Julian Assange Is Incarcerated In HMP Prison Belmarsh
Image Source Bexley Times HMP Belmarsh Prison
How long was he jailed for?
The Sun, by Paul Harper, 13th May 2019.
On May 1, 2019, Assange was jailed for 50 weeks for hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy and jumping bail.
The 47-year-old “apologised unreservedly” claiming he feared he would be “kidnapped” by the US because of his works with the whistle-blower website.
But Assange was jailed for close to the maximum one-year sentence as the judge told him he still “had a choice” and put himself deliberately out of reach of the law.
Assange’s lawyers told Southwark Crown Court that he had been consumed by fears he would be kidnapped and “forcibly taken” to the US, which had indicted him over leaking of information with intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.
Assange’s defence lawyer Mark Summers QC, said: “As threats rained down on him from America, they overshadowed everything as far as he was concerned.
“They dominated his thoughts. They were not invented by him, they were gripping him throughout.”
Mr Summers said Assange’s fears that he could face extradition from Sweden to the US were well founded and “not a figment of his imagination”.
Sweden at the time, he said, had a “well documented and unfortunate history” of sending “people to states where they were at significant risk of ill treatment including torture and death”.
In criminal cases, the conflict is generally between the state and a person or persons.
Promote freedom of expression on Internet: Why Internet intermediaries matter?
Internet intermediaries play a unique role in linking authors of content and audiences. They have a critical role in either protecting or jeopardizing end user rights to free expression, given their function in capturing, storing, searching, sharing, transferring and processing large amount of information, data and user-generated content comments, blogs or citizen-journalism posts. This role is particularly prominent with search engines and internet-service providers
(ISPs), hosting providers, cloud computing services, online social networks and media houses.
UNESCO is interested in how the services provided by such actors impact freedom of expression. While intermediaries may enable freedom of expression in powerful ways, they also face distinct challenges including:
a) addressing content that may be illegitimate in terms of international standards;
b) content that is illegal in terms of national laws or internationally enforceable law;
c) content that is legal but merits certain restrictions; and
d) content that is offensive in the eyes of some but that does not justify restriction.
The issue of freedom of expression as faced by Internet intermediaries can be complex since it is intertwined with many other concerns such as security, privacy, and etc. These issues should be addressed in this study inasmuch as they directly affect freedom of expression in particular cases. Continue reading →
2017 United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights – EU contribution
The EU will continue to cooperate with States and other stakeholders globally to implement the three pillars of the UN . Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “The State duty to protect human rights“, “The corporate responsibility to protect” and “Access to remedy”.28 Nov 2017 (eeas.europa.eu).
A Swedish court in July 2014 upheld its detention order on Julian Assange, reaffirming the legal basis for an international warrant for the WikiLeaks founder which has kept him hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy.
Abstract from consortiumnews.com on 13th May 2019
Sweden’s deputy director of public prosecution, Eva-Marie Persson, said Monday that Sweden would seek the extradition of Julian Assange to face a nearly ten-year old allegation of rape. On the same day the United States unveiled a sealed indictment accusing Assange of intrusion into a government computer. The U.S. also filed an extradition request for Assange.
Persson told a press conference in Stockholm on Monday that it would be up to British authorities to determine which extradition request—to Sweden or to the U.S.— would take precedence.
Britain may take the opportunity to wash its hands of the politically thorny case of extraditing a publisher to the United States by sending him to Sweden instead, though Persson said Assange could not then be extradited to the U.S. from Sweden without Britain’s consent.