the nature and importance of intellectual freedom in libraries.

About the Merritt FundThe LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund was established in 1970 as a special trust in memory of Dr. LeRoy C. Merritt. It is devoted to the support, maintenance, medical care, and welfare of librarians who, in the Trustees opinion, are: Denied employment rights or discriminated against on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, color, creed, religion, age, disability, or place of national origin; or Denied employment rights because of defense of intellectual freedom; that is, threatened with loss of employment or discharged because of their stand for the cause of intellectual freedom, including promotion of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the freedom of librarians to select items for their collections from all the worlds written and recorded information, and defense of privacy rights.

See the original post here:

Freedom to Read Celebration, Supporting the Merritt Fund, and Featuring Banned Author David Levithan - ala.org

Citizens have a right to know about Sarasota shooting case – Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Marsy's Law, intended for crime victims, now used to shield law enforcement

The Marsy's Law amendment, as approved by Florida voters, was intended to protect victims of crime. But it's being used to shield law enforcement.

C. A. Bridges, Tallahassee Democrat

In return for the immense amounts of unspoken trust and expansive authority that our society willingly gives to law enforcement and judicial agencies, those who wield such powershave a clear obligation to hold themselves to higher standards of transparency and accountability.

Unfortunately, the Sarasota County Sheriffs Office and the 12th Judicial Circuit State Attorneys Office are both failing to meet those standards in their joint effort to bar the Sarasota Herald-Tribune from publishing the names of two deputies involved in a fatal Aprilshooting in Sarasota.

And, equally unfortunate, both parties are beingempowered to shirktheir responsibilitiesby an emergency injunction, granted last Friday by Chief Circuit Judge Charles E. Roberts, that upheld their request to block the Herald-Tribune from identifying two deputies involved in the shooting of Jeremiah Evans, 58, while carrying out a court-ordered eviction at the Palm Place Condominium in Sarasota.

Related: Sarasota County deputy fatally shoots armed man during eviction, Sheriff says

It's ironic that the names of the two deputies along with a third who was presentwhen Evans was shot had previously been provided to the Herald-Tribune by the State Attorneys Office in response to a routine public records request for a letter in which prosecutors had ruled the shooting was justified.

But when the Herald-Tribune sought additional information regarding the case, the Sheriff's Officeabruptly moved to pursue the emergency injunction in tandem with the State Attorney's Office.

With these facts established,the following conclusionsare beyond debate:

The ruling, which granted the injunction with no notice to the Herald-Tribune, is an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press that is prohibited by the First Amendment in both the U.S. Constitution and Florida Constitution.

This fact was driven homein the emergency motion filed June 13 byCarol Jean LoCicero and James B. Lake, from the firm of Thomas & LoCicero in Tampa, on the Herald-Tribunes behalf to overturn the emergency injunction.

Freedom of speech means that its up to the Herald-Tribune to decide whether to report information in its possession, especially facts about such a significant matter as a fatal shooting by law enforcement, Lake told the Herald-Tribune.We fully expect that, once our arguments are heard, the injunction will be set aside.

The Sheriffs Office and the State Attorneys Office have poorly servedthis community by: a) citing Marsys Law, which is designed to prevent the disclosure of potentially sensitive details about victims of crime, to justify asking for the emergency injunction, and b) working in hurried, secretive and underhanded fashion to secure a court order to restrain the press from publishing the deputies names even though the press had lawfully obtained that information and isnt bound by Marsys Law.

In effect, then, the Sheriffs Office and State Attorneys Office are not only behaving as though the First Amendment, which clearly applies to the press, does not exist they are also using a state law that doesnt apply to the press as a weapon to muzzle a news organization and blatantly obstruct its ability to provide information that the public has aright to know.

This is inexcusable. And this is just plain wrong.

Its time forthe Sheriffs Office and State Attorneys Office to adhere to the elevatedstandards of transparency and accountability that they must meet. Its time for the emergency injunction to be dissolved, and for both agencies to show the proper respect for the publics right to be fully informed.

This editorial was written by Opinions Editor Roger Brown for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board.

More:

Citizens have a right to know about Sarasota shooting case - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

How police treatment of journalists at protests has shifted from cohabitation to animosity – Poynter

In September 2020, former President Donald Trump referred to an MSNBC reporter suffering a knee injury from a police projectile as a beautiful sight. The reporter had been injured by police while covering a Black Lives Matter protest earlier that year.

That statement, and the near-constant attacks on the press during his administration, played a key role in a dark, new chapter for press freedom in the United States.

(That) administration serves as a horrible, yet impactful, example of the ways that pitting the population against the press and blaming reporters for unfavorable coverage can be a potent political tactic, said Katherine Jacobsen, United States and Canada regional program director for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Following the murder of George Floyd and the killing of Breonna Taylor at the hands of police, millions took to the streets across America and the world in the spring of 2020 to protest police brutality and a system of law enforcement that has historically and disproportionately targeted Black and brown people.

What followed was months of protests, clashes with riot police and mass arrests of largely peaceful protesters and demonstrators. This is not a new phenomenon. The country witnessed similar situations transpire in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black man, in 2014.

What struck more urgently this time was the public and violent disregard for the practice of journalism by some police, including mass arrests and assaults on the rights of journalists covering these protests.

Ed Ou, a visual journalist with NBC News, had his scalp lacerated by a projectile fired at close range by police while he was covering a protest in Minneapolis.

Ou was wearing a clearly visible NBC press badge.

CBS San Francisco reporter Katie Nielsen was arrested by police while covering a Black Lives Matter protest in Oakland, California, on June 1, 2020.

Neilsen was wearing a clearly visible CBS press badge.

While journalists have been arrested in the past, including during the Ferguson protests, these instances are increasing and raising larger questions about this shift in treatment and the concerns it bears for the free press. In 2020, journalists across the United States faced record numbers of physical attacks, arrests and cases of equipment damage, as well as many other press freedom violations, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press annual report analyzing data from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

The Press Freedom Tracker was launched in 2017 by the RCFP and more than two dozen other press freedom organizations, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation a national nonprofit that documents and catalogs press freedom violations across the U.S.

Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the U.S. saw a shocking increase in the number of journalists arrested between 2019 and 2020.

There were about 150 press freedom violations in 2019 in the U.S., which we thought was very high, Timm said. But then in 2020, it increased by at least fivefold.

Timm says its no surprise that the number of press freedom violations, assaults and arrests of journalists increased with the rise of protests across the nation.

We have seen police act in this abusive and unconstitutional manner in the past, Timm said, citing the arrests of journalists covering the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York in the early 2010s, the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson in 2014, and the Standing Rock protests in 2016.

If there was never really any accountability in any of these past instances, when there is now this nationwide movement, are cops going to be worried theyre going to get in trouble if they violate journalists rights? The answer is no, Timm said.

The report identified that journalists faced 438 physical attacks in 2020 in the U.S. alone, more than 90% of which occurred as they reported on the nationwide racial justice protests. Police officers were responsible for 80% of these attacks, affecting 324 journalists. Nearly 200 of them appeared to be deliberately targeted by police, according to the Reporters Committees 2020 Press Freedom report.

Police officers assaulted reporters with tear gas, batons, pepper balls and rubber-coated bullets.

Even as municipalities across the country imposed curfews in an effort to suppress protests, many of these curfews contained exemptions for journalists either explicitly or by permitting essential workers, according to a report from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Over the years according to guidelines compiled for the Committee to Protect Journalists by TrustLaw, the Thomson Reuters Foundations global pro bono legal program courts have commonly recognized that the First Amendment protects a reporters right to record law enforcement in public, including during a protest. Furthermore, there is a similar consensus, according to the same legal analysis for CPJ, that the Fourth Amendment protects journalists against having to hand over notes or reporting materials to police, and against illegal arrest. An arrest can be considered seizure of a person, which also implicates the Fourth Amendment. Police must have probable cause to make an arrest, and in the case of journalists, mere proximity to criminal activity is not enough to justify an arrest while covering a protest even if protesters become violent.

Police were not shown to have honored the exemptions for journalists in these curfews, nor the commonly understood legal protections, during the monthslong Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

In Oregon, attacks and arrests of journalists continued even after a federal judge barred law enforcement from targeting journalists engaged in lawful newsgathering.

A federal officer guards the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse as protesters gather Friday, July 24, 2020, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

Summer 2020 saw numerous examples of clearly identified and law-abiding journalists arrested for covering protests.

Omar Jimenez, a CNN correspondent, and his crew were arrested while giving a live television report in Minneapolis while covering protests over Floyds murder.

Carolyn Cole, a veteran photojournalist with the Los Angeles Times, and her team were cornered by police and pepper-sprayed at close range while documenting a protest, also in Minneapolis.

Cole suffered damage to her right cornea and chemical burns to her eye and skin. She was forced to halt coverage.

Last May, Cole and her colleague, Molly Hennessy-Fiske, filed a lawsuit against Minnesota State Patrol officers, saying officers violated their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages. In an interview after filing the lawsuit, both Cole and Hennessy-Fisk reflected on some of the more dangerous areas of the world their careers have taken them into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example and noted they had never experienced such specific targeting as they did by Minneapolis police in May 2020.

Cole and Hennessy-Fisks lawsuit was later included in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which represented a larger group of journalists who were attacked and arrested during that time.

Ou, of NBC News, was also part of the suit.

This February, a settlement was reached in the case, holding the Minnesota State Patrol accountable for these attacks.

In addition to more than $800,000 in financial compensation for the journalists involved, Minnesota State Police and outside law enforcement working alongside them under court order will now be explicitly prohibited from:

Those involved in the case say they hope this will serve as an example of what kind of action other states should take against police who participated in similar First Amendment violations.

Black Lives Matter protesters rally outside Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds office, Monday, June 29, 2020, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

On May 31, 2020, Andrea Sahouri, a reporter with The Des Moines Register, was arrested in Des Moines, Iowa, while covering Black Lives Matter protests in the area.

This was the third night Sahouri had covered the protests in Des Moines that began shortly after news broke of Floyds murder.

Sahouri described the protest on May 31 as made up largely of middle school and high school students. It escalated when protesters blocked the street at a busy intersection near a local shopping center and quickly turned violent after riot police arrived and began forcing dispersal.

Police came out after that in a line of riot gear, Sahouri recalls. There was pepper spray, tear gas, batons and later in the night full-on Bearcats (armored S.W.A.T. vehicles).

Riot police began pushing the crowd into a parking lot near the shopping center, really with no means of leaving, in order to make mass arrests, Sahouri said.

During a lull, Sahouri walked across the parking lot to interview protesters.

As Sahouri and a fellow journalist approached the group of protesters, police arrived in an armored vehicle, deploying pepper spray and rubber-coated bullets.

Obviously were going to run from that, so we ran, Sahouri said. I couldnt really see much of what was behind me so I turned around.

Thats when Sahouri saw a police officer charging at her.

I immediately put my hands up and said Im press, Im press, Im with The Des Moines Register, she said. He grabbed me, pepper-sprayed me right in the face and said Thats not what I asked, and proceeded to arrest me.

Her colleague was allowed to go, but Sahouri was charged with failure to disperse and interfering with official acts, both of which are misdemeanors. She was the only journalist of color on the scene.

As pepper spray soaked her clothes, Sahouri went live on her Twitter account in the back of the police car.

I just knew what was happening wasnt right. I did nothing wrong and its a big deal arresting a journalist, she said.

This livestream was how Sahouris editor learned of her arrest.

What many dont realize is that pepper spray spreads like poison ivy, Sahouri said. By the time she arrived at the Des Moines jail, her entire body felt like it was burning.

I actually had to strip and shower in front of female officers because I was in so much pain, Sahouri noted.

She was held in police custody, including time at the Polk County jail for nearly four hours before being released.

While many journalists were arrested and later released, the Polk County Attorney brought Sahouri to court for her charges in March 2021 a move that drew outrage from many in newsrooms across the country.

The ACLU of Iowa called the trial an outlandish prosecution.

The Committee to Protect Journalists Jacobsen initially called the arrest and trial incredibly concerning.

Thats an understatement actually, Jacobsen said, adjusting her language. It was alarming that a journalist would actually be brought to trial simply for being in a location and covering one of the top stories in the country at the time. I think it speaks to a larger issue about local authorities trying to perhaps make statements by deciding to go after reporters.

A jury acquitted Sahouri of both charges after only two hours of deliberation. The Des Moines police officer who arrested Sahouri did not activate his body camera until 15 minutes after the arrest took place, which drew the validity of the arrest itself into question during the trial.

Even after her unanimous acquittal, members of the prosecutorial team, including Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, defended their failed attempt to charge Sahouri.

After I was found not guilty, he (Sarcone) doubled down and told national media that I was there to protest, Sahouri said.

Sahouri continued to cover protests and civil unrest for The Des Moines Register after her release and acquittal but has since requested her newsroom take her off the breaking news beat, which had her interacting with police on a near-daily basis, noting it was the best choice for her mental health. Sahouri now covers criminal justice for the Detroit Free Press.

Associated Press videojournalist Robert Bumsted reminds a police officer that the press are considered essential workers and are allowed to be on the streets despite a curfew, Tuesday, June 2, 2020, in New York. New York City police officers surrounded, shoved and yelled expletives at two Associated Press journalists covering protests in the latest aggression against members of the media during a week of unrest around the country. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)

Stephen Solomon teaches First Amendment law and said law enforcement departments need a refresher course on what the First Amendment entails. He said they need to understand what freedom of the press means and what police can and cant do as far as telling reporters what to do and where they can be.

There may be some situations of animosity, you may have a police officer who just doesnt like the media or maybe is trying to hide something, Solomon, who is the founding editor of First Amendment Watch and Marjorie Deane Professor at NYUs Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, said. But I think there is also a lack of understanding of what the law requires under the First Amendment.

Police must understand the public benefit and crucial role of journalism, Solomon said.

Part of that is making it clear once again, to law enforcement, what the purpose of the press is, Solomon said.

Thats the reason why you have a press pass. Thats the reason why you should be allowed to stay while theyre clearing the street. Thats the reason why you should be allowed to go past the police barricade to cover whats going on up close. Thats the function and if that meaning has been eroded over the years or is in danger, it needs to be renewed.

For Jacobsen, the issue has been getting worse in recent years and reaches far deeper than simply a lack of education.

Theres no better way to control coverage than to make sure that its not possible to cover something safely in the first place, she said.

The disparity in police action against protesters is visible when examining movements like Black Lives Matter compared to recent anti-vaccination protests, Jacobsen notes.

I think it says a lot about topics of coverage that perhaps cause greater concern for police, she said. When police go out and as we saw during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 specifically target journalists who are doing their jobs and trying to cover matters of public interest, I think it points to problems that perhaps they dont want the media to cover.

This poses a risk to the free press and the public service of informing the masses that journalists seek to fulfill, Jacobsen said.

When you see your colleagues being poorly treated by law enforcement when in theory theyre there to protect people it makes you think twice about how youre going to cover something and whether its worth the risk, she added.

Jacobsen said journalists of color have long had to pay attention to concerns about risks and awareness that the rest of the news media are now also facing.

In the field of journalism, foreign reporters and war correspondents often undergo Hostile Environment and Emergency First Aid Training (HEFAT), meant to prepare journalists for the trauma and risk that comes with operating in war zones.

Now, Jacobsen said, she is encouraging domestic journalists to undergo the same training.

Theres a new understanding that home also carries with it these risks and that journalists should be prepared, she said.

This story was updated to note that Andrea Sahouri has taken a job at the Detroit Free Press.

More here:

How police treatment of journalists at protests has shifted from cohabitation to animosity - Poynter

Julian Assange faces US extradition after UK approves transfer

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be sent to the US to face criminal espionage charges, the British government ruled.

Assange has 14 days to launch an appeal of the decision, after which he will be extradited across the pond, where he will face spying charges.

He is wanted by US authorities on 18 counts, including espionage.

UKs Home Secretary Priti Patel signed the extradition order Friday. This follows a British court ruling in April that Assange could be sent to the US.

American prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal 500,000 classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.

Today is not the end of the fight. It is only the beginning of a new legal battle. We will appeal through the legal system, WikiLeaks said in a statement on Twitter.

The UKs Home Office said the UK courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr. Assange.

Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, and that whilst in the U.S. he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health, the Home Office said in a statement.

Assanges father, Richard Assange, decried the extradition Friday at a protest in front of the British consulate in New York City, calling it an end to the American tradition of a free press.

BREAKING: UK Home Secretary approves extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the US where he would face a 175 year sentence A dark day for Press freedom and for British democracyThe decision will be appealedhttps://t.co/m1bX8STSr8 pic.twitter.com/5nWlxnWqO7

[Assanges] Australianfriends find it extraordinary that the country that gave the world freedom of the press enshrined in its constitution the First Amendment today brought that freedom to an end. Its over, he said.

He called on the US to drop the charges against his son.

All it will take is a simple telephone call from Attorney General Merrick Garland to the home secretary in the United Kingdom to drop these charges. Thats all it will take its not complex, he said.

Assange previously spent seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

The charges were dropped in 2019 because so much time had elapsed.

That year, Assange was arrested and has since been locked up in Belmarsh high-security prison in England.

The case was thrust into the open more than a decade ago when the US asked British authorities to extradite Assange to the US so he could stand trial to face the charges against him.

Assanges arrest sparked mass fury across the globe, as journalism organizations and human rights groups long called for the UK to refuse the USs extradition request.

His supporters argue he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. Its also argued his case is politically motivated.

Assanges lawyer, Mark Summers, says he could face up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted in the US.

In December, the High Courtoverturned the lower courts decision, saying that the US promises were enough to guarantee that Assange would be treated humanely.

In March,Assange and his former lawyer Stella Moris marriedin a prison ceremony.

With Post wires

Read more:
Julian Assange faces US extradition after UK approves transfer

Julian Assange extradition: U.K. government orders WikiLeaks’ founder’s …

London The British government has ordered the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States to face spying charges. The WikiLeaks founder is expected to appeal, but Home Secretary Priti Patel signed the extradition order on Friday, her department said, following a British court ruling in April that Assange could be sent to the U.S.The Home Office said in a statement that "the U.K courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr. Assange.""Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, and that whilst in the U.S. he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health."

The decision is a big moment in Assange's years-long battle to avoid facing trial in the U.S. though not necessarily the end of the tale. Assange has 14 days to appeal, and his wife Stella Assange vowed after the government's announcement on Friday to "fight this."

"We're going to use every appeal avenue," she told reporters in London on Friday. "I'm going to spend every waking hour fighting for Julian until he is free, until justice is served." A British judge approved the extradition in April, leaving the final decision to the government. The ruling came after a legal battle that went all the way to the U.K. Supreme Court.

The U.S. has asked British authorities to extradite Assange so he can stand trial on 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks' publication of a huge trove of classified documents more than a decade ago. American prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.Journalism organizations and human rights groups have called on Britain to refuse the extradition request.Supporters and lawyers for Assange, 50, argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue that his case is politically motivated.

Assange's lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted in the U.S., though American authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower than that.Assange has been held at Britain's high-security Belmarsh Prison in London since 2019, when he was arrested for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that, he spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed.

The rest is here:
Julian Assange extradition: U.K. government orders WikiLeaks' founder's ...

Julian Assanges extradition from UK to US approved by home secretary

Priti Patel has approved the extradition of the WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange to the US, a decision the organisation immediately said it would appeal against in the high court.

The case passed to the British home secretary last month after the UK supreme court ruled that there were no legal questions over assurances given by US authorities on Assanges likely treatment.

While Patel has given the green light, WikiLeaks immediately released a statement to say it would appeal against the decision. Today is not the end of the fight, it said. It is only the beginning of a new legal battle. We will appeal through the legal system; the next appeal will be before the high court.

June 2010 - October 2010

WikiLeaks releases about 470,000 classified military documents concerning American diplomacy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It later releases a further tranche of more than 250,000 classified US diplomatic cables.

November 2010

A Swedish prosecutor issues a European arrest warrant for Assange over sexual assault allegations involving two Swedish women. Assange denies the claims.

February 2011

A British judge rules that Assange can be extradited to Sweden. Assange fears Sweden will hand him over to US authorities who could prosecute him.

November 2016

Assangeis questionedin a two-day interview over the allegations at the Ecuadorian embassy by Swedish authorities.

January 2018

Britain refuses Ecuador's request to accord Assange diplomatic status, which would allow him to leave the embassy without being arrested.

11 April 2019

Police arrest Assange at the embassyon behalf of the US after his asylum was withdrawn. He is charged by the US with 'a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified US government computer.'

24 February 2020

Assange's extradition hearing begins at Woolwich crown court in south-east London. After a week of opening arguments, the extradition case is to be adjourned until May. Further delays are caused by the coronavirus outbreak.

15 September 2020

A hearing scheduled for four weeks begins at the Old Bailey with the US government making their case that Assange tried to recruit hackers to find classified government information.

4 January 2021

A British judge rules that Assange cannot be extradited to the US. The US appeals against the judgment.

Thank you for your feedback.

The statement said anyone who cared about freedom of expression should be deeply ashamed that the home secretary had approved Assanges extradition.

Julian did nothing wrong. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and a publisher and he is being punished for doing his job, it said. It was in Priti Patels power to do the right thing. Instead she will for ever be remembered as an accomplice of the United States in its agenda to turn investigative journalism into a criminal enterprise.

Any appeal is likely to focus on grounds such as the right to freedom of expression and whether the extradition request is politically motivated. Patel had been considering whether the US extradition request met remaining legal tests, including a promise not to execute him.

Assange is being held at Belmarsh prison in London after a lengthy battle to avoid extradition. At a press conference in London, his wife, Stella Assange, said: We are not at the end of the road here. We are going to fight this. We are going to use every available avenue. Im going to use every waking hour fighting for Julian until he is free, until justice is served.

The saga was triggered in 2010 when WikiLeaks published a series of leaks provided by the then US army soldier Chelsea Manning, as well as a dump of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, some of which were published in the Guardian and elsewhere, containing classified diplomatic analysis from world leaders. The US government launched a criminal investigation into the leaks.

Also in 2010, an arrest warrant for Assange was issued for two separate sexual assault allegations in Sweden. The UK ruled that he should be extradited to Sweden. This prompted him to enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London in August 2012, claiming political asylum. He feared that if he was extradited to Sweden he would in turn be extradited to the US.

Assange finally left the embassy in 2019. He was arrested in the UK for skipping bail and ultimately jailed, then extradition proceedings to the US were started against him.

Assanges brother said on Friday that the appeal would include new information not previously taken to the courts, including claims made in a report last year of plans to assassinate him.

It will likely be a few days before the [14-day appeal] deadline and the appeal will include new information on how Julians lawyers were spied on, and how there were plots to kidnap and kill Julian from within the CIA, Gabriel Shipton told Reuters in an interview.

Patels decision was met with immediate criticism from campaigners, journalists and MPs. Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: Absolutely shameful that Priti Patel has approved Julian Assanges extradition to US this sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom and democracy. US authorities are determined to silence him because they dont like what he revealed.

The former cabinet minister David Davis said: Sadly, I do not believe Mr Assange will get a fair trial. This extradition treaty needs to be rewritten to give British and American citizens identical rights, unlike now.

The veteran BBC broadcaster John Simpson said: Journalists in Britain and elsewhere will be very worried by the decision to extradite Julian Assange to the US both for his own wellbeing and for the precedent it creates for journalism worldwide.

John Pilger, a journalist and longtime supporter of Assange and a fellow Australian, said: A new appeal will challenge the political rottenness of British justice.

The new Australian government said it believed Assanges case had dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close. We will continue to express this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said in a statement responding to Patels decision.

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, had said last year, when he was the opposition leader, that he did not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange and that enough is enough.

Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter every weekday morning at 7am

A Home Office spokesperson said: On 17 June, following consideration by both the magistrates court and high court, the extradition of Mr Julian Assange to the US was ordered. Mr Assange retains the normal 14-day right to appeal.

In this case, the UK courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange.

Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, and that whilst in the US he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health.

Reuters contributed to this report

Read the original:
Julian Assanges extradition from UK to US approved by home secretary

Julian Assange In Ithaka| Countercurrents

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.Arriving there is where youre destined for.

C. P. Cavafy, trans. Edmund Keeley

John Shipton, despite his size, glides with insect-like grace across surfaces. He moves with a hovering sense, a holy man with message and meaning. As Julian Assanges father, he has found himself a bearer of messages and meaning, attempting to convince those in power that good sense and justice should prevail over brute stupidity and callousness. His one object: release Julian.

At the now defunct Druids Caf on Swanston Street in Melbourne, he materialised out of the shadows, seeking candidates to stump for the incipient WikiLeaks Party over a decade ago. The intention was to run candidates in the 2013 Senate elections in Australia, providing a platform for the publisher, then confined in the less than commodious surrounds of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Soft, a voice of reed and bird song, Shipton urged activists and citizens to join the fray, to save his son, to battle for a cause imperishably golden and pure. From this summit, power would be held accountable, institutions would function with sublime transparency, and citizens could be assured that their privacy would be protected.

In the documentary Ithaka, directed by Ben Lawrence, we see Shipton, Assanges partner, Stella, the two children, the cat, glimpses of brother Gabriel, all pointing to the common cause that rises to the summit of purpose. The central figure, who only ever manifests in spectral form on screen via phone or fleeting footage is one of moral reminder, the purpose that supplies blood for all these figures. Assange is being held at Belmarsh, Britains most secure and infamous of prisons, denied bail, and being crushed by judicial procedure. But in these supporters, he has some vestigial reminders of a life outside.

The films promotion site describes the subject as, The worlds most famous political prisoner, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a figure who has become an emblem of an international arm wrestle over freedom of journalism, government corruption and unpunished war crimes. But it takes such a moment as Stellas remarks in Geneva reflecting on the freshly erected statue of her husband to give a sense of breath, flesh and blood. I am here to remind you that Julian isnt a name, he isnt a symbol, hes a man and hes suffering.

And suffer he shall, if the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel decides to agree to the wishes of the US Department of Justice. The DOJ insists that their man face 17 charges framed, disgracefully and archaically, from a US law passed during the First World War and inimical to free press protections. (The eighteenth, predictably, deals with computer intrusion.) The Espionage Act of 1917 has become the crutch and support for prosecutors who see, in Assange, less a journalist than an opportunistic hacker who outed informants and betrayed confidences. Seductively, he gathered a following and persuaded many that the US imperium was not flaxen of hair and noble of heart. Beneath the impostor lay the bodies of Collateral Murder, war crimes and torture. The emperor not only lacked clothes but was a sanctimonious murderer to boot.

Material for Lawrence comes readily enough, largely because of a flat he shared with Shipton during filming in England. The notable pauses over bread and a glass of wine, pregnant with meaning, the careful digestion of questions before the snappy response, and the throwaway line of resigned wisdom, are all repeated signatures. In the background are the crashes and waves of the US imperium, menacing comfort and ravaging peace. All of this is a reminder that individual humanity is the best antidote to rapacious power.

Through the film, the exhausting sense of media, that estate ever present but not always listening, comes through. This point is significant enough; the media at least in terms of the traditional fourth estate put huge stock in the release of material from WikiLeaks in 2010, hailing the effort and praising the man behind it. But relations soured, and tabloid nastiness set in. The Left found tell-all information and tales of Hillary Clinton too much to handle while the Right, having initially revelled in the revelations of WikiLeaks in 2016, took to demonising the herald. Perversely, in the United States, accord was reached across a good number of political denizens: Assange had to go, and to go, he had to be prosecuted in the United Kingdom and extradited to the United States.

The documentary covers the usual highlights without overly pressing the viewer. A decent run-up is given to the Ecuadorian stint lasting 7 years, with Assanges bundling out, and the Old Bailey proceedings covering extradition. But Shipton and Stella Moris are the ones who provide the balancing acts in this mission to aid the man they both love.

Shipton, at points, seems tired and disgusted, his face abstracted in pain. He is dedicated, because the mission of a father is to be such. His son is in, as he puts it, the shit, and he is going to damn well shovel him out of it. But there is nothing blindingly optimistic about the endeavour.

The film has faced, as with its subject, the usual problems of distribution and discussion. When Assange is mentioned, the dull minded exit for fear of reputation, and the hysterical pronounce and pounce. In Gabriel Shiptons words, All of the negative propaganda and character assassination is so pervasive that many people in the sector and the traditional distribution outlets dont want to be seen as engaging in advocacy for Julian.

Where Assange goes, the power monopolies recoil. Distribution and the review of a documentary such as Ithaka is bound to face problems in the face of such a compromised, potted media terrain. Assange is a reminder of plague in the patient of democracy, pox on the body politic.

Despite these efforts, Shipton and Assanges new wife are wandering minds, filled with experiences of hurt and hope. Shipton, in particular, gives off a smell of resignation before the execution. Its not in the sense of Candide, where Panglossian glory occupies the mind and we accept that the lot delved out is the best possible of all possible worlds. Shipton offers something else: things can only get worse, but he would still do it again. As we all should, when finding our way to Ithaka.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Read the rest here:
Julian Assange In Ithaka| Countercurrents

Julian Assange Extradition to U.S. an ‘Outrageous Betrayal,’ Lawmakers Say

British and Australian lawmakers have reacted with anger to U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel's decision to approve the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States.

Assange, an Australian citizen, faces 17 charges in the U.S. under the Espionage Act relating to classified documents that were leaked in 2010 and 2011, which the U.S. says broke the law and endangered lives. The documents obtained by WikiLeaks revealed that 66,000 civilians had been killed by Iraqi forces and that the U.S. military had killed hundreds of civilians during the war in Afghanistan in previously undisclosed incidents.

Patel's decision was met with anger by politicians in the United Kingdom and Australia on Friday.

"The decision by the UK Govt to approve extradition of Julian Assange to the US is an outrageous betrayal of rule of law, media freedom and human rights," tweeted Australian independent MP Andrew Wilkie. He added that Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese "must pick up the phone now and demand an end to this madness."

Jeremy Corbyn, a British MP and former leader of the country's Labour Party tweeted: "The Home Secretary's decision to allow Julian Assange's extradition to the US is utterly wrong and marks a very dark day for press freedom and the justice system."

"We will continue the fight to free Julian Assange," he said.

Labour MP Richard Burgon expressed a similar sentiment, tweeting: "Disgraceful decision by Priti Patel to approve the extradition of Julian Assange to the USA. There he faces the rest of his life in prison for his journalistic work exposing war crimes in US-led wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. This decision strikes a blow to press freedom."

Claudia Webbe, an independent British MP, tweeted: "Julian Assange is a hero for exposing war crimes of the USA. Just the type of person Priti Patel prefers in jail, far away from the ability to expose more truth."

"The news that the UK has decided to extradite Julian Assange to the US makes me feel sick and deeply saddened," tweeted Australian Senator Jordan Steele-John of the Green Party. "Julian can not be left to die in prison. The Aus Government must intervene @AlboMP it's time to pick up the phone to Washington," he added, tagging the prime minister's Twitter account.

Others also weighed in on the news of Assange's possible extradition on Friday.

The International Federation of Journalists' official Twitter account said: "The UK decision to allow the extradition of Assange is vindictive and a real blow to media freedom. He has simply exposed issues that were in the public interest and Patel's failure to acknowledge this is shameful and sets a terrible precedent."

"The same people who brought you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with all their attendant death, destruction and criminality are now telling you it's imperative to destroy the life of Julian Assange because HE is a threat to our national security," tweeted former U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson.

Patel's move comes after the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that Assange could be extradited in March. Westminster Magistrates' Court in London then formally ordered his extradition in April, sending the matter to Patel for a final decision.

Assange now has 14 days to appeal the decision.

Update 06/17/22, 9 a.m. ET: This article was updated to include more information.

Read more:
Julian Assange Extradition to U.S. an 'Outrageous Betrayal,' Lawmakers Say

UK govt orders Julian Assange’s extradition; appeal planned

LONDON (AP) The British government on Friday ordered the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States to face spying charges, a milestone but not the end of a decade-long legal saga sparked by his website's publication of classified U.S. documents.

WikiLeaks said it would challenge the order, and Assange's lawyers have 14 days to lodge an appeal.

Were not at the end of the road here," said Assange's wife, Stella Assange. Were going to fight this.

Julian Assange has battled in British courts for years to avoid being sent to the U.S., where he faces 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse.

American prosecutors say the Australian citizen helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.

To his supporters, Assange, 50, is a secrecy-busting journalist who exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British court ruled in April that Assange could be sent to face trial in the U.S., sending the case to the U.K. government for a decision. Britains interior minister, Home Secretary Priti Patel, signed an order on Friday authorizing Assanges extradition.

The Home Office said in a statement that the government had to approve his move to the U.S. because the U.K. courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr. Assange.

Barry Pollack, Assanges U.S. lawyer, said it was disappointing news that should concern anyone who cares about the First Amendment and the right to publish.

Assange's lawyers said they would mount a new legal challenge, and legal experts say the case could take months or even years more to conclude.

"We will appeal this all the way, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights, Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson said.

Robinson asked U.S. President Joe Biden to drop the charges brought against Assange during Donald Trump's presidency, arguing they posed a grave threat to free speech.

During a press conference outside the British Consulate in New York City, Assanges father, John Shipton, also urged the U.S. to drop the prosecution.

All it will take is a simple telephone call from Attorney General Merrick Garland to the home secretary in the United Kingdom to drop these charges. Thats all it will take. Its not complex, he said.

Assange's supporters and lawyers maintain he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. They argue that the case is politically motivated, that he would face inhumane treatment and be unable to get a fair trial in the U.S.

Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said the British governments complicity in the political persecution of a journalist simply for revealing uncomfortable truths to the public is appalling, wrong and shames our country.

Stella Assange, a lawyer who married her husband in a prison ceremony in March, said the U.K. decision marked a dark day for press freedom and for British democracy.

Julian did nothing wrong, she said. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and a publisher, and he is being punished for doing his job.

Friday's decision came after a legal battle that went all the way to the U.K. Supreme Court.

A British district court judge initially rejected the extradition request on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. U.S. authorities later provided assurances that the WikiLeaks founder wouldnt face the severe treatment that his lawyers said would put his physical and mental health at risk.

Those assurances led Britain's High Court and Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's ruling.

Journalism organizations and human rights groups had called on Britain to refuse the extradition request. Assanges lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted in the U.S., though American authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower than that.

Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard said Friday that extraditing Assange would put him at great risk and sends a chilling message to journalists the world over.

Assange remains in London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, where he has been since he was arrested in 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that, he spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but British judges have kept Assange in prison pending the outcome of the extradition case.

Assanges supporters say his physical and mental health are both under strain. Stella Assange told a news conference that her husbands condition was deteriorating by the day.

I spoke to him last night as well and he had a lot of anxiety. He couldnt sleep, she said. But Julian is a fighter.

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Bobby Caina Calvan in New York contributed.

Go here to see the original:
UK govt orders Julian Assange's extradition; appeal planned

Julian Assange Can Be Extradited To U.S., Says UK Government

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange could now be extradited from the UK to the U.S.

The decision was rubberstamped by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel this morning and Assange now has 14 days to appeal.

The Home Office said the extradition would not be incompatible with his human rights and that while in the U.S. he will be treated appropriately.

Wikileaks said on Twitter it is a dark day for press freedom and British democracy, adding, Julian did nothing wrong. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and publisher, and is being punished for doing his job.

Assange has been in the UK for the past three years and was arrested and incarcerated in HMP Belmarsh in April 2019 for breaching bail, with multiple extradition hearings taking place during this time.

The U.S. Justice department filed 17 charges against Assange for violating the Espionage Act alleging that material obtained by Wikileaks endangered lives, but Asssanges legal team claimed that classified documents published by Wikileaks, which related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, exposed U.S. wrongdoing and were in the public interest.

Link:
Julian Assange Can Be Extradited To U.S., Says UK Government