Assange Has Signed Book Deals Worth $1.5 Million+ 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."
Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:5, Interesting)
NOT the GP, but the 30% caught my attention, so I'll provide a source - False Rape Reporting [wikipedia.org]
Dr. Kanin found 41% of accustations were found to be 'false'. Two studies - one by the FBI and one by Britain, using 'similar methodology' found 8%, but 'does not include accusers who drop out of hte justice process'.
Wiki lists 45%, 41%, 8%, 8%. Average of 25.5% across 4 quoted figures.
Depending on how you define a 'rape accusation', 30% is a reasonable figure, I think. One critical difference would be whether your standard requires reporting to the police, for example.
I had a friend who was accused of rape by a girl - the police hardly even bothered to take a report from her, because they'd lost count of how many times she's tried it. Very much a case of 'crying wolf'. Think 'crazy stalker chick'. It was figured out she was lying within minutes in this case - he had an airtight alibi for when she said it occured.
She's the type who puts additional stress on women who have really been assaulted, because additional police resources are taken up by her false accusations and it makes the cops doubt anybody who comes in.
While I fully support rapists going to prison; I think that woman needed to spend some time behind bars herself for false reporting. But that also makes me grimace- if you've made a false rape report, you're more likely to follow through and put an innocent man behind bars simply to protect yourself.
It's *complicated*, but we need to find a proper balance - I'm thinking if you make a false report, that's beyond obvious, or if it comes out that you maliciously falsified the charge and it resulted in the conviction of an innocent, you need to spend some time in prison. If you fess up BEFORE the trial; then we'll let you go(for that offense).
It's kinda like the military's drug policy - self identify and you'll face no charges. Wait until you're caught, charges.
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:4, Informative)
I was accused of rape by an ex girlfriend when I was 17. She did it for revenge. It cost my family 10 grand and fucked me up so much I dropped out of college (this got drug out for two years). In the end, she admitted to making it all up, and she received no punishment whatsoever. I didn't even get an apology from the prosecutor that did this nor the one cop that threatened to kill me (over the phone).
Thankfully, she ruined her own life in doing this because my family and I started a massive truth campaign that turned the community against her because her story kept changing. She is now a fat washed up cunt who's husband is in prison.
Well that was all 10 years ago. But the experience will always be with me. The FACT is that women lie about things like this all the time. People that defend it have never had it happen to them. I have a daughter that is 4 years old. I would would question such an accusation coming out of her mouth as well. Probably because of how well she has been parented, she would never make such an accusation. As she grows older, she will fully understand the consequences of doing something like this to someone. Andrea, my ex, obviously didn't. It looks like the idiot prosecutor (who lost the next election after this) now has his own law office in Riverside CA on Orange ST. He used to practice about 1500 miles due east from where he is currently at.
Here's hoping more misfortune befalls Andrea and Steve, everyone in their family, and their childrens' children for generations to come. My life has been great since this incident and hopefully will continue to get better.
Re: (Score:2)
An FBI study of the 10,000 rape cases referred to the FBI during the seven years between 1989 and 1996 concluded that the primary suspect was exonerated by forensic DNA evidence in about 25% of sexual assault cases in which results could be obtained.
I'm unsure about the parent comment's 33% statistic. I'm however also unsure how one should treat the assault cases where results could not be obtained, which represent like 20% of this data set. Validity of results will obviously not be statistically independ
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
(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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Your advice comes down to: avoid pre-marital sex
Fuck you. My guess is either you are a born again Christian or the kind of guy who can't get laid anyway so pretends its about a moral 'high ground' rather than admitting to being a loser.
I really think people should avoid pre-sexual marriage. If people got laid enough before choosing a life partner there would be fewer divorces and fucked-up children around, the world would be a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality of the story is that if he weren't so paranoid and kept his phone on, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
You know Sweden employs actual professionals to judge guilt, right?
Not at the first instance we don't. There we put a few politicians to make sure that whatever we get is as politically clouded as anything can be.
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, they do in a way. Look up jury nullification. Certain people don't like it but its one of the few functioning forms of democracy we have left.
it was (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
um, people outside the UK may not be aware of it, but citing the Daily Mail as a reasonable source is approximately as sensible as citing Glenn Beck. (note that article perpetuates the whole bizarre thing about a condom breaking, which as has already been pointed out in this thread, is simply bullshit).
Re: (Score:2)
We have the specifics. No means no and the woman in question never said it.
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:5, Informative)
Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.
Well, being a veteran, a few combat veterans actually opened up to me, and none of them said anything remotely like that.
While in, I formulated a rule that if someone claimed something that sounded over the top, I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense. If someone was a great mechanic, it meant he could probably change the oil on his car. If his girlfriend was a model, she was probably average. One story about 200 confirmed kills turned into 100, then definitely 30, and BTW it was indirect so not "confirmed kills" as much as "estimated BDA." And damned near every National Guard idiot has a collection of combat patches of units he knows nothing about, and they all claim to be infantry because they were slotted as infantry for six months.
So, really, if someone is talking about how shooting someone was "orgasmic," first of all, I'd be suspicious as to whether the person really was a combat veteran, because that's just not how I've ever heard it described on the *rare* occasion they talk about it. And even then, I'd take it with a huge fucking grain of salt, because I guarantee you that there are guys who will lie their asses off about that, and do it with a tone of total reverence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
'No, but he has been consistently portrayed as egoistic, self-aggrandizing asshole.'
I thought his portrayal in the movie was particularly unfair:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/TPwPmfCfr4I/AAAAAAAAGb4/DBJefMu1DMA/s1600/477f056f3ada.jpg [blogspot.com]
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean to say he has embarrassed the American government. As an american I can, with a straight face, sit here and tell you that Julian Assange has done nothing to embarrass me. What he's done is point out the failings of my representatives, most of whom were elected against my vote, rather than by it.
What Assange is doing is great; it may eventually open peoples' eyes to the fact that the shit politicians spew when they want something from you and the shit they spew once they've had their way with you are from two different bulls. When people realize that they're hearing false promises before the election and lies after, here's hoping they're 7 different kinds of pissed off.
Whether we, as a people, begin voting more wisely, or we violently overthrow our current govenrment, there will be positive changes here in the US, and those changes will have come about, in no small part, due to the work of Julian Assange. My only hope is that it happens soon and that it's not too bloody (voting machines don't produce paper cuts but most of the paper ballots I've used were printed on cardstock).
I propose a new term, similar to character assassination but by means of spreading truth about a person, rather than lies. I wish that we term this act "character assangenation". Who's with me?
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he can't go out and murder and rape people on camera and it's just a USA plot to discredit him. Only you said that. So you are underscoring the other post's point that you are an idiot - and not just because you're "naive".
Assange is the only person whose "wanted for questioning" by Swedish police for a crime of this minor nature has been escalated into an international manhunt, enlisted Interpol, and within days hauled the UK justice system into extradition proceedings. He is being singled out, from all the many people over many years who were wanted by Swedish police for questioning in this matter. He differs from them in that he leaked many cables more or less damaging to the USA.
Regardless of what happened between Assange and the two women accusing him (which is certainly not "murder and rape people on camera", and isn't even actually rape, but rather a failure to stop consensual sex) - it is perfectly clear to everyone that Assange is being railroaded by the USA. Except perhaps to idiots.
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your wanted for rape and they know your location the same thing would happen to you or me.
I can guarantee that if it happened to "you or me", neither of us would have made it to Interpol's most wanted list, nor had to produce a quarter-million-quid's worth of bail in the face of a complete lack of evidence, or even formal charges. Unless there's something about you you're not telling ?
That's is the kind of thing that happens to violent serial offenders with a long history of crimes and victims, not people accused for the first time of - and not even by the victim, but the state - relatively low-grade sexual assault.
he can't stop talking to the media so it was simple to actually find him. If they know of your location it is easier to find you.
He didn't need to be "found" because he wasn't trying to be "lost". He co-operated fully with the Swedish authorities before - with their permission - leaving Sweden and then fully with the UK authorities when there was actually cause to do so.
My personal favorite part was when the guardian published (leaked) the police reports from the ladies on Julian, and Julian and his lawyers cried foul as leaking private information about a private case like that is wrong.
And it is.
Testimony in a ongoing legal proceeding against a private individual is a completely different ballgame to historical record of Government dealings. If you cannot figure that out, you shouldn't be commenting.
Re:Without specifics, I think we should be wary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Assange is the only person wanted for questioning in a case like this who was the subject of an Interpol bulletin and now a UK extradition. Because he is being railroaded by the USA.
I didn't say that the USA set up whatever happened between Assange and the two women in Sweden - you did. I said that the manhunt that is working to extradite him was set up by the USA.
I also said that you are an idiot. You are.
Goodbye.
Indeed! (Score:2)
Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still hoping for a surprise party
Re: (Score:3)
Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"
No need, the matter appears as if it could be more substantial than that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some (Score:2)
That can buy him a lot prison commissary and some over priced phone calls.
The delicious irony of it all (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So wanting to show the corrupt things the government does means you want all information to be free?
Re: (Score:2)
Deserves release of draft PDF (Score:5, Funny)
hmm (Score:2)
So is he waffling on his long-time insistence that he is not wikileaks, but merely a member?
Re:hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So is he waffling on his long-time insistence that he is not wikileaks, but merely a member?
If he is just a member, he is clearly a member with "benefits".
Julian Assange paid two thirds of WikiLeaks salary budget [telegraph.co.uk]
That makes for an interesting contrast to the way Assange / Wikileaks has treated the alleged primary source of the classified US government documents they've been so recently leaking:
Is WikiLeaks Reneging on its Financial Promise to Bradley Manning? [cbsnews.com]
As to how he views himself....
Rape allegations (Score:5, Interesting)
(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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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,"
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Protecting society is certainly one of the biggest reasons that somebody should be incarcerated, but there are certainly others: Punishment. Deterrence. Rehabilitation. There are all sorts of crimes for which people are and should be sent to prison that don't involve violence. Theft certainly ranks high among them; it's been something recognized as a serious crime pretty such as long as societies have existed. Frau
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So basically, if no consent was given, it's rape with no violence. Correct? Great, thanks for confirming my point.
Again, it depends on the situation. Just because someone does not have a signed and notarized document detailing consent does not mean that they are committing rape. These situations are not at all clear-cut.
We also put people in prison because of illegal, not predatory, actions and those do not imply violence
Yeah, and in fact our prisons are overflowing with them, which is why I made the point that ideally we would only imprison people who are dangerous and need to be kept separated from everyone else. There are a lot of other things we could do with non-violent criminals: community service, fines,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sleeping sex....ever seen the movie "Kids?"
When bringing up hypothetical situations, lets bear in mind that the woman in question gave consent for protected sex. According to the allegation, one of the consented to having protected sex with JA, who tried to ignore the condom request. She was insistent, and JA eventually quit trying to have any sort of sex with her. She then woke up the next morning to him screwing her b
Re: (Score:2)
I think the argument here is that somewhere there's a point of no return. You can't get off a roller coaster once it's started rolling. This is just the nature of the ride you've chosen to take. You have to finish it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 q
The part I don't understand is how does one have s (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The part I don't understand is how does one have sex with a woman while she's asleep? [...] (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.
Depends on his... ... size, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
How about a small one with some lube?
Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rape allegations (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
He is the victim of his fame and not being able to turn his penis off
Yawn
Re:Rape allegations (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Rape allegations (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find particularly worrysome, is that Interpol was involved in hunting down Assange (in the end he gave himself up voluntarily in the UK, but that notwithstanding...). Interpol can only be activated against individuals that are international criminals - their crimes spawn country boundaries. In that sense, manslaughter by itself is not a crime of Interpol's inference. Rape, even less. Rape where violence wasn't involved... well.. it's just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
I guess the Swedish media got it wrong too, eh?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why did Assange want to move to Sweden? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't last.
The most basic flaw in socialism is an unhealthy concentration of power.
Power corrupts etc. See history.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps now ... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ (Score:2)
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
False Rape Accusations are *incredibly* common, and becoming moreso every day.
Revolutionary Fems unite! (Score:2)
It's a scam. He don't need money! (Score:3, Interesting)
His lawyers get paid by the Swedish government. There is no use of any technical expertise (and they would be compensated by the government anyway). There is no bail to pay once he is in Sweden, since Sweden don't have a bail system (what we have is conditional releases, Assange have already broken the conditions of one, he won't get another before the trial). Room and board will be paid by the Swedish government. It is extremely unlikely that he will have to pay any compensation to his (alleged) victims (it can only be claimed if they can provide evidence of a loss of income).
I can only think of three things he could need the money for:
1) Paying his way through the US justice system, if USA manage to produce an extradition request on him and get him before Sweden does.
2) Money to keep him on the run as a refugee.
3) Money to spend privately on things unrelated to any of this.
As a Swede I would call this a scam, but since most slashdot readers don't seem to share Swedish norms, then call it a marketing trick. Whatever you call it, he don't need any money to pay for legal costs in Sweden. Even if he hired someone to kill all witnesses, it wouldn't change a thing, their statements is already on record, that is all that is needed.
Could at least someone demand that any money left from the book after the trial is donated to charity (perhaps wikileaks). Nobody should profit from a rape.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, that might be the only way he can receive payment.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it matters much: .9971 AUD = 1.008 CAD
1.009 USD =
1,200,000.00 EUR = 1,578,572.77 USD = 1,574,066.17 AUD = 1,591,959.41 CAD
they are all roughly 1.5 million dollars, using the same rounding rules as the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:1.2 million euro (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bending and breaking words to suit worked for Shakespeare.
Shakespeare was an artist. What he produced wasn't information, it was art, and in art, the rules are simply guidelines. Of course, you need to know and understand the rules to break them effectively.
If you say "loose" when you mean "lose" you are communicating something quite different than what you intend to convey. A language with no rules would make for some wild poetry, but would be a great hindrance to communication.
"Their bears".
"There! Bears!
Re: (Score:2)
Balderdash. Try reading Beowulf in the original. If you don't understand it perfectly, is that because you're lazy and stupid or because the English language has changed?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is the "we" on whose behalf you speak? I've come across people who consistently use "euro" as the plural, and people who consistently use "euros", but I was unaware that there are some who use both and place semantic weight on the decision of which to use.
Re: (Score:2)
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"??? (Score:5, Funny)
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".