The recent BBC coverage of the indictment and pending extradition of Richard O’Dwyer for abetting internet piracy has been pretty overtly biased in favor of the defendant.
The main thrust of O’Dwyer’s story, the way the BBC tells it, is that the young man is facing serious consequences from a foreign legal system for “simply linking” to illegal content. The legal question was, until yesterday’s court decision, whether or not what he’d done was a crime under UK law. In his live reports from outside the courthouse on the BBC News Channel yesterday (Jan. 13), BBC correspondent constantly sanitized O’Dwyer’s alleged act by saying the he “simply linked” to illegal content. At one point the reporter clearly stressed the words “simply linking”, raising his voice to emphasize the point.
The legal charges against O’Dwyer do not refer to his actions as “simply” anything. That’s a BBC editorial decision, revealing the report’s personal opinion of the legal issue at hand. He did it over and over again, so it must be condoned by BBC News bosses.
The BBC News Online article is less overtly opinionated, but does give plenty of space to the defendant’s complaints. The article also relates the pure speculation from O’Dwyer and his lawyer that he’s being used as a “guinea pig” by US authorities in their efforts expand their powers to enforce copyright law. Then there’s the sympathy from Victoria Derbyshire.
Essentially, the BBC is presenting O’Dwyer as an innocent student, who did nothing wrong, and is being treated unfairly by a grasping US. But there’s some important background context which the BBC curiously fails to provide, and which makes a lot of difference in how the audience might understand the story. Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know (h/t pounce for the extra info):
After the authorities originally shut down O’Dwyer’s website in June 2010, he started up a mirror site. This lovable little innocent student included “F*ck the Police” in the title. He also put up a photo of the police-hating old rap group, NWA. This is not the behavior of someone who doesn’t realize he’s done anything illegal. O’Dwyer knew perfectly well what he was doing the entire time: deliberately abetting criminal acts.
That bit of context might have made the reader view things a bit differently back in November, when the BBC was fretting that the poor dear would be “at risk” if extradited, a lost little lamb amongst hardened criminals in the US justice system. At least in that article, the phrasing I’ve been complaining about was presented as the words of O’Dwyer’s lawyer, rather than a BBC reporter’s explanation:
Mr Cooper argued the site did not store copyright material but merely pointed users to other sites where they could download films and TV shows.
“Merely”, “simply”, what’s a few million acts of media piracy among friends, eh? So why does the BBC allow O’Dwyer to play all innocent, that he was “surprised” when the cops showed up on his doorstep in November, five months after his original site was shut down and he started it up again with an anti-police taunt?
We heard the same BS, unquestioned by the BBC, in Friday’s coverage. The BBC has been very sympathetic to this criminal, going out of their way to portray him not only as someone who should not be extradited to the US, but who really hasn’t even done anything wrong. Even though the facts show that he knew perfectly well what he was doing, and kept doing it even after being told it was illegal.
I wonder how the BBC would spin things if a US citizen was extradited to the UK for helping people around the world pirate BBC content?
This is one item I don’t agree with. Extradition for this sort of thing is way over the top and completely unbalanced between the US and the UK. One qustion that did come up, and Preiser doesn’t mention it, is: why isn’t Google prosecuted for linking to copyright material?
Whether I agree with it or not, printing true information, i.e. a link to a site that contains copyright material should be seen as freedom of speech. Surely the sites that contain the copyright material are the ones to go for?
O’Dwyer is actually providing a public service to owners of copyright material by providing them with information on such sites.
If these sites are out of jurisdiction, that is a matter for governments. Security through obscurity never works.
I completely agree with you. The USA extradition treaty is one-sided and unfair. And the European Arrest Warrant is similarly against all commonly accepted fairness. Both should either be renegotiated or withdrawn.
Brian,your opinion on whether or not someone should be extradited for inking to pirated contnet is irrelevant. This is about the facts of what happened, and the BBC’s editorializing. The BBC is giving a legal opinion on O’Dwyer’s actions. You and others may object to the extradition treaty, but that’s got nothing to do with the BBC reporting as if this isn’t a criminal act at all.
O’Dwyer is providing a public service? Seriously? Since when to altruistic lambs say “F*ck The Police”?
Then you say that this is a matter for goverments. Well, the governments are deaing with it.
I don’t have to mention Google at all. This isn’t about search engine results. This is about O’Dwyer deliberately abetting internet piracy, getting busted for it, and the BBC saying that’s not what he did. In any case, Google doesn’t deliberately link to anything other than their paying customers (who get top ranking), and doesn’t put F*ck The Police in their header.
YouTube employees don’t post material that violates copyright law. They have a disclaimer which tells users like you not to do it, and that YouTube won’t be responsible for it. When someone complains about coypright violation on YouTube, they pull the content. This is the exact opposite of what O’Dwyer did, so your point about Google doesn’t wash.
The US Congress, as it happens, has been trying, at the behest of the RIAA and Hollywood donors, to pass a law which will do exactly that. It’s called the Stop Online Piracy Act, and a vote was temporarily halted only yesterday due to complaints from Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla, as well as a massive outcry from ordinary citizems. The law would have, among other things, forced Google and any search engine provider to rewrite their entire code to block sites from appearing in search results. The law would have also given the Dept. of Justice the power to do all sorts of things without due process of law. Where is the BBC reporting on that?
Did the BBC mention SOPA? No?
This kid gets the one way ticket … hey! nobody can do “owt” treatment.”
with a possible “out of sight/out of mind” finale.
but el beeb, chakrabati, and everyone else and gods dog, is drivelling about, getting specials made, radio on-sites, still about getting muslim terrorists/ would be mass murderers out of gitmo hmmm!
“US citizen extradited to the UK for helping people around the world pirate BBC content?” … gulp! ????????? should be many more question marks after that đŸ˜€ … like what?
re runs of richard bacon, life of moh, v. drearybyshire …
jeez!, gitmo open the gates, i couldn t stand anymore of that đŸ˜€
Re Google, it could be that Google are doing a lot and making every effort to combat online piracy etc:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/09/making-copyright-work-better-online.html
“There is plenty more to be done, and we look forward to further refining and improving our processes in ways that help both rightsholders and users”
Not sure this is THE reason or the WHOLE reason but it is something.
In which case why not at first go for a prosecution in the UK to get his to stop or take out a civil case?
In 2008 Google gave Obama nearly $900,000 dollars for his election campaign. Need I say more?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Look at the other contributors then you will work out why no bankers are in jail.
A skinny white kid from England isn’t going to help Barry get re-elected is he?
Martin, Google’s influence might have something to do with SOPA getting shelved, but they clearly don’t have the power to stop this kid getting extradited or even charged with a crime. Notice, though, how the BBC has been silent on SOPA even though it screamingly relevant to this story. Don’t want people to think The Obamessiah is beholden to Hollywood or anything.
I agree with Brian.
1. Extradition Treaties should be balanced. ie. US citizens can be extradicted without a case being established, which is what happens in the UK. Ditto for the EU
2. If there is a crime committed in the UK, then the UK authorities should prosecute the crime.
3. If no crime is committed in the UK, then there should be no extradition.
The US or any other country should not apply laws extraterritorially.
And that the bbc has for once got a report right, it’s probably for the wrong reasons.
So it’s okay if the BBC editorializes if you agree with them?
I’m not saying that David. But, I believe that the extradition treaty between our countries has been flawed from the start. This is yet another legacy of the Tony Blair years of socialism. The man, and his regime were a complete disaster area. The bbc are contemptible in all respects. The fact that they are reporting on an issue which I agree has something wrong with it, doesn’t mean that I agree with the bbc. At all. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
No you’re right David, but there is an issue that white males can get sent to the USA without any real fuss (except from their mothers it appears) but if you’re a Muslim terrorist not only does the USA not seem that bothered (can’t remember the last time the USA asked about Abu Hamza) the whole human rights industry seems to come out in support of them.
This kid might be an idiot, but I suggest Abu Hamza and his ilk are more of a threat to you and your family than he ever will be.
I bet if this kid were black and from Hackney we’d see the usual suspects (Imran Khan, that cross dresser bloke lawyer and the really short human rights woman) all lined up in front of the TV cameras.
3. If no crime is committed in the UK, then there should be no extradition.
Unless agreed by both countries, which is what is happening, I think.
“I wonder how the BBC would spin things if a US citizen was extradited to the UK for helping people around the world pirate BBC content?”
Who in their right mind would want to nick stuff from the BBC?
Dr Who fans? Oh you said ‘in their right mind’ – my bad.
Oy, stop it…
From what I remember from the news on the day, most people they spoke to for an opinion on this stated that what he did was not an offence in the UK.
In fact the Daily Mail stated “Legal experts say this is not an offence under British law, and he did not download any of the entertainment himself.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086310/Richard-ODwyer-extradition-Student-faces-10-years-US-jail-echo-Gary-McKinnon.html#ixzz1jXyGjteL
As Mr O’Dwyer has never set foot in the USA to commit an offence there, I would suggest the good chaps at the US DoJ concentrate on people like drug smuggler’s and the bankstas at Goldman (hang on that’s most of the CIA, the Wight House & Tres Dep staff) and the plethora of other more deserving criminals than go looking for an excuse to through their weight around!
If he didn’t commit a crime under UK law, then what business have we got in extraditing him!
Surely all the UK can ask of its citizens is that they obey British laws whilst on UK soil, rather than taking action against them for things that aren’t even an offence over here!
What next? Extraditing someone to Saudi for having sex outside of wedlock, or extraditing someone to Thailand for criticising their king?!?
Jeff
Even according to BBC reporting, US lawyers were able to prove in a UK court that O’Dwyer’s act was also a criminal offense in the UK. That’s how the treaty works.
But let me repeat: whether or not we think is cool is irrelevant. The point is that the BBC has made an editorial position on a legal issue. Even if you agree with the BBC’s position on this issue, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for them to engage in biased reporting.
The main charge we hear from drive-bys is that we only want to hear our own opinion parrotted by the BBC. I say this is wrong.
Reads like the trolls don’t like America “throwing its weight around” and are playing the “batting for Britain” card. Tosh fellas. The guy is no hero any more than Gary McKinnon. They just dont like it up’em when they get nicked. I await O’Dyer being suddenly diagnosed by his lawyer as suffering Aspergers.
If your looking for a troll you’ll not find one under this bridge.
What you will find is someone that thinks the extradition treaty with the USA is unbalanced, I also think that if what he has done was an offence here in the UK he should be arrested, charged and tried for the offence in a UK court, but since that has not happened why should he be extradited to face trial in the US? just because It’s against the law in Afghanistan to eat a bacon sandwich should I be extradited there because I had one for breakfast?
As for Gary McKinnon, he should be charged and tried in the UK although the CPS say they wont prosecute him what he did was an offence under the computer misuse act 1990.
What we don’t need is team America world police forcing their laws on us, if its something that needs legislating for we have a load of dross in Westminster to do that for us.
Oh and as for not liking America, wrong, love the place, lived in Dallas & Houston Tx, when I was a kid, would love to have there constitution here, they’ve been the biggest force for freedom and this country best friend, but they have to get past the notion that they have a right to tell the world to do as they say, not as they do.
I think the Gary McKinnon thing is totally OTT.
He should have been hauled before UK magistrates years ago, given 100 hours of community service and a suspended prison sentence, and that should have been the end of the matter!
He was a kid pratting around in his bedroom, not a Russian spy, for crying out loud!
We need a prime minister like the Hugh Grant in Love Actually – Someone with the balls to stand up and be counted! And btw, I’m no fan of Alex Salmond or Scottish independence, but if Salmond were Scottish PM, I can’t see him letting Uncle Sam, the EU or anyone else tell Scotland what to do! Britain has needed a PM like that ever since Maggie left office!
Jeff
So long as Abu fucking Hamza is on the same plane then I agree.
As this is a topical news item, I feel the need to get informed on this before commenting too much.
Going in, I do have a basic distate for the notion of other countries yanking UK citizens over to their legal system without the very best of reasons.
However, this is a blog about BBC bias, so I also have a concern about a national broadcasting machine that may not inform me fully on all the background and issues surrounding this case, as that would again suggest less a desire for facts or truth, but more a drive to create opinion based on agenda.
And that… is not what is meant to be going on.
Debates about the rights or wrongs of extradition treaties can be interesting and worthy of an OT sidebar, but are not really relevant. At best distracting on that basis; at worst deliberately designed that way.
The opinions above, pro or con, are valid. That context is witheld in getting to these, and/or with added editorial adds personal adjectives in mitigation to further skew matters, are not.
You make a good point, the article as posted by DP is correct in that the BBC left out some facts to bend the story to suit them, like I said in my post below, I have mixed feelings on this, if we were sending over Muslims terrorists then I’d not have much of an issue, but we’re not and that is an issue the BBC chooses to ignore.
Yep, I agree with you Martin, that said, I bet they just want trash like that whereas we give them a bit house, pay tens of thousands in benefits and all the time he is laughing openly right back at us.
My Site (C2E): Exactly. That’s the point.
I have not seen the details of the alleged crime but lets get some perspective first.
Infringement of copyright is in itself not a crime. This is a civil matter and the owner of copyright must bring a case against the person he alleged infringed his rights in civil court.
If copyright material is sold without due rights then this becomes a criminal offence.
I have not seen any indication that O’Dwyer benefited financially from links to the copyright material.
The music and film industry have significant financial hooks into virtually every politician worth his salt and has been punting the line about this being a crime. They have continually bleated on about theft of material. However they have never been down this road because this material can never be stolen as the originator has never been deprived of possession.
O’Dwyer earned over 200 grand from advertising revenue for his site. If I earned that much money driving bank robbers to the bank, I’d be guilty of earning money abetting a crime, wouldn’t I?
If I’m sitting in a park and point at illegal activity going on under a tree, is that a crime by me? I’m pointing to crimes by others, which makes me a rat for law enforcement at most, who should expect a reward. So why don’t they do their jobs and go after those whom I’m pointing at and get off my back?
In short, this whole Linkgate is a giant abuse of govt. power. Why would the U.S. want him extradited when the First Amendment should totally protect him up to the top? Answer: OBAMA, an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, who thinks he can piss on it like Marines do on Taliban corpses.
So it’s okay for the BBC to be biased if you agree with them?
I have mixed feelings on this matter. We seem to be able to extradite white English males to the USA quite easily, the “uman rites” legislation doesn’t seem to matter.
But if you’re a hook handed Muslim, then the law seems to operate on a different level.
Regarding the BBC’s coverage, I wish they’d be more interesested in getting IRA scum that are still living in the USA extradited back to the UK.
I do wonder if this particular case and that of McKinnon can’t be done in a UK court, if some kid in a bedroom can hack NASA and the Pentagon, then a few bushy beared morons in Pakistan will be doing far worse.
I’d like to see Youtube and Google prosecuted for the same thing, but I’m betting that Google gives a lot of money to the Obama re-election fund, so that won’t happen.
Whatever the merits of the current extradition treaty with the US – David Presier’s main point remains. The BBC has tried to sanitise the guy, has not reported all the facts and context.
As ever – it is editorialising, not reporting.
I’d also add to David that back in the 70’s and 80’s IRA terrorists were not extradited from the USA to the UK because America considered their ‘crimes’ as political.
So David that still angers many of us who saw the USA picking and choosing what it thought was a crime. It’s why the current extradition laws are far too one sided.
Wonder if there`s some student makeover programme in this?
O`Dwyer and Charlie Gilmour have clearely been put in Daniel Radcliffes dressing up box…or else Gyles Brandreths jumpers anyway.
All my time at universities and it`s rare to see such clean and earnest students with mum asd they go to court.
Is this Matrix Chambers advice these days…a leaflet and some eyedrops a la Bambi?
I too resent the USA having this power, but -like David P-I can spot selective use of language to use the rioters defence so we don`t go too deep.
“Linking with?”…isn`t that grooming, incitement if applied to drugs, terror or paedophile stuff?
What`s the difference-if you point people helpfully into illegal acts,then you`re guilty of incitement or aiding and abetting aren`t you?
Or are some crimes to be indulged as long as it suits the Beeb.
Any links why no-one should pay the license fee and nick Mark Thompsons car?
Note too that the same BBC that keeps insisiting that we have to view Islamic terrorism, union violence and Diane Abbot’s texts ‘in context’ never mentions the European Arrest Warrant here.
Hey, at least you have to have committed an actual offence under British law to get extradited to the US and the Sceptics recongise Habeus Corpus (sp?). Meanwhile, you can be extradicted to any EU country for stuff that’s perfectly legal in Britain and with no guarantee of a trial anytime soon. One British lad spent 4 years in a Greek jail without so much as seeing the shadow of a judge. When are we ever going to hear from *his* mum?
(Ditto, if the BBC has to feature mummy saying how disgusted she is with ‘this government’s treaty’ they could at least point out that it isn’t actually ‘this government’s treaty’ – even Ed Balls would have to admit it was already in place long before the election)
Reading some of the comments here, show’s exactly how the propaganda that oozes out of the bBC brainwashes people. Look at yourselves and ask why do I hate the US extradition treaty so much?
Is it because everybody who the US wants is a victim?
Is it because everybody the US wants has committed a crime?
Or is it because negative reporting paints a picture which you accept as the truth because as we all know the US can only be evil.
Years ago I did the Nijmegen marches and on the sunday all the marching contingents march into the wooden hall in which to introduce ourselves and when the Americans came in, everybody started chanting “Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam” that was because everybody presumed that the Americans couldn’t fight. Yet the facts be told the Americans did not lose militarily in Vietnam yet the mass media promotes this view that they did. This was perfectly illustrated after 9/11 when every man and his dog pointed out that this would be the new Vietnam, really? The Americans took the country and to this day the cost to the Americans has been 1875 deaths. Now compare that to the Vietnam war where the Americans lost 58,000 men over a similar time frame. No contest. Yet the myth prevails that the current campaign in Afghanistan is a meat grinder.
The Europeans have never liked the Americans, simply because the so called dregs of Europe built a far better society than the one they left behind and you know what the political elites don’t like it and they do all they can in which to promote themselves as still superior.
And so it is with the extradition process, oh how the people hate sending anybody to America, I mean we all know Assange and Polanski are playing the system to get off rape and that they played the courts systems in which to bog down their extradition warrants. People have mentioned that Muslims are more of a risk to the UK than this poor little mummy’s boy, yet the very people shouting out his innocence are the same ones who bitch about crime in the Uk. You know those little thugs who are treated so leniently by the system until that is the person in the dock is the seed of your loin then they can only be innocent, the person pressing charges is evil and sugar wouldn’t melt in his mouth.
The problem we have here people is years of political indoctrination has led to a system where the victims are the guilty and the guilty are the innocent. Think I’m lying, ask yourself this , if you found out your rug rat had committed a crime and nobody knew, would you shop him?
And there people is the state of affairs in the UK, the decline of moral standards. Which is why so many people feel that DP is in the wrong for pointing out the otherside to this story, you know that part about this little prick starting up another website 2 days after his first one was closed by a court order. Thus demolishing his and his supporters argument that he is an innocent child.
So many people harking back for the good old days you know when the local bobby could clip your children and all that. Until that is he clips your child and then you want to sue. That people is the country we live in today, I’m alright jack and I for don’t like it.
Have to agree with the respondents. The Yanks should keeps the paws off our lad. Un-equal treaty and all that,
Next the yanks will be expediting 19 yr olds for drinkin booze. The BBC is right on this one, tell Obama to shove his extradition order where the sun don’t shine.
‘The BBC is right on this one’
I’m intrigued.
How can the BBC be ‘right’ on reporting matters of fact… and especially not reporting other aspects? Even the concept of journalism being ‘right’, at least in the way I presume this is meant, is dueced odd.
That would seem to be a worrying precedent. To all. Especially if.. when such selective application of what is mentioned.. or not.. gets applied in other areas where the balck hole is an area more dear to the hearts of those currently comfortable with advocacy over reporting.
As a point of information despite the protestations of both the UK and US authorities the UK-US Extradition Treaty is unbalanced in favour of the US. In practice all the US has to show in a UK court is that the bureaucratic process of extradition application undertaken in the US has been correct ie that all the boxes have been ticked and that the correct signatures have been affixed to the paper. In the US (whatever the claims of the UK and US authorities) the UK authorities have to show prima facie evidence that the extraditee (?) committed the alleged crime.
The US authorities – and the US Embassy in London – lie their heads off claiming a complete equivalence and, frankly, for the US the new treaty is a great improvement on the 1972 treaty (hence the unanimous approval by the Senate for the new treaty). This Chatham House Paper provides an interesting overview of the existing (and) previous treaties. Suffice it to say, as far as “equivalence” is concerned, under the old treaty, both sides had to show “probable cause” (ie prima facie evidence): under the existing treaty the US need only show “reasonable suspicion” concerning the crime and the UK must continue to demonstrate “probable cause”. I’m not a lawyer but in a negotiation on a contract (or treaty) a difference – or change – in wording is inserted for a reason.
The new Extradition Act 2003, under which the terms of this treaty became law in the UK, was rubber-stamped by the (Labour) government and was never (AFAIAA) debated at any length in the new Parliament. As has now become customary it was “timetabled” through our legislature. In any event, why should UK or US citizens have to stand trial in a foreign country in the absence of prima facie evidence submitted and ruled on in their own country? Sure it’s “effcient” (as is the European Arrest Warrant) but it’s not justice. Remember, the whole point of the formality of a justice system is to protect the innocent: punshing the guilty is important but should always IMHO take second place to that.
Meanwhile, as David Preiser writes, whatever the rights and wrongs of the treaty and O’Dwyer’s treatment, the BBC has not reported in an impartial manner. FWIW my opinion is that the US authorities – particularly, as it happens, the IRS – are always seeking to extend their legal jurisdiction extraterritorially. Again, in my opinion, admirer and friend of the US though I am, I still consider that our rulers should give a hearty f**k off to any attempt by the US (or anyone else) to extend its enforcement efforts to our legal and other systems unless such efforts can be controlled effectively by our courts. But those are my opinions. I’m not legally bound (as is the BBC) to report impartially both generally and to visitors to this site.
Umbongo, my opinion isn’t all that different from yours. Unlike the BBC, though, I do think O’Dwyer is guilty of abbetting media piracy, and should face some kind of legal consequences. But a large fine, surely, and a ban of some kind from owning a website for a while, not all this overheated stuff. But this is the power of the RIAA and Hollywood, and is the result of them owning Congressmen like the guy who started SOPA.
I’m against the SOPA and Protect-IP (the Senate version) in that they give the Government the power to do things on a whim, without due process of law. Because the US justice system puts a huge amount of store in precedents, these powers could easily be extended into vastly different areas of law, if new laws are written with the appropriate language. Not good at all. This President has already done massive extra-legal power grabs – none of which have been reported by the BBC, naturally – and the US Justice Dept. is out of control as it is. Fortunately, these bills are being shelved for now until they get watered down. That’s thanks to lobbying efforts by Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and lots and lots of phone calls and emails from angry citizens.
But my opinion of the legal issue is irrelevant. The BBC took sides, and a biased position on a legal issue. Next time a defender of the indefensible declares that we just want the BBC to tell us what we want to hear, we’ll have to remember this incident.
DP
I don’t think we disagree at all on the substantive issue relevant to this site. All I (and I think you) want is for consumers of the BBC product to be given sufficient straightforward information by the BBC to make up our own minds and not be “guided” to a BBC-acceptable conclusion by the way the BBC chooses to skew (or omit) the information it does provide.