Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Assange Has Signed Book Deals Worth $1.5 Million+

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the that's-a-lotta-leaks dept.

Crime 452

cold fjord writes "Julian Assange has signed a major book deal for his autobiography worth more than one million pounds (1.2 million euros, 1.5 million dollars). Assange told Britain's Sunday Times newspaper that the money would help him defend himself against allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden. 'I don't want to write this book, but I have to,' he said. 'I have already spent 200,000 pounds for legal costs and I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat.' The Australian said he would receive 800,000 dollars (600,000 euros) from Alfred A. Knopf, his American publisher, and a British deal with Canongate is worth 325,000 pounds (380,000 euros, 500,000 dollars). Money from other markets and serialisation is expected to raise the total to 1.1 million pounds, he said. Assange is currently out on £240,000 bail under what his lawyer refers to as not so much 'house arrest' as 'manor arrest', fighting extradition to Sweden for questioning. The Telegraph adds, 'Mr Assange said he regarded himself as a victim of Left-wing radicalism. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,' he said. 'I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.' .... A full extradition hearing is due in London on February 7th."

cancel ×

452 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

strange brew that's also good for you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675600)

That would be home made Kombucha.

Sellout (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675758)

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way Assange blows

Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (5, Interesting)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675608)

I wouldn't read too much into Assange's claims of revolutionary feminism being at fault. It's too hard to know whether he's someone playing fast and loose with sexual morals or a victim of jealousy - both seem very plausible given the parties involved.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675666)

Innocent until proven guilty.

All we know is that a controversial figure is being charged with "sex by surprise" after being accused by two women who didn't decide to report him until after they met each other. Even then, charges were filed, then dropped, then filed again.

He may be guilty, but I don't see any evidence. If this is all they can put in front of the jury, he should be found not guilty.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675748)

Even if he is guilty does that matter? The guy has an ego but is that really surprising? To openly defy the biggest bully on the planet you need to be a bit crazy/weird/different.

I don't care about his sexual exploits as long as it doesn't stop the great work that Wikileaks is doing.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675856)

Innocent until proven guilty.

All we know is that a controversial figure is being charged with "sex by surprise" after being accused by two women who didn't decide to report him until after they met each other. Even then, charges were filed, then dropped, then filed again.

He may be guilty, but I don't see any evidence. If this is all they can put in front of the jury, he should be found not guilty.

We like to think of them as damsels in distress or innocent little princesses, but the truth is women lie. A lot. About very serious matters like rape. They will continue to do so as long as the consequences to them are so non-existant. Something like 30% of all US rape accusations turn out to be false.

For all crimes, for both men and women, if you knowingly lie and knowingly make a false criminal accusation against someone, you should face whatever penalty that person would have faced if convicted.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (4, Interesting)

qbast (1265706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676050)

And how exactly do you determine "false"? Do you also count situations when victim got threatened into dropping charges or rapist got out on technicality?

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676260)

I would think it would be for situations where they have been found to be knowingly lying. Of course, this would be a difficult detail to find out, so it probably wouldn't be used too often.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676360)

And how exactly do you determine "false"? Do you also count situations when victim got threatened into dropping charges or rapist got out on technicality?

Those "technicalities" are the cornerstone of modern society, you know. Let them go, and we're back to...

BEDEVERE:
          What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
          Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
          A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
          I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
          Burn her anyway!

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (3, Informative)

superdana (1211758) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675860)

There is no such crime as "sex by surprise." This fictitious crime was invented by Dana Kennedy at AOL News and has been widely debunked. Assange is accused of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion. See http://jessicavalenti.com/2010/12/10/aol-news-at-the-center-of-%E2%80%9Csex-by-surprise%E2%80%9D-lie-in-assanges-rape-case/ [jessicavalenti.com]

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676402)

There is no such crime as "sex by surprise."

Well, duh. I read that as "some non-specific sex crime the women made up after the fact".

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (2, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675894)

The charges are bull: http://www.nma.tv/guardian-details-sex-charges-julian-assange/ [www.nma.tv]

(Actually I like this one better: http://www.nma.tv/wikileaks-keeps-on-publishing-despitearrest/ [www.nma.tv] )

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676460)

In soviet Sweden, the charges bull you?

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676204)

Innocent until proven guilty?

If only... his point about Sweden being the Saudi Arabia of feminism is correct. It's the model that most Western countries are working towards too - one in which all a woman has to do is accuse a man of rape to completely ruin his life. She walks away anonymous. His reputation is completely destroyed - and probably loses his job and friends. Rape accusations have become the way for women to ensure custody of children in divorces, promotions or just get revenge.

The ridiculous unbalancing of the legal system is now being used for political purposes too.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676320)

+1

I'm Swedish and the parent is spot on. If Assange is guilty of rape I really hope some of my old girlfriends don't have any grudges since I'm apparently guilty of the same as well.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676332)

I love how Americans always assume there's a jury. You know Sweden employs actual professionals to judge guilt, right? We don't pack a room full of impressionable amateurs and ask their opinion, after a bunch of lawyers tries every trick in the book to influence them emotionally or by citing technicalities they're not qualified to understand, wasting countless tax dollars in those drawn-out soap operas you calls trials.

Yeah, I had that on my mind for a while..

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675882)

It's too hard to know whether he's someone playing fast and loose with sexual morals or a victim of jealousy - both seem very plausible given the parties involved.

Why do you say that?

It's true that there is a distinct possibility of either being true, but what exactly makes you say that it seems "very plausible given the parties involved" that it's a case of someone "playing fast and loose with sexual morals"? Does Julian Assange have a history of sexual aggression? Is he a well-known womanizer? Does he have a reputation as someone who needs a new pair of tits to play with every other day?

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676024)

No, but he's a well-known megalomaniac with a history of believing that only his version of morality is correct and constantly blames others for his own actions. Does that work for you?

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1)

qbast (1265706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676082)

No, but he has been consistently portrayed as egoistic, self-aggrandizing asshole.Hell, even a lot of Slashdotters is repeating that, trying to show how balanced and unbiased they are.

it was (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675978)

you know that it was as such, when the perpetrators of the case first merrily publish blog posts titled 'how to take revenge on him through legal system', telling how disgruntled women should abuse the legal system to exact revenge on males, and then delete the post once the internet community becomes aware of it.

Re:it was (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676234)

Source please?

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676170)

We have the specifics. No means no and the woman in question never said it.

Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (1, Redundant)

revscat (35618) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676366)

You know, it's fascinating that your list doesn't include the most plausible explanation: "being railroaded by the US." Assange's persecution is entirely about politics. He has embarrassed America and damaged the credibility of its foreign policy apparatus, as well as that of other governments. If you really think that the charges against him have anything to do with their merit, them I'm sorry but you are naive to the point of idiocy.

1.2 million euro (-1)

Spyware23 (1260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675620)

It's "euro", not "euros", unless he gets paid with 1.2 million coins.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675684)

Re:1.2 million euro (-1)

Spyware23 (1260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675742)

The euro is an international currency, the Anglo-sphere can try to "regulate" language all they want, but it just looks foolish. There is a reason why we use euro/euros for different things: "This game costs twenty euro. I had a bill of fifty euro yesterday, but I spent most of it on clothing. Oh wait, I still have twenty euros in my pocket, I can pay for it!"

Re:1.2 million euro (2)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675780)

As a linguist, I'd say that the side arguing for no marking of the plural in "euro" is just as guilty of prescriptivism as the side arguing against.

Re:1.2 million euro (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675858)

The euro is an international currency, the Anglo-sphere can try to "regulate" language all they want, but it just looks foolish. There is a reason why we use euro/euros for different things: "This game costs twenty euro. I had a bill of fifty euro yesterday, but I spent most of it on clothing. Oh wait, I still have twenty euros in my pocket, I can pay for it!"

No-one cares. The point was communicated, that's what counts. Language is a fluid thing -- despite the futile attempts by those from Dr Johnson onwards to bend it into conformity. It's arbitrary, and artificial. Bending and breaking words to suit worked for Shakespeare. Conformity is the enemy of creativity.

Grammar nazis may wish to live in a sterile world -- but most of us don't. Give it a rest.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

qbast (1265706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676130)

Point is also communicated if you ignore punctuation, spelling and (in most cases) grammar altogether. And no, being too ignorant or lazy to spell properly does not make you creative or nonconformist.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676256)

"Language is fluid" and all the rest of that is really code for "I'm too lazy and stupid to learn to use language effectively."

Re:1.2 million euro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676326)

amen

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676174)

The only "regulation" involved here (aside from your attempt at it) is to let speakers of each language handle the plural form as they normally would for the name of any other currency.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675744)

At this point, that might be the only way he can receive payment.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675968)

You are wrong. The currency may be the euro but the plural of euro is still euros. Just like there is the dollar and you are paid in dollars. Just like there is the GBP and you are paid in pounds. Just like there is the yuan and you are paid in yuans. So please don't try to bastardize the language to fit your misconceptions.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675990)

I was more bothered by the fact that the summary used dollars, pounds, and euros, and then didn't bother to specify if the dollars were Australian or US.

Re:1.2 million euro (1)

macson_g (1551397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676418)

Or East Caribbean, Bahamian, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Canadian, Fiji, Guyana, Hong Kong, Jamaican, Kiribati, Liberian, Namibian, New Zealand, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Surinamese, New Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago or Tuvaluan dollars for that matter.

Indeed! (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675640)

Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

Re:Indeed! (1)

DeBaas (470886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675736)

I'm still hoping for a surprise party

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675806)

Can you fit two people in your basement?

Re:Indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675768)

Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

That's one of the worst way to find out about it.

Re:Indeed! (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675906)

He's behind you!

Re:Indeed! (2)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675992)

Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

No need, the matter appears as if it could be more substantial than that.

Interpol, based in Lyon in eastern France, later said it had received an arrest warrant for the extradition of Assange.

The Stockholm district court on Thursday ordered an arrest warrant for Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, for questioning on "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" in Sweden in August. Sweden issues global warrant for Assange [thelocal.se]

Re:Indeed! (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676040)

Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

If I were trying to make "sex by surprise" with someone I would not want s/he to give me head. There can be painful consequences if the victim bites.

Mr Assange? Say hello to... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675654)

...Uncle Sam's undercover female spy/setup network, you've been had.

Of course announcing your "deals" for books and whatever wasn't a bright move neither, Uncle Sam will be busy going after that next.

Clearly you don't play chess much.

Re:Mr Assange? Say hello to... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675846)

Yea, I'm sure Uncle Sam is going to tax the shit out of a non US citizen for income earned overseas. I'm also sure that if he did owe US taxes he wouldn't pay them.

Clearly you're fucking retarded.

That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675660)

That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some over priced phone calls.

The delicious irony of it all (2, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676142)

That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some over priced phone calls.

Unless the money is guaranteed, maybe not, since his biggest fans are the very ones most likely to steal... ahem, "share" the Kindle version.

Deserves release of draft PDF (5, Funny)

keehun (1966090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675682)

If there was anything deserving of a WikiLeaks leak, it's this book before it's published in its pdf form. Teach Assange a lesson.

Re:Deserves release of draft PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675704)

I don't pay tax to Assange to write a book. I do however pay tax to my government and I do expect that they don't keep any secrets from me.

Re:Deserves release of draft PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676066)

False equivalence. You are advocating copyright infringement against Assange. The documents published by WikiLeaks are not copyrighted (otherwise WikiLeaks would have been sued for copyright infringement).

hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675696)

I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat

So is he waffling on his long-time insistence that he is not wikileaks, but merely a member?

Re:hmm (4, Interesting)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675818)

well to be honest if it wasn't for what he did the site would of been ignored like cryptome. in which case just getting the leaked documents would of done nothing if the site they were leaked too was ignored and derided as fake if actually brought up as cryptome often is. he became both the figurehead and the pr man for wikileaks not only approaching normal newspapers with the information to give them good story's but saying to other people who know of wrong doing and don't know where to leak the information, you can give it to me.

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675896)

Agreed. He is not Wikileaks, but he makes valuable contributions to the organization.

By the way it's 'would have' not 'would of'.

Rape allegations (4, Interesting)

superdana (1211758) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675734)

I know this is probably asking too much of Slashdot, but in discussing the rape allegations against Assange, let's please remember that it's well within the realm of possibility for all three of the following to be true simultaneously:
  1. Wikileaks is important, and we should promote its continued existence.
  2. The tactics in use by various governments to pursue the rape allegations against Assange are politically motivated.
  3. The rape allegations are true and Assange should be held to account.

(Please note that I am saying these three things can all be true at the same time, not that any one or all of them necessarily are.)

Many falsehoods have been spread about the allegations against Assange. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case." [1] (I very strongly urge you to read her piece in its entirety.)

Please don't let your admiration for Assange's work with Wikileaks prevent you from taking seriously an accusation of rape. Rape is a serious crime, and accusations of rape need to be taken seriously, even if—perhaps especially if—they are made against people we otherwise consider to be heroic.

[1] "Some Shit I'm Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange": http://kateharding.info/2010/12/16/some-shit-im-sick-of-hearing-regarding-rape-and-assange/ [kateharding.info]

Re:Rape allegations (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675930)

Please don't let your admiration for Assange's work with Wikileaks prevent you from taking seriously an accusation of rape. Rape is a serious crime, and accusations of rape need to be taken seriously, even ifperhaps especially ifthey are made against people we otherwise consider to be heroic.

Look, I know that in this day and age we are not supposed to say it, but a line does have to be drawn somewhere when it comes to defining rape. If the women claimed that they had been drugged, or that they never consented to have sex with Assange, I would be a bit more willing to hear their claims of rape. However, both women did consent, but are claiming that Assange went "too far" and failed to stop on command -- continuing to have sex with a broken condom, having sex while one of them was asleep, etc. If we start to call these things rape, then a lot of people out there are going to be implicated, including an ex-girlfriend of mine (to be clear, I would not even consider accusing her of raping me).

Either "rape" means violence, or it does not. I agree with the Huffington Post piece quoted in that blog post you linked to: we should not conflate what Assange did the sort of violent crime that most people think of when they think "rape." The last thing we need is for "rape" to refer to things that are so commonplace that people forget that there are truly dangerous rapists out there.

Re:Rape allegations (2)

JasperHW (710218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676090)

Rape doesn't mean violence. It means sex without consent. Your personal interpretation of the word and desire for a specific meaning is irrelevant. Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind? At what point in your mind is she committed and her wishes no longer matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape [wikipedia.org]

Re:Rape allegations (1, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676220)

Rape doesn't mean violence

If "rape" does not mean "violence," then we should not throw rapists in prison. Are you arguing that rapists should be free to walk around, because they are not violent criminals?

Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind?

Are you trying to say that one women can be raped? What if a man changes his mind about having sex?

My original point can be summarized as this: Assange did things that a lot of people do, and that few people would call "rape" or would even consider to be criminal. If you are going to say that what Assange did is "rape," then there are a lot of rapists out there, far more than anyone should be comfortable with. Like I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and in my opinion, we are being far too liberal with the use of the word "rape" when it comes to Assange's actions.

Re:Rape allegations (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676390)

Insane feminist double-think.

It's right up to the point that any "evidence" in court other than say-so becomes meaningless. Basically... if you've got your cock in her and spooged, and then she changes her mind... what fucking meaning does a rape charge have? It's an accusation that can (and does, frequently) ruin a man's life out of spite and revenge... and all because people like you want to count angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Re:Rape allegations (1, Insightful)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676190)

From what I've read this seems to boil down to a he said she said case from two women that discovered they were sleeping with the same man. Rape is a serious charge and should be only upheld with serious evidence there is far to much ambiguity from my perspective with these cases. The filing charges and dropping them and refiling seems fishy I wonder if Sweden has a filing false reports law or similar they could have used to compel these women to stick to there version of events? Further extradition for questioning? Sorry this just smacks of overreaching and punitive they are free to contact his lawyer and get a no response to any questions they might have there is no need to extradite him, charge him or drop it.

The part I don't understand is how does one have s (1)

melted (227442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676364)

The part I don't understand is how does one have sex with a woman while she's asleep? It takes quite a bit of time and effort to get her ready for sex when she's not asleep, and without doing that you could damage your boner (and would 100% guaranteed wake her up before you got a chance to do anything at all) if you tried to fuck her dry. I'd like to hear her explain how this is physically possible.

Re:Rape allegations (1)

Squapper (787068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676424)

Having sex with a sleeping person IS in fact defined as rape in Sweden. And to me it sounds quite reasonable that having sex with someone who isn't aware and thus can't give you consent should indeed be defined as rape in the rest of the world as well.

Re:Rape allegations (5, Interesting)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675948)

The tactics in use by various governments to pursue the rape allegations against Assange are politically motivated.

The rape allegations are true and Assange should be held to account.

It's pretty difficult for two statements like that to be simultaneously true. For it to be right to hold Assange to account, the allegations don't just need to be true (something which is unknowable), they need to be provable beyond reasonable doubt. If various powerful governments want your head and are prepared to use underhanded tactics in order to get it, it's very difficult to maintain that doubt is unreasonable.

Re:Rape allegations (-1, Troll)

X.25 (255792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675964)

Please don't let your admiration for Assange's work with Wikileaks prevent you from taking seriously an accusation of rape. Rape is a serious crime, and accusations of rape need to be taken seriously, even if--perhaps especially if--they are made against people we otherwise consider to be heroic.

I don't really give a fuck about Assange, but I am impressed with your stupidity.

You realize that he is not being charged with rape, you drooling retard?

Do people even READ these days, Jesus...

Re:Rape allegations (5, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675972)

The rape allegations are true and Assange should be held to account.

The problem is that people keep using that word - "Rape". It has an enormous number of negative connotations. Read the link you provided at kateharding.info - how many times does she use the "R" word? Rape, rape rape... From what we know of the Assange case, the women who he is accused of "raping" both continued to see him afterwards. One took him out for breakfast the next day, and paid for his train ticket back into Stockholm. Another arranged a party for him the next day, during which she twittered "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing." These are not the actions of women who have been raped - at least, not in the sense of what the majority of people consider the word "rape" to mean. Calling whatever supposedly happened between Assange and these women "rape" diminishes the word, and is grossly offensive to both men and women who have genuinely been the victims of forced sexual intercourse.

Re:Rape allegations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676194)

Read the link you provided at kateharding.info - how many times does she use the "R" word? Rape, rape rape...

What is this thread, it's like some unfunny remake of Blazing Saddles! :)

Re:Rape allegations (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675998)

You mean like the falsehood that he is a journalist???

He is the victim of his fame and not being able to turn his penis off .. nothing more. We've seen the same story told a many times, famous guy gets paraded in front of the press because he will screw anyone anytime. And someone he screwed either got pissed off or he actually did something wrong.

Yawn .. nothing to see here. Can we move onto some real news????

there is no fucking rape .... (0, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676008)

this 'rape' wordage regarding this business befuddles me. the women CONSENSUALLY had sex with the person. then, they have openly and legally declared that the sex was consensual. EVEN after the rape allegations.

yet, fscking american media still talks of 'rape'. when you look into legalese of that rape in swedish law, it comes up as something that more than half of american males would be charged with, every few months in their lives.

yet, whore of an 'opinionated entertainment' (in their own legalese) channels like fox and whatnot still fool the gullible with talk of 'rape'.

but i digress. really. its too much effort.

if, one is that gullible enough to be manipulated like that, like a moron, they should be let to be manipulated and exploited. its their choice.

what should not be let, however, manipulators to manipulate much more people than could be dangerous, like mass media, fox, and other mouthpiece newswhores.

Re:Rape allegations (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676038)

What an amazing turn of words. To say that circumstances around claims and actions by those making the accusations are merely "tactics used to discredit rape victims everyday" is abhorrent. That's a shameless attempt to equate it to saying "she was probably asking for it". The truth is that those "tactics" are used to discredit all sorts of accusations about everything all the time. If you don't take these things into consideration when judging the validity of an accusation, then what the fuck else *is* there?

It's a horrible and sickening crime and that's why the accused should always be given full benefit of doubt and investigation of validity of such weighty claims must be thorough and unquestionable.

Merely googling phrases like "woman admits false rape claim" produce more than enough news articles for me to justify never merely accepting an accusation without intense scrutiny and certainly never believing the accused is guilty until proven well beyond any doubt. Of course, we protect accusers in this country, without affording the same right to the accused -- and their life is ruined forever after merely by the accusation, even if it is found to be false.

Remember the beginning of this year, when two women accused a man of rape . . . because they said the consensual sex wasn't very good?

Re:Rape allegations (4, Informative)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676070)

Many falsehoods have been spread about the allegations against Assange. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case." [1] (I very strongly urge you to read her piece in its entirety.)

I've read that post in its entirety, and most of the comments as well. I'm close to throwing up. By her own admission Harding is "an arrogant, man-hating cunt who hates free speech, can’t tolerate dissenting opinions, and lives to preserve [her] echo chamber of brainwashed sycophants". I agree fully. Most of these women advocate locking Assange away indefinitely without trial or hearing; anyone who mentions the evidence against the women (like those oh-so-caring/admiring Tweets about him the day after the alleged 'rape') gets immediately banned by Harding.

Given the apparent echo-chamber nature of reactions to the allegations on these feminist sites, I start to seriously lean towards discounting the women's statements and assuming innocence, given that word stands against word anyway.

Re:Rape allegations (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676084)

4) Once again, when a (self) important male is the focus, any women take a back seat.

In this case, we have someone who is important not merely because he says so, but because he's also waving a political banner. That means we can conveniently overlook that he's a serial scumbag. AND, because he's waving that oh so important banner, we shall cast doubt on the character and veracity of the women rather than the man.

Nothing to see here that you haven't seen before. Move along ladies.

Re:Rape allegations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676154)

Rape is about sexual contact, not STD risks.
In other words: if the victim is troubled by the sex, then it's rape. If the victim is ok with the sex and is only upset about the risks that she could have been infected with an STD, this is closer to endangering someone or harming someone than rape. It's still forced sexual contact, but I don't think it can be called rape if the victim says "I would have been OK with it if he had worn a condom". Calling that situation 'rape' cheapens the ordeal of the victims of real rape where sex is the issue regardless of use of protection against STDs.

I don't have all the facts about the Ardin/Assange case, but it seems very likely that Ardin is upset about Assange not using a condom rather than he having sex with her. If that's the case, then it's disgusting to say we should support Ardin like she's a real rape victim. She's a victim of being exposed to the risk of having an STD, not rape. Until she says the sex is the issue and she would feel raped even if Assange had used protection, then I won't consider it to be rape and neither should anyone else.

And ultimately, saying "Well, she enjoyed the sex but she did not consent to doing it without a condom, so it's still rape" will just make people not take rape victims very seriously.

Re:Rape allegations (3, Insightful)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676178)

In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case."

In a case with no physical evidence, the only defense is to try to discredit the witness! Yes, the guilty do this, but so must the innocent. To exclude the only possible defense--as the law often requires--means that justice is impossible. No wonder many dismiss the legal process in these cases outright.

The real problem is that a crime that produces no evidence and makes no impression on reality should not be such a serious matter. With less at stake the guilty can admit their wrong and accept a minor punishment; and the innocent need not be destroyed by the allegation itself.

Re:Rape allegations (2)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676352)

That's a good article. Though she has 2 conflicting statements.

She recognizes that this is far beyond the usual treatment and that it is definitely politically motivated. She also recognizes how much the media has tainted peoples views against the girls. However she then goes on to say that a fair trial should be pursued. Do you believe that a fair trial could ever be held now?

Additionally, given the time has lapsed, and that relative to more obvious cases of rape, this one seems particularly less like rape, such that there is no evidence (from what I've been reading, including her articles), that any such force took place, how are we supposed to prosecute when it's merely he said, she said? Essentially, we wouldn't be having a trial on what happened, but a trial on how the jurors perceive the character of the people in question. Something that is already tipped against men.

I just read the comments by people on her post, and they fall to the same problems as the people on the opposite side, they put words in their mouths, and infer that something (which has not been stated) happened, which would define this as clearly rape.

Lastly, from the Guardian...

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden [guardian.co.uk]

Now, neither Miss A nor Miss W say that they said no. While Miss A's statement suggests that she did something which should have been inferred as a no, Miss W outright says that she consented. Regardless of any half asleep state, however given she says she was "half asleep", the "surprise sex" part comes in with Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph 2 [scribd.com] of the Swedish laws in question, as she is likely saying she was improperly exploited due to this state. Where as the first one is relying on these other actions, and the condom breaking, to say that while she may have implicitly consented to sex, she didn't consent to unprotected sex, though he contests that he knew it was broken.

I just re-read the charges, and they are so light, that I could not be certain that in the usual course of events that I would not also violate the letter of these laws. It would reduce having sex to filming it, and ensuring that a contract is drawn up beforehand which outlined what can and can't be done.

All of this personally comes off as the least sympathetic/obvious rape case ever. With regards to Miss W, I'd throw that out immediately, while it may fit the letter of the law, I don't believe it fits the spirit. With regards to Miss A, her entire story sounds quite suspicious.

So taking into account all of the points above, I am still left abdicating that this be dropped, like it initially was by an unbiased/less politically motivated prosecutor, and that the UK should not deport/prosecute him themselves.

Re:Rape allegations (2)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676456)

Oh, though Miss A sounds quite suspicious, her charges at least warrant further investigation (and I believe are the primary ones the prosecution are looking into).

However, we can see that she does have an axe to grind, continued relatively as friends, and later was looking to make money off of it. Not to mention the rest of it, it all decreases the seriousness of her claim, and from the articles so far, I don't believe there's any evidence beyond their words, which are in opposition to each other.

So you're still left at the same conclusion.

Though, I just realized I err on the side of false negatives (beta), and not on false positives (alpha). I would rather a system be setup such that the likelihood of an incorrect verdict, is biased towards keeping people out of jail, than it is putting people in jail. Something other people might not agree on.

Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675750)

The more I read about Assange's political and societal beliefs, the more I wonder why he flirted with establishing residency in Sweden. He describes himself as a Libertarian when support for a welfare state at some level is practically universal among Swedes, and now he finds the country a hornets nest of wacko feminists.

Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675786)

He obviously did it for the impeccable poon. I mean, duh.

Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675898)

Because 'libertarian' doesn't mean what you think it means?

Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675924)

My understanding of libertarianism is minimal government with services being provided by free and voluntary associations of like-minded individuals instead of involuntary taxes. The only role of government is to ensure the freedom of people to establish those associations. This political philosophy does not accord at all with Sweden. Now, if I've misunderstood libertarianism, I'm open to correction.

Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (2)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676166)

The only role of government is to ensure the freedom of people to establish those associations.

And how is this to be interpreted? Should the government have a military, and a police force? What about a fire service - it's hard to ensure stability and freedom when a fire in a city threatens the entire city infrastructure because some houses are uninsured. And what about some basic health service - to deal with pandemics and other problems which affect national security (e.g. wars, terrorism)? And what about prosecuting people who leak classified data? Intelligence agencies? Where does that fit into libertarianism?

But when it comes to whatever Assange believes, you should just read the words of the man himself: [forbes.com]

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

        Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

        How do your leaks fit into that?

        To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

        There's the famous lemon example in the used car market. It's hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can't get a good price, even when they have a good car.

        By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there's a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.

        You've developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

        Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I've been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don't come from nowhere.

        It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

        WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (4, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676012)

Sweden has stronger protections for free-speech than his other options for residency. Look at The Pirate Bay - if it were in the U.S. or Russia or UK it would've been taken down long ago. As a resident of Sweden, he may also get the freedom to travel throughout the European Union, which would be useful as it gives him easy access to the 24-hour media of the West. Australian politicians have been signalling that they may want to prosecute him and confiscate his passport, so returning home isn't a wonderful prospect.

Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (5, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676372)

The Aussie politicians asked the federal police to see if Assange had broken any laws, they came back with a definite "no". Most of those politicains have now resorted to calling him irresponsible rather than criminal, the foriegn minister has said all along that WL has done nothing wrong by publishing leaks (even though some of those leaks were personally embarrasing to him). So far he has recieved much better treatment by the Aussie government than David Hicks did.

Profit (0)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675792)

1. Leak secret documents
2. Rape trial
3. ?
4. Profit!

"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675850)

What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.

Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675912)

What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.

Is that you Miss A? Say hi to Miss W for me.

Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? (1)

damaged_sectors (1690438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676000)

What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.

But you've spent you're whole short life following your own advice. And you still sound like a whiny crybaby who pisses in their pants...

What next - an Anonymous Coward whining about disclosures and ?

blame the women

Slime and slander - the weapons of toads.

Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676112)

Of course he should blame the women. If they were in the fucking kitchen where they should be instead of at the lawyer's office then he wouldn't be in this situation either. Anyone who says that the women should be somewhere other than the kitchen making a tasty sammich is a moron and shouldn't have any legal rights.

Re:"a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism"??? (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676228)

If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation?

I doubt it. Considering Sweden's current sex laws, if he hadn't put out then he'd probably have been brought up on charges of "sexual fraud" or "failure to deliver".

..And it drops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675928)

The infamous book deal. A year or so from now there will be a movie deal.

My respect the Assange is now gone.

Good for him. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675956)

Might as well make a few bucks telling your own story than make nothing letting someone else tell their version of your story.

It's just too bad he's not a cute female. As a male, half the country wants to accuse him of "treason" (ignoring his citizenship, of course) and have him executed. Meanwhile, the actual real Soviet spy that was actually really caught was sent safely back to Russia, where she is apparently the figurehead for some new political movement, a consultant for a major bank, has done a spread in Maxim, and is reportedly going to be featured in Playboy.

"Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism" (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675970)

You can take the boy out of Australia but you can't take the Australia out of the boy.

Job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34675994)

Has this guy ever had, say, a real job?

Re:Job? (1)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676144)

You mean like J.K. Rowling? Writing is a real job.

The storyline (1)

necode (1860700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34675996)

The book storyline will go like this: Since women from countries in state of constant political upheaval were in short supply, the hero tried to expand his horizon with easier accessible Swedish samples, but got dragged into hornet nest (ouch!) of female revolutionaries. The book will be widely read by vulgar housewives in state of constant bore, whom Assange pretends to despise. The more I read about the man the more novelty of his marketed brand of anarchism feels worn out ... like a used condom.

At least now he doesn't have to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676022)

...pull the old "we need $1.000.000 a year for webhosting - please donate" prank anymore to fatten his wallet and cover his private expenses. Really, didn't anyone raise an eyebrow over this requested sum that Wikileaks asked for several times, always saying it was for webhosting? Really.... a million dollars a year.... for meager webhosting....

Perhaps now ... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676042)

Now that Mr Assange has his own income again wikileaks will release the money they collected for Private Bradley's defence. It's funny how Assange seems to have forgotten about this entirely [cryptome.org] . Apparently they'd just forgotten to be formal about it, but, assuming they've finally gotten around to it, it appears the money is less than half [wired.com] what was expected/promised.

Yes wikileaks is a good thing, however the focus on embarrassing the US and not anyone else these days does make one wonder about an agenda, and the focus on Assange rather than the work they're doing is starting to split the organisation [cnn.com] . Maybe it's running a wiki that turns people messianic, after all Jimmy Wales has gone through the same thing [p2pnet.net] with wikipedia money.

200,000 pounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676268)

200,000 pounds !!! how has he managed to spend that much money already?
Especially since public defenders (which he got when he was arrested) are paid by the government in Sweden. Unless you are found guilty, then you have to pay a fine (to the government) based on your yearly income and not the actual cost of the lawyer.
The UK lawyer can not be that expensive, right?

I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary fem (0)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676452)

I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism/
I went down, down, down and the reward went higher/
And it stings, stings, stings/
that hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism/
the hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.

w/ apologies to J.Cash

Wow, pricey lawyers (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676454)

Maybe he should like, find a regular lawyer. One that doesn't cost the GDP of a small country. Just a suggestion.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>