[yuriko]

> I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case!

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.

[gamblor956]

This is not a criminal case, it is is an extradition hearing.

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.

[ugopapa]

Let's not make it look like "more than a dozen" articles is even close to enough coverage. If this was an extradition hearing for somebody to be extradited to China or Russia for the same reasons, there would be hundreds of articles for each hearing session.

[gamblor956]

More than a dozen news articles for each day of the hearing by the major newspapers is more than enough coverage.

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.

[torified]

It is relevant if you are against systematic extrajudicial murder and illegal spying or torture, and think the rule of law is worth following.

But if you aren't, then yeah, not relevant.

[gamblor956]

If you believe in the rule of law, there is substantial evidence that assange broke the laws of multiple countries, so you may just as easily be on the other side of this debate.

[sdfqasdghj]

If you believe in the rule of law you would want the potential war crimes investigated long before you would imprison the journalist that exposed them.