Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 377 posts

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#151

Post by hallihax »

brohee wrote: post #137
hallihax wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a spurious argument - and setting aside the Guccifer 2.0 sub-plot to the whole scam - Wikileaks has absolutely no requirement to be neutral. Their job is to publish things powerful people don't want published. That's it. Why should WL be on your side? Why shouldn't WL release info damaging to Clinton? It's hardly Assange's fault the US keeps committing war crimes and engaging in blatant corruption, is it…

The issue is that in this specific case, it was willingly publishing things powerful people wanted to be published. (Also I'm euro and don't have a dog in this fight, I just lost all respect for Assange and Wikileaks).

You're confusing correlation with causation. It doesn't matter who or what stood to gain from Clinton's emails being published; unless you can demonstrate an illegal conspiracy (which you can't), there's nothing to say. WL did their job, nothing more.

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#152

Post by ralfn »

Come on people. We don't have a lot of information to judge on. But if we are having a debate about the meaning of rape, then we are all side stepping the incredible high chance this is politically motivated nonsense.

Nobody had ever been extradited for this sort of thing. Sweden is special in that it enabled it based on a testimony, even after the testimony has been revoked and without the victims pressing charges or even agreeing with the interpretation of the police.

This is not an example of the legal system taking too much liberty of the notion of rape. This is much more likely an example of state level conspiracy.

Men are not under threat, sharing potentially incriminating information about the USA just means that nobody is playing by any rules.

Don't embarrass yourself or others to have this debate about rape. As an academic exercise, sure go ahead, but this case does not prove that rape laws in Sweden are used unfairly. It just proves Sweden, like most smaller Western nation's have little choice but do what the big man in Washington whispers in their ears.

This also does not prove Assange is guilt free. But at least if we want to maintain any illusion that we live in a free world: he is a deserved a court case about the actual actions that are fuelling this hunt.

So please just don't use the word rape and Assange in the same sentence. It's a disservice to actual victims, whistle blowers and our cultural identity as such.

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#153

Post by HunOL »

mikeash wrote: post #103
duchenne wrote: post #26

Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…

If you think people would misunderstand “rape” in this way, I’d suggest you spend your effort educating people who don’t understand the word, rather than trying to “correct” people using the word to mean what it means.

Well, solution would be introducing two new terms to solve this problem.

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#154

Post by tarcyanm »

Assange himself and the rape charges have been politicized to such an extent that I find it essentially meaningless to pontificate about what may or may not have happened in Sweden. His character has been debated endlessly, but when one thinks of what WikiLeaks has actually revealed, I find it totally likely that a systematic effort was made to curtail him: https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/1116916146458877952/...

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#155

Post by OskarS »

gsnedders wrote: post #139
thecatspaw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one cannot consent if one is not conscious would that negate previously established consent? As in "hey if you wanna wake me up tomorrow with sex that would be nice"

At least under English law, you cannot provide consent in advance; you must have the ability to provide and withdraw consent at the time of the act.

Generally speaking, regardless of what your local laws are, "don't have sex with unconcious people, ever" is a good policy to have as a human being.

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#156

Post by thatoneuser »

duchenne wrote: post #26

Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…

Why isn't it rape/sexual batter for a woman to have sex without bc then? Or at least to have sex without bc if she made the guy think she had it? How did men's reproductive rights get passed over while women's are comprehensive?

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#157

Post by lawlessone »

roenxi wrote: post #148
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. Even if they had consensual sex previously. Am I misunderstanding your comment?

It is certainly possible, but in this instance there are a couple of issues that reduce that to a pretty weird complaint. I mean, if two people have sex and then sleep in the same bed overnight, and one of the two attempts to continue having sex in the morning ... if you wanna call that rape, rape might not even be a moral crime. Just a technical one. It is diluting the word to the point where it is meaningless. In t…

>I mean, if two people have sex and then sleep in the same bednight, and one of the two attempts to continue having sex in the morning ... if you wanna call that rape, rape might not even be a moral crime.

Nah , that's rape, one of the parties was unconscious .

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#159

Post by GoblinSlayer »

gsnedders wrote: post #132
mieseratte wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. I mean, that's a very grey and complicated area. I had an ex who would do that type of thing, and it was never discussed but was absolutely welcome. I suppose after the first time you could argue some type of implicit consent. Or maybe I'm just a Stockholm Syndrome candidate. I have no idea the dyn…

At least in England and Sweden, it is definitely the case that one cannot consent if one is not conscious, and therefore consent has not been given, therefore an offence has been committed. I believe this is true in the US as well. Consent has to be given prior to each occurrence, and therefore prior consent means nothing about future consent. See, for example, the High Court judgment (linked elsewhere in this thread…

>England

Buy a sleep penetration license :)

Re: Sweden reopens Assange rape investigation, to seek extradition

#160

Post by roenxi »

lawlessone wrote: post #157
roenxi wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly possible, but in this instance there are a couple of issues that reduce that to a pretty weird complaint. I mean, if two people have sex and then sleep in the same bed overnight, and one of the two attempts to continue having sex in the morning ... if you wanna call that rape, rape might not even be a moral crime. Just a technical one. It is diluting the word to the point where it is meaningless. In t…

>I mean, if two people have sex and then sleep in the same bednight, and one of the two attempts to continue having sex in the morning ... if you wanna call that rape, rape might not even be a moral crime. Nah , that's rape, one of the parties was unconscious .

Are you talking legally or practically? Because practically being asleep and unconscious [0] are different things. Legally I'm not sure what the common jurisdictions accept.

And, again, that is trivialising rape. Under that sort of definition, there would be a lot of men and women who get raped and literally just wouldn't believe a crime had happened. Might be the legal state of affairs, but it is also clearly stupid.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciousness

EDIT I mean, I'd expect to know a bunch of people who are rapists under that sort of standard. I don't know who they'd be, but it wouldn't be an uncommon set of circumstances.

EDIT2 in response to dragonwriter I've added a citation to Wikipedia which does differentiate between normal sleep and unconsciousness (at least as of when I checked :P). Obviously the line is blurry if you want it to be.

Post reply on HN