Jimmy Wales Got a Little Testy with Reporters About the O’Dwyer Case

    July 5, 2012
    Drew Bowling
    Comments are off for this post.

In spite of what appeared to be a decision from the United Kingdom’s Home Office to continue with the extradition of accused copyright-infringer Richard O’Dwyer to the United States, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales maintains that reports of the Home Office’s decision are false.

On Tuesday, V3 published a comment from U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May’s office saying that it would not halt the extradition of O’Dwyer, who is being sought to stand trial in the United States in spite of not committing any crime there and not having clearly broken any law in the United Kingdom. However, following the report, Wales took to Twitter to dismiss the statements from the UK Home Office and insisted that all accounts affirming the Home Office’s decision were incorrect.

In fact, he just about goes all out Braveheart on some of the people repeating that the U.K. Home Office won’t halt the extradition.




Aside from correcting multiple journalists for reporting a statement that was provided to V3 about the O’Dwyer extradition and confidently claiming that statement is untrue, Wales says that his efforts to stop the extradition are far from over.


I hope that Wales’ insistence that the UK Home Office wouldn’t risk a public relations nightmare by not meeting with him has some merit. He’s obviously got some clout and given he has the ears of notables like Jimmy Carter and Richard Branson, hopefully he’ll be able to rally some high-profile names to add to the legion of internet supporters that have gathered around O’Dwyer’s cause.

Then again, maybe the UK Home Office cares not for public opinion over sustaining cozy relations with the U.S. government.

At any rate, godspeed, Mr. Wales.

  • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

    It’s a difficult situation no matter how you look at it.

    Whether the law supposedly violated is right or wrong, is an action taken, supported or performed which may violate a law over the Internet in a jurisdiction different from where one is physically present not a violation of that law?

    With the Internet involved, does one necessarily have to be in a given country to commit a crime in that country for it to be a violation of the law?

    Were the case involving malicious hacking or enticement or child pornography, would things be different? Or, is it only different when one disagrees with the law supposedly violated?

    Personally, I think this is a mine-field going forward. Consider the case of a totalitarian country, some other country is trying to curry favor with, who wants a dissident extradited who is in that other country. Contrast that with an identity theft ring operated in one region of the world which is stealing identities from the rest of the world.

    Where does one draw the line?

  • Dan

    What is really outrageous here is that a non-UK citizen thinks he can get a meeting with a Cabinet minister just like that. I can’t get a meeting with the assistant to her assistant’s assistant, and I live, vote and pay my taxes here.

    Maybe I’ll pop over next week and ask Hilary what she can do about it? Do you think that will be ok? She could take some time off from that whole Syria / Russia / China gig she’s doing and come and have some lunch with a foreign national private citizen.