This is the problem with where you balance free speech versus everything else. In the USA with the exception of national security, judges err on the side of free speech. In the EU it's on whatever is opposing it. eg blackmail., libel, hate speech, offensive speech, privacy etc. And in this case if the information is publicly available and is accurate then IMHO it's a great shame that it's been censored. I also think that the crime for blackmail should be to make the threat but NOT to publicize already public information.

Secondly it seems this is just another example of the law online going down to the lowest common denominator. What is the point of having the first amendment in the USA if some foreign court can gut it when they see fit (and Wikipedia is incorporated in the USA)? Part of the point of living in the USA is that you trade in some security (eg high gini coefficient, little welfare state compared to Europe) and in return you get more liberty (both personal and financial). Here though you get screwed both ways - getting the stringencies of both systems.

When the USA 'asks' for something it quite often is in fact an implicit demand. All sorts of behind the scenes sanctions applied when things don't go its way. For example this occurred when Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the lockerbie suspect) was freed because he had cancer. He was also appealing his conviction and there was good reason to believe that he was going to get off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi

But the USA still screamed bloody murder. This despite that Tony Gauci, the chief prosecution witness at the trial, was alleged to have been paid $2 million for testifying against Megrahi. Mebo's owner (the company that made the timer), Edwin Bollier, claimed that in 1991 the FBI offered him $4 million to testify that the timer fragment found near the scene of the crash was part of a Mebo MST-13 timer supplied to Libya. A Former employee of Mebo, Ulrich Lumpert, swore in an affidavit in July 2007 that he had stolen a prototype MST-13 timer in 1989, and had handed it over to "a person officially investigating the Lockerbie case". So there was all this exculpatory evidence and yet the USA still wanted him locked up. There were calls for intelligence sanctions on the UK as a result.

If the prosecutors and the administration chose not to be complete douchebags, they could at their own discretion choose not to pursue this case. Deciding to ask for extradition is entirely discretionary.

People are angry because the USA is being a bully and it can get away with it because it's a super power.

Firstly if you think for one moment that prisons in the USA are going to provide appropriate mental health treatment you are living on another planet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601629.html

Secondly the issue with prisons in the USA is very much about punishment. Why is this guy liable to get up to 70 years in prison? It's about revenge. 70 years = dieing in prison - no option in being rehabilitated and existing later on outside prison in such a state. If it was about rehabilitation the sentence would be 6 months to a year in a treatment facility.

And is all the rape that is common in American prisons part of the rehab? Maybe on your planet it is - not on this one.

If you took the time to actually read what I was responding to you would see that myowntrueself said:

"I don't believe the brain-wiring problem thing, not for a moment; its an affectation. An eccentricity."

All I have been trying to say is that there is plenty of evidence that there is a neurophysiological basis for it and that saying one doesn't 'believe it' ignores the evidence. It's plain unscientific to for a layman to just suddenly 'not believe' in some area of research that they are no familiar with. How does he 'KNOW' that it's an eccentricity? How can he be so sure in the light of so much evidence. It's plain stupid to ignore all the last decade of research in neuroscience - and to be so sure that one 'doesn't believe it for one minute'.

Secondly if you as you claim are not familiar with the issue why are you suggesting to use your own words 'this guy has real concerns as a layman about the underlying causes of Asbergers'. If you don't know much about this area how would you know if this person's concerns are legitimate? Maybe they are just ignorant??? Maybe you are too and it would appropriate for you to read up on this area before you spout off.

As to your Ad hominem arguments, I wont bother to grace them with a response. Stick to the science!