Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
abc.net.au
Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#2The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual.
Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant?
Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is, or that this came up after he became very famous, or that the US might be trying to extradite him. None of that matters- there isn't even an alleged crime here[1].
[1] I'm using the word "crime" here in the moral sense. There are lots of things that are not crimes but that are against the law. Since governments are not beholden to morality, laws that cause the violation of rights are themselves crimes. So, something simply being illegal doesn't make it a crime.
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#3The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
>I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this
I can't be assed to properly asses the situation so let me give you my uneducated opinion. Fix'd
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#4The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
The video shows how the first woman even accompanied him to other events the next couple of days or so and tweeted about it. That doesn't exactly sound like what a woman who was "sexually assaulted", let alone raped, would do. And he slept at her place again after that, too.
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#5The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
>I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this I can't be assed to properly asses the situation so let me give you my uneducated opinion. Fix'd
Oh, sorry, I am not uneducated. I have read a great deal of accounts on this issue back when the charges were first leveled. I have heard the story from both sides in interviews, saw the tweets, looked into the charges and the law itself.
I have no idea whether this program is good or not, but there is a key point about the situation, and I made it.
I find it interesting that you assume that because I didn't watch this particular program I'm "uneducated".... yet you have no problem giving me that derogatory characterization without actually showing where I was in error on anything I said.
This isn't reddit. Yet.
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#6The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
Please don't write a (top-level) comment if you don't have time to read the article.
EDIT: The parent comment has now been edited to remove the original starting sentence: "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...".
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#7The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
Please don't write a (top-level) comment if you don't have time to read the article. EDIT: The parent comment has now been edited to remove the original starting sentence: "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...".
It's interesting to get a perspective of what a sample of the general population might believe though - unless we should start censoring people, though that's not a great road to go down either.. probably worse than trolling even..
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#8The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem.
From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, since you need a lot of evidence and stuff.
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#9The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
I don't think your reading of the offence is correct Certainly the UK Extradition Judge in his first hearing thought he had a case to answer, and had the offence occurred in the UK it would probably be classed as sexual assault.
Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
#10The charge is that he had consensual sex with these women and prosecutors decided it was "rape" because they didn't use protection. Weeks after the fact, when they wanted him for other reasons. They aren't even claiming that it wasn't consensual. Thus the only thing I wonder about this case is how can anyone pretend like this is a legitimate warrant? Everyone consented, there was no crime. Forget about who Assange is…
Courts and policemen don't make decisions based on interviews with the press, or what some internet commenter thinks is a crime or not. There's a reason trials exist, to find out if a crime was committed or not. Assange won't even show up to the trial. If he's so sure he didn't commit a crime, it ought not be a problem. From what I've read it's pretty hard to convict people using the existing rape laws in Sweden, sin…
I think you missed my point. My point is that a crime was not committed, based on the present facts. The law itself criminalizes a non-crime.
I'm not saying trials are unnecessary, I'm pointing out there isn't any dispute on the basic facts of the case. In almost every trial there is- the prosecution says he did it, the defendant says he didn't.
Here both sides say the same thing about what happened. IT is the law that is the crime, but the law will not be put on trial if there is a trial. (They don't even do that in the USA anymore, even though that was the foundation of our system.)