Assange Seeks To Sue Prime Minister Gillard For Defamation

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."

Re:could be interesting

[Dan667]

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

[peragrin]

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:Good

[bug1]

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:could be interesting

[Charliemopps]

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:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[lsatenstein]

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:could be interesting

[Yvanhoe]

I doubt he enjoys being prisoner in an embassy. I doubt he enjoys being unable to ever have sex again without knowing if this is a CIA trap. I doubt he enjoys his wikileaks organization to be labelled half-terrorist and having lost a few millions of donations.

He doesn't enjoy spotlight. He needs it to survive, because otherwise, he will die in an accident without anyone noticing.

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[drinkypoo]

He knows exactly when to quit; about five minutes before he's ready to die.

Assange doesn't have the option of a quiet retirement at this point. He needs to continue to be loud.

Re:Truly a hero for our times

[drinkypoo]

Julian Assange is famous for being a tireless champion of free speech. How does he respond to someone saying something nasty about him?

Neither free markets nor free speech work when fraud is permitted.

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

I'm not a libertarian, just a liberal (e.g. not a democrat) and I know you're full of shit, which is the most popular reason to post as an AC. You haven't said anything that could likely get you shot or fired, so there's no other reason.

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what you think about the matter the Swedish charges are based on things that really happened, and his actions since are all his own.

Really? Reading the wikipedia article on the sexual assault allegations, it seems the only thing that is clear is we have no idea what happened.

There was a complaint against him, the police investigated and then cleared him of all charges, then somebody else in the police raised charges again, filed a European Arrest Warrant full of false claims that were later redacted (eg: that she was asleep, when it turns out she was "half asleep", and that he wasn't wearing a condom when it turns out the condom broke, that there was no force or injury, that consent was given on the two dates (weeks apart) that they had sex). Apparently the woman's original goal was to force Assange to take an STD test, not to prosecute him.

I don't know what the facts are, it doesn't sound like anyone does know, but it doesn't sound like he should be extradited and Ecuador clearly agrees.