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

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#11

Post by nirvana »

gadders wrote: post #9
nirvana wrote: post #2

The 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.

How can consensual sex be assault? Even in the UK?

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#12

Post by three4s »

nirvana wrote: post #5
three4s wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

>This isn't reddit.

Look how intellectually superior I am to everyone else. Fix'd

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#13

Post by nirvana »

michael_nielsen wrote: post #6
nirvana wrote: post #2

The 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...".

I did read the article. I saw nothing in it that contradicts my position. I haven't seen any statements from others that contradict my understanding of the facts.

Your comment doesn't provide me any understanding of your disagreement with my position.

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#14

Post by kalleboo »

nirvana wrote: post #10
kalleboo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

You don't need facts to be in dispute for there to be a case. E.g. in a patent lawsuit nobody's debating that Android doesn't have slide to unlock. The debate is if it's an infringement.

Similarly, here the trial isn't what he did, it's if what he did was unlawful. Obviously someone thinks it was, and someone doesn't.

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#15

Post by nirvana »

three4s wrote: post #12
nirvana wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>This isn't reddit. Look how intellectually superior I am to everyone else. Fix'd

Generally responses where you mischaracterize what someone has said are not preferred on this forum. That is what I'm saying, and you continue to do it.

Effectively, you're just calling me names. In this example, you're claiming that I'm saying I'm "intellectually superior" as a way of implying that I don't have any argument other than being smug.

In doing so, you cut out my actual explanations and have ignored my arguments.

If you're going to disagree with me, I have no chance to even understand why, unless you explain your position.

You have not done so.

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#16

Post by [deleted] »

nirvana wrote: post #13
michael_nielsen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...".

I did read the article. I saw nothing in it that contradicts my position. I haven't seen any statements from others that contradict my understanding of the facts. Your comment doesn't provide me any understanding of your disagreement with my position.

[deleted]

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#17

Post by three4s »

nirvana wrote: post #15
three4s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This isn't reddit. Look how intellectually superior I am to everyone else. Fix'd

Generally responses where you mischaracterize what someone has said are not preferred on this forum. That is what I'm saying, and you continue to do it. Effectively, you're just calling me names. In this example, you're claiming that I'm saying I'm "intellectually superior" as a way of implying that I don't have any argument other than being smug. In doing so, you cut out my actual explanations and have ignored my ar…

Why, this the internet is serial business for you huh?

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#18

Post by loeg »

nirvana wrote: post #11
gadders wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How can consensual sex be assault? Even in the UK?

The same way as in this case… sex under false pretenses is not consensual; i.e., it is sexual assault / rape.

An example of this might be pretending to be someone's wife to sleep with him. While this might appear consensual to you, this is sexual assault because the victim may have chosen not to consent if he had been given the truth at the time of the assault.

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#19

Post by michael_nielsen »

nirvana wrote: post #13
michael_nielsen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...".

I did read the article. I saw nothing in it that contradicts my position. I haven't seen any statements from others that contradict my understanding of the facts. Your comment doesn't provide me any understanding of your disagreement with my position.

Your original comment began by stating "I don't have 46 minutes to spare on a strong headline, but I will say this...".

You have since edited that out. So you appear to have read the article after writing your comment.

On your last sentence: I didn't comment on your position one way or the other.

Re: Sex, Lies and Julian Assange

#20

Post by laserDinosaur »

three4s wrote: post #3
nirvana wrote: post #2

The 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

Go back to reddit.
Post reply on HN