I disagree. He's British, and allegedly committed a crime in Britain, against British law. He should be tried and, if found guilty, punished in Britain. Why is that not happening?
It may be the case that he has also committed a crime in the US. If Britain feels that the crime he is supposed to have committed in the US is heinous enough in nature to extradite him, then the proper procedures should be followed of course. However, if the crime is not heinous enough to cause a prosecution of him in Britain, it is not heinous enough to extradite him to the US.
In Thailand, I believe it is illegal to insult the person of the King. If someone in the UK insults the Thai king on the internet in a racially-aggravated way (and funding the site via advertisements), but not heinously enough to cause a prosecution in the UK, should they be extradited to Thailand to face prosecution there? I'd argue that they shouldn't and that this fictitious case is almost identical in nature to the one under discussion.
Your allegory is flawed (I believe) as I cannot imagine how one could facilitate copyright violation for pirating CDs remotely, in a way that is merely speech and is illegal in the host country and would cause extradition to face prosecution. Can you fill that detail in for me?
(The idea that there is a crime of facilitating copyright violation is nauseating, by the way. That's similar to the UK's offence of possessing information that may be of use to a terrorist. In practice, almost anything can be outlawed that way; the law is so broad as to be useless for punishing any single offence and capable of punishing any offence.)
It may be the case that he has also committed a crime in the US. If Britain feels that the crime he is supposed to have committed in the US is heinous enough in nature to extradite him, then the proper procedures should be followed of course. However, if the crime is not heinous enough to cause a prosecution of him in Britain, it is not heinous enough to extradite him to the US.
In Thailand, I believe it is illegal to insult the person of the King. If someone in the UK insults the Thai king on the internet in a racially-aggravated way (and funding the site via advertisements), but not heinously enough to cause a prosecution in the UK, should they be extradited to Thailand to face prosecution there? I'd argue that they shouldn't and that this fictitious case is almost identical in nature to the one under discussion.
Your allegory is flawed (I believe) as I cannot imagine how one could facilitate copyright violation for pirating CDs remotely, in a way that is merely speech and is illegal in the host country and would cause extradition to face prosecution. Can you fill that detail in for me?
(The idea that there is a crime of facilitating copyright violation is nauseating, by the way. That's similar to the UK's offence of possessing information that may be of use to a terrorist. In practice, almost anything can be outlawed that way; the law is so broad as to be useless for punishing any single offence and capable of punishing any offence.)