Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime The Almighty Buck The Courts

Assange Has Signed Book Deals Worth $1.5 Million+ 452

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the that's-a-lotta-leaks dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Has Signed Book Deals Worth $1.5 Million+

Comments Filter:
  • by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:03AM (#34675608) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:11AM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:35AM (#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.

        • by qbast (1265706) on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:04AM (#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?
          • by Jurily (900488)

            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!

            • by qbast (1265706) on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:57AM (#34676514)
              You don't have to convince me of that. However due to those technicalities (among many other things), categorical statements like "30% of rape accusations turn out to be false" are nonsense.
              • by Firethorn (177587) on Monday December 27, 2010 @01:11PM (#34677216) Homepage Journal

                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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27, 2010 @12:24PM (#34676794)

            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.

          • by Weezul (52464)

            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

      • by superdana (1211758) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:35AM (#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]
        • by Jurily (900488)

          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)

        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])
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:22AM (#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.

      • 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.

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

  • Still wrapping my head around "sex by surprise"

    • by DeBaas (470886)

      I'm still hoping for a surprise party

    • 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]

    • by mangu (126918)

      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 over priced phone calls.

    • 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.

      • by index0 (1868500)

        So wanting to show the corrupt things the government does means you want all information to be free?

      • His fans are also the ones who would willingly pay more than the book is worth if the kindle version were on sale for "name your price". I find it rather ironic you'd imply that they aren't willing to spend money when they're the primary source of funding for the entire endeavor.
  • by keehun (1966090) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:13AM (#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.
  • by nomadic (141991)
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Truekaiser (724672) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:29AM (#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.

      • Cryptome is not ignored, I have seen articles about it in the news, and have seen people discuss some of the documents posted there in online forums. The fact that it is not as famous as Wikileaks probably has more to do with the fact that the information posted there is not quite as high profile...
    • 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....

      Now that shadowy or

  • Rape allegations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by superdana (1211758) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:21AM (#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]

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:47AM (#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.

      • by JasperHW (710218)
        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: (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,"

          • by Dhalka226 (559740)

            If "rape" does not mean "violence," then we should not throw rapists in prison.

            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

            • by NoSig (1919688)
              You have an underlying perspective that sex is something men do to women, and that remains true even if you point out the slant of your examples. From that perspective it is reasonable that the man would be responsible for the condom being broken, since the whole sex act is his sole responsibility. In reality, sex is something two people do together - it is a joint venture. Once you realize that then it makes little sense to blame one party for, say, a broken condom. Every example having to do with rape sho
        • I would argue they need to have "Degrees" of rape as most people when they hear the word "Rape" think of violent rape, such as a man jumping out of the bushes and savagely beating and having intercourse with a woman, or drugged rape, such as some dude slipping a woman a rufie, rather than "oh, this chick was having sex with the dude willingly then she decided she wanted him to stop and in the heat of the moment he refused". As far as the "sleeping sex" I don't know the details but they sound suspect.
          • by JasperHW (710218)
            That would make sense, given that we follow the same legal framework for murder.

            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

        • by xnpu (963139)

          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)

        by silas_moeckel (234313)

        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 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.

        • Not to get into a Bill Clinton-style discussion of what constitutes sex, but you can certainly have oral sex with someone who is asleep...
        • by Corbets (169101)

          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?

        • by xnpu (963139)

          How about a small one with some lube?

          Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.

      • by Squapper (787068)
        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.
        • I guess a lot of people are rapists then, at least considering the fact that one of my ex-girlfriends started having sex with me while I was asleep, and several of my friends have had similar experiences. Or perhaps I just have a habit of making friends with rapists.
        • by hrvatska (790627)
          Many would draw a line between having sex with a sleeping person when the sleeping person and the other person had not been having sex, and a situation where the sleeping person and the other person were mutually and consensually naked in a bed where they had just spent the night having sex. The first situation strikes most people as criminal, the second as bad manners.
    • Re:Rape allegations (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LainTouko (926420) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:49AM (#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.

    • by chrb (1083577) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:52AM (#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.

    • 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????
    • by Seumas (6865) on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:03AM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Marcika (1003625) on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:06AM (#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.

    • by john82 (68332)

      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.

    • by misexistentialist (1537887) on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:18AM (#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.

    • by definate (876684)

      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

      • by definate (876684)

        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)

      by blind biker (1066130) on Monday December 27, 2010 @01:18PM (#34677282) Journal

      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.

  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:23AM (#34675750) Homepage
    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.
    • by chrb (1083577) on Monday December 27, 2010 @10:58AM (#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.

      • by TapeCutter (624760) on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:39AM (#34676372) Journal
        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.
  • Perhaps now ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27, 2010 @11:03AM (#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.

  • http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

    False Rape Accusations are *incredibly* common, and becoming moreso every day.

  • T-shirts with the snake and the phrase "Don't Tread IN Me" could really catch on in Sweden.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 27, 2010 @01:41PM (#34677464)

    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.

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Working...