Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Seeks To Sue Prime Minister Gillard For Defamation

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the gillard-should-have-done-it-anonymously dept.

Australia 244

First time accepted submitter menno_h writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he has hired lawyers to investigate how to sue Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation." Assange "says comments made by Ms Gillard in 2010 that WikiLeaks acted illegally in releasing US diplomatic cables have affected the viability of his organisation. 'Mastercard Australia, in justifying why it has made a blockade that prevents any Australian Mastercard holder donating to WikiLeaks, used that statement by Julia Gillard,' he said."

cancel ×

244 comments

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578595)

How do you play that one?

could be interesting (5, Interesting)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 2 years ago | (#41578607)

you may or may not support Assange or Wikileaks - but the lawsuit will be interesting: Mastercard used a semi-official statement by Julia Gillard to justify the blocking; is this a good-enough argument?

Re:could be interesting (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41578643)

He has a very good case or I don't believe he would even try. Holding publicly elected individuals accountable is something that has precedence.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578677)

Yeah, but successfully suing a lawyer for anything would be quite a feat.

Re:could be interesting (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#41578733)

The thing is does he have a case. Assange very much enjoys the public spot light. He wants to be where he is. The responsible thing for him would have been to hand wiki leaks over to some one he trusted to maintain wiki leaks integrity. Now wiki leaks reputation lives and dies with Julian. For the last two years wiki leaks has been sidelined because of his antics

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off. Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case. Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

Re:could be interesting (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#41579175)

Currently, the only thing keeping Mr Assange from torture and death is the public spotlight. Every time the public starts to forget about his plight you can rightly expect him to make a stink to get our attention again.

Re:could be interesting (-1, Flamebait)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#41579633)

Bullshit.

Re:could be interesting (4, Interesting)

hot soldering iron (800102) | about 2 years ago | (#41579953)

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders. Government pukes play dirty by using guys like "my friend", and always have. If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

Re:could be interesting (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41579343)

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.

Re:could be interesting (1, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#41579471)

That's just it. It is only defamation MasterCard didn't have a legal reason. Therefore sueing the prime minister is a stunt. Wiki leaks as an entity should so sue MasterCard.

Anything else is a publicity stunt to stroke personal egos.

Re:could be interesting (2)

cheater512 (783349) | about 2 years ago | (#41579911)

MasterCard is only a example of how the remarks have caused damage.

If Gillard made the comments but nothing came of them, you'd get a much smaller payout in a defamation case.
But the MC bit proves the comments caused financial damage, not just damage to his character. = Bigger payout.

Re:could be interesting (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#41579765)

He should sue MasterCard.

It would be premature to sue MasterCard when they can fall back on the defense that they relied on the statements of the Prime Minister. Deferring to the authority of the government seems quite reasonable and makes for a compelling defense.

The first step is to have the original statement ruled as libelous before tackling MasterCard. They can still say that they acted in good faith at the time, but it means that they could not as easily justify continuing to block payments to Wikileaks.

Re:could be interesting (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#41579925)

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

Re:could be interesting (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#41579957)

MasterCard has every right to choose its customers just like customers can choose someone else. He has nothing to sue over. They dont' want his business, end of story, period.

Re:could be interesting (-1, Troll)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41578741)

Holding publicly elected individuals accountable is something that has precedence.

You hold them accountable for what they do, not what they say. His only valid case is against Mastercard. They are the ones to hold accountable. They are the bad actors. I hope Assange loses his ass over this. Screw him.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578781)

Except as the Prime Minister, Gillard's words are considered to be the words of the government. By making the (false) statement, she effectively acted on behalf of the government and accused Assange of illegal activities.

Re:could be interesting (-1, Flamebait)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41578883)

The government did not file charges. I don't care how false the statement is. Mastercard (and now Assange) is the bad guy here. I stand against him all the way. He's no better than the government, or anybody else he's trying to sue into silence.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578939)

I don't care how false the statement is.

How fortunate it is then that you've never presided over a libel case.

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41578987)

Libel has no case, ever. It's a bullshit charge. Mastercard, and any other person who acts like they did, is the only guilty party.

Re:could be interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579027)

I've seen fustakrakich eat a kitten.

captcha: shopped

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579109)

And they're very tasty. You oughta try it.. with just a touch of curry. But unless you show some pictures, a person would be worse than a fool to believe you.

Re:could be interesting (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#41579253)

I'm so glad you're in the minority. Misleading a person into a false understanding of reality causes them real harm. It damages their ability to behave in a fashion that is sane and wise. That's why it's central to warfare, for fucks sakes.

A man who lies to a million people has caused far more harm than any serial killer or rapist, and the punishment should be that much harsher.

It doesn't matter if I am "enlightened" and see through the lies, because I'm at risk of a million misinformed men and women destroying everything I value. So, I say, KILL THE LIARS.

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579357)

I'm so glad you're in the minority.

For now... Soon people will wake up to the fact that acting on false pretenses is the real crime. The 'misinformed' have an obligation to act like adults and know better, and so, screw them, and anybody else who wants to censor speech.

Ah, yes, I remember you :-) So, I say, KILL THE MISINFORMED!

Re:could be interesting (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#41579435)

Where the hell is Hitler when you need him?

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579551)

I'm not scared of him.. The people who pulled the trigger/opened the valve are the nasty ones. What would Hitler be if nobody went along? A Charlie Chaplin stunt double, at best.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579511)

Libel/slander laws aren't about censoring speech. They are about being compensated for falsely damaging speech. Like the proverbial yelling of "FIRE!" in a crowded cinema that is not, in fact, on fire.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41578965)

So you're basing your opinion not on the facts of the case, but on your personal feelings towards the person making the complaint.

I wonder if you even realise that you demolished your own credibility completely all by yourself?

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579029)

Show me the legal charges filed by the government.

Re:could be interesting (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about 2 years ago | (#41579265)

You've completely missed the point, Julia Gillard said it was illegal, she was actually wrong, that's why no charges have been laid here (or anywhere). The Australian media have been somewhat critical of this major error.

Re:could be interesting (0, Offtopic)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579303)

No, I didn't.. Mastercard is simply rationalizing something they wanted to do long before the PM said anything. It was a false pretext on their part. In fact, if they came under any pressure for doing so, it most likely came from the US. Assange is up a tree without a paddle.

Re:could be interesting (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#41579913)

You hold them accountable for what they do, not what they say.

But talking is what politicians do. It is their main weapon.

This is a textbook case of how defamation can result in actual material loss. It is obvious from your statements that you disagree with the defamation law, but right now it is a law on our books and so it is quite justifiable to sue the Prime Minister for this. If you are so against the practice then lobby your representative to change the law, but I doubt that you will be successful.

Re:could be interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578747)

He has a very good case or I don't believe he would even try. Holding publicly elected individuals accountable is something that has precedence.

What makes you think that an egotistical publicity-hound like Assange cares whether he has a good case, or not?

Re:could be interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578787)

He has a very good case or I don't believe he would even try.

He has a very good case against the rape charges in Sweden, too. Or he should do, if he's innocent. But apparently Assange's metric isn't "how good is my case?", it's "what can I get away with without any personal consequences?"

Assange using legal threats to try to shut someone up is almost as good as when he tried to sue British newspapers for leaking Wikileaks leaks without his personal royal stamp of approval. I cannot understand why so many people worship this cowardly narcissistic wretch.

He's not charged with rape. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579295)

Not even the women involved think it was rape.

And if it were enough not to be present for charges to be impossible to make, please explain how you can get a case found against you in absentia?

If the court has enough information to bring charges, then if JA won't turn up to explain himself, then prosecute based on the evidence you have.

This is how EVERY OTHER CASE works.

Re:could be interesting (-1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 2 years ago | (#41578891)

Well releasing information marked secret or top secret is "illegal" in Australia Just as it is in the USA - Ms Gillard is just making a statement of fact and you cant defame some on by saying something that is true.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579291)

Is it illegal, according to Australian law, for an Australian citizen to release information marked as "top secret" by the US? Or marked as such by any other nation that is *not* Australia?

Re:could be interesting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579457)

Mod parent DOWN. The Australian Federal Police couldn't find anything illegal about Wikileaks.

Re:could be interesting (-1, Troll)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41578919)

Really? A guy that suborned a US Army private to illegally give him access to classified diplomatic cables wouldn't do something if he didn't have a good case? Oh, wait he might sue ME now because I said he did something illegal that he has bragged that he did only I said that it is illegal. Well it IS illegal to do what he did. You might disagree with me about whether it ought to be illegal but there's no real question that it IS.

Re:could be interesting (4, Interesting)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41579531)

Really? A guy that suborned a US Army private to illegally give him access to classified diplomatic cables wouldn't do something if he didn't have a good case? Oh, wait he might sue ME now because I said he did something illegal that he has bragged that he did only I said that it is illegal. Well it IS illegal to do what he did. You might disagree with me about whether it ought to be illegal but there's no real question that it IS.

Was it actually proven that Asange did that?

Re:could be interesting (5, Informative)

cheater512 (783349) | about 2 years ago | (#41579955)

In what country? Its certainly not illegal in Australia to leak classified *US* documents. Possibly illegal to leak Australian documents - I'm not sure about that.
Just like if someone in the US leaked Iranian top secret documents, they'd probably get a handshake from the FBI not arrested.

The US is not the world government. Just because they say it is top secret and illegal doesn't make it so and the rest of the world will rightly ignore them.

So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578685)

how 'bout them niggers?

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41578711)

No, without seeing a specific charge of violations of a specific statute, Mastercard acted in bad faith. And they are the only guilty party in the dispute between them and Assange. Defamation is BS. Assange is a hypocritical asshole.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578761)

Except Mastercard took the word of an in-office high ranking government official who never retracted or apologized for the statement. Mastercard acted on the good faith that the Prime Minister made those claims with a legitimate basis.

Assange can't sue Mastercard for acting in bad faith. That is, unless you want to argue that we should never take the word of the Prime Minster at face value.

Re:could be interesting (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41578837)

Doesn't matter, no charges were filed. They acted on a vague public statement. That is definitely in bad faith. Now we find that Assange really doesn't believe in free speech when he's the target. Wikileaks doesn't need him, he should just give himself up, so we can get back to discussing the much more important issue of what's in the leaks. ...unless you want to argue that we should never take the word of the Prime Minster at face value.

You sure as hell shouldn't! Especially when the government (basically all governments) has a long history of lying to protect their interests.

Re:could be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578871)

Now we find that Assange really doesn't believe in free speech when he's the target.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Hint: if you criminalize defamation, then yes... it's a matter of free speech.

This is a civil matter. Idiot.

Re:could be interesting (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41578897)

:-) Defamation is a bullshit charge. Screw him, and you (I mean that in the nicest possible way). You target the actor, not the speaker.

Re:could be interesting (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#41578923)

Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.

Re:could be interesting (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579009)

In that sense you are correct, unless they froze his assets. So really Assange has no case whatsoever, much less so against the prime minister.

Re:could be interesting (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41579019)

Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.

True but irrelevant.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them." (Australian defamation law is basically the same as English)

He is suing the Prime Minister for defamation and properly mentions that certain companies and/or individuals have refused to do business with him as a result of her allegedly false statements, which is something he needs to prove in order for defamation to stick. He is not suing Mastercard.

Re:could be interesting (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41579067)

I should mention that I was only speaking of the law as it stands. I happen to disagree with defamation laws in general and even more so when the law suit is brought by an alleged champion of unlimited free speech but that's a different issue.

Re:could be interesting (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579091)

English law allows actions for libel to be brought...

Most unfortunate. A 'reasonable' person should be held responsible to confirm a statement before acting on it. Otherwise I would call him very unreasonable.

...companies and/or individuals have refused to do business with him as a result of her allegedly false statements...

And they are the ones to sue for acting in bad faith for not verifying said statements. It's not like they had to act quickly or anything.

They haven't libelled him. Gillard has. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579623)

But let me guess, if he were suing these companies, you'd be saying something like "They don't have to work with him, they are free to refuse their services", right?

Oh, hang on, someone has

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3168869&cid=41578923

And you agreed with their statement.

Good to see that you're insistent on ensuring no fair trial.

Re:They haven't libelled him. Gillard has. (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41579775)

Yes they are free to refuse service. The pretext they used to cut it off was false. The PM's statement meant nothing. That is just another pretext to censor speech. It is not justified in any way. Try again.

Re:They haven't libelled him. Gillard has. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579859)

Yes they are free to refuse service. The pretext they used to cut it off was false. The PM's statement meant nothing. That is just another pretext to censor speech. It is not justified in any way. Try again.

What do you mean false pretext, the PM really did say that. What on Earth does any of this have to do with free speech, a card association refusing to do business...

Dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578611)

A really dumb idea. If he sues he'll have to appear in court.

Re:Dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578669)

No he won't.

Good (5, Interesting)

JazzXP (770338) | about 2 years ago | (#41578617)

While I'm not a fan of Mr. Assange (quite the opposite really), I find the way he has been treated by our government absolutely deplorable. Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) and Shappele Corby (convicted drug smuggler) have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578695)

David Hicks had the government behind him?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48314

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#41578819)

Yep, the Howard regime did a lot of damage to Australia and Australians.

However, its not a good time to be seen to be attacking Julia Gillard given all the personal attacks she has recieved. I would expect it to do more harm than good.

Re:Good (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41578753)

When did the Australian government say they did not want Julian Assange back in Australia? I don't think he wants to go back there.

Re:Good (2)

JazzXP (770338) | about 2 years ago | (#41578825)

When the Prime Minister openly mocks a person, their intentions are pretty obvious.

Tell me when he wins the suit (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#41578619)

Hiring lawyers with the intent of filing a suit isn't very interesting.

Sue in Sweden (3, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about 2 years ago | (#41578621)

The Swedish legal term for defamation is actually is actually "reputational rape".

Re:Sue in Sweden (4, Interesting)

dominux (731134) | about 2 years ago | (#41578805)

from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Sweden [wikipedia.org] words for defamation include:
ärekränkning
grovt förtal
förolämpning

and rape is våldtäkt. I call BS on the "reputational rape" claim. +5 informative indeed.

Re:Sue in Sweden (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#41578867)

Its a term they made up especially for Assange.
(not that they are out to get him or anything)

Re:Sue in Sweden (2)

asifyoucare (302582) | about 2 years ago | (#41579179)

The grandparent was making a point regarding the charges against Assange and the use of the term rape (or its translated equivalent) in those charges. I won't give you a whoosh, because I expect that Swedish is your first language, and English your second.

Re:Sue in Sweden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579917)

The grandparent was making a point regarding the charges against Assange and the use of the term rape (or its translated equivalent) in those charges. I won't give you a whoosh, because I expect that Swedish is your first language, and English your second.

Oh I see, if English was his native language, THEN he would get the rape joke. Sir, you are a fucking asshole.

Re:Sue in Sweden (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41578811)

irony overload

Re:Sue in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578853)

The Swedish legal term for defamation is actually is actually "reputational rape".

Well, this is a total lie. The word for defamation is ärekränkning which has nothing to do with rape at all. It translates to to insult someones honour.

Truly a hero for our times (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578749)

Julian Assange is famous for being a tireless champion of free speech. How does he respond to someone saying something nasty about him? Why, he calls for lawyers to shut them up! That's some dedication to free speech there.

Cue a thousand self-declared libertarians piling on me to try to explain why it's different when one of their people tries to abuse the courts to silence free speech.

Mod me down, "libertarians". In your hearts you know I speak the truth.

Re:Truly a hero for our times (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41578925)

I'm sure he doesn't really care what was said, or by whom. It is more likely that this is just a shot over the bows as it was as a result of the personal defamation that Wikileaks, a separate entity, was blacklisted by MasterCard.

Demise of the Computer Programmer (-1, Offtopic)

lsatenstein (949458) | about 2 years ago | (#41578795)

Demise of computer programmer.
The computer programmer program in North America should be abolished, as there is no way to survive doing programming as a career, and with a decent salary. I draw this conclusion by analogy.

Fifteen years ago, my brothers-in-laws each worked in the leather industry as cutters. They were able to cut around 30 coats per day, and made around $1000.00 per week, in the season.

Overnight, the company sent home all but two cutters. The coats were being cut and sewed in China, and shipped by plane overnight. Cutting had moved off-shore. The two cutters were kept, in case of a blemish, or a coat requiring a minor repair.

In the same vein, the computer programmer shop has moved offshore, and what we have left is the programmer who does maintenance. Apply patches, tweak the system a little. etc.

The number of programmers has gone from thousands to hundreds to tens. -- For Montreal, a city of 3 million, the total requirement is for one thousand skilled, if we follow the pattern of the clothing industry. Can you survive in North America with a salary of $15.00/hr?

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578861)

You can survive on 15.00 an hour. Just don't plan on having "new" things.

captcha: anemia

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41578895)

-1 extremely far offtopic. Not sure if this is a spam or if you just got all kind of confused on what tab you were typing into. But so far offtopic from that egotistical jack nut Assange who sues people but won't face up to the charges against him that it isn't even funny.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | about 2 years ago | (#41579147)

When I clicked the tab, it did not indicate that I was not at the root level. How do you get to the root level anyway?

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (0)

bogaboga (793279) | about 2 years ago | (#41578917)

Can you survive in North America with a salary of $15.00/hr?

Ohh yes you can.

How? You might ask.

My response: Just like all those working for minimum wage survive...and there are plenty of them.

You want examples? Simply request, but for a start, plan on aquiring fewer things like the post in this thread stated.

Second, stop buying all those [useless] gadgets.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | about 2 years ago | (#41579163)

In the USA, and Canada, 15/hr is 450/week before taxes. Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit. If however you are married, and your spouse adds her $15/hr, then you can live comfortably.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 2 years ago | (#41579329)

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.
2: Used public transit.
3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.
4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.
5: Never "went out" on the town, or bought luxuries, ever...
6: Said "NO" to the fairer sex.

Things have changed now, [for the better], gladly. In fact, you wouldn't recognize me now. But please do not tell me one can't survive on minimum wage.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (4, Insightful)

lsatenstein (949458) | about 2 years ago | (#41579975)

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.
2: Used public transit.
3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.
4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.
5: Never "went out" on the town, or bought luxuries, ever...
6: Said "NO" to the fairer sex.

Things have changed now, [for the better], gladly. In fact, you wouldn't recognize me now. But please do not tell me one can't survive on minimum wage.

Try doing it with two kids, for 20 years.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (1)

Altanar (56809) | about 2 years ago | (#41578953)

For more than 3.8 million Americans, a wage of $15/hour is more than **double** what they're making right now. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm [bls.gov]

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer (1)

Altanar (56809) | about 2 years ago | (#41578983)

Also, for most of the US, Walmart caps their maximum wage at $15/hour. Once you hit that, you'll never get another raise in that position as long for as you work at Walmart. http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061002_WALMART/20061002_walmart_memo.pdf [nytimes.com]

Julian vs Julia (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 years ago | (#41578879)

Looks like someone will end up in Jail.

Re:Julian vs Julia (2)

z0idberg (888892) | about 2 years ago | (#41579763)

Thats only if the US government gets it way.

In Australia they would go to gaol.

He's a twit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579103)

And a rapist.

Someone with better morals needs to run that thing. He's going to take it down the drain with him. Ugh!

Confirms what we know (0, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#41579115)

Julian Assange is a terrible individual with a narcissistic, attention-seeking personality. Only a truly cynical person would take advantage of the Bolivarian twits from Ecuador to try and beat rape charges. His arguments that running from a rape charge is somehow applaudable, because the Swedes might send him to the US to face justice for his other crimes is laughable -- Sweden, apart from Russia, is probably the last place on Earth who would extradite anybody to the US.

An absolute disgrace, aided and abetted by the media looking for a good story.

Flame away, fanboys. I'm looking forward to reading the broken basement-dweller logic in the replies.

Re:Confirms what we know (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579407)

benjfowler is a terrible individual with a narcissistic, attention-seeking personality. Only a truly cynical person would take advantage of the open nature of the internet to flame someone he doesn't personally know, who fights for those same freedoms. His argument that Assange should stop running from a trumped-up rape allegation is somehow applaudable, and that he should let the Swedes send him to the US to face people who wield insane power and don't like what he said is laughable.

An absolute disgrace, aided and abetted by people like him who turn a blind eye to the fact that people, even governments, are fallible.

Flame away, holier-than-thou's. I look forward to reading how you're better than everyone else.

FTFY!

Sovereign immunity? (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 2 years ago | (#41579137)

You can't sue prosecutors for accusing you of a crime, in general. This official wasn't a prosecutor, but does the principle apply?

I wonder if Assange has considered a business interference suit as well. Inducing Mastercard to go back on a contract might be a tort, depending on the outcome of some questions I'm not even qualified to enumerate.

Re:Sovereign immunity? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579363)

She is not protected. The Australian prime minister can say what she wants in parliament, and be protected by parliamentary privilege [wikipedia.org] , but as soon as she says it outside parliament, in a press interview for example, which is where she slurred Assange, she can be sued.

Re:Sovereign immunity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579451)

"Allegedly" -- That's why reporters say this word so much, to accurately convey what's going on and avoid slandering the subject if they're innocent.

An Aussie icon (2)

sturat (139743) | about 2 years ago | (#41579217)

As an Australian I look forward to the day when a story about Australia is accompanied by something other than a picture of Crocodile Dundee's hat.

Re:An Aussie icon (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about 2 years ago | (#41579235)

What would you prefer though?

Re:An Aussie icon (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | about 2 years ago | (#41579271)

Why not the opera house or Uluru? Something that is more Australian than a hat from the 80s

stingray (n/t) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579391)

stingray (n/t)

Re:An Aussie icon (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about 2 years ago | (#41579621)

Steve Irwin's hair.

Truth is treason in the empire of lies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579223)

"Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

"If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again."

-Dr. Ron Paul

The crimes were committed by people in our governments, not people like Assange who are uncovering them.

Not Knowing When to Quit (1, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 2 years ago | (#41579351)

Julian Assange just doesn't know when to quit. Everyone is out to get him and he couldn't possibly be the reason for any of it.

Way to go (1)

shurel (2711183) | about 2 years ago | (#41579601)

for a self professed libertarian

Assange suing could open him up to discovery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579727)

Yeah, I bet this goes nowhere fast.

Frankly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41579785)

I wish the SAS would just take him out. What a tool.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...