Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Censorship Government The Courts Your Rights Online

Assange Rape Case Reopened 529

eldavojohn writes "Wikileaks' Julian Assange had a warrant issued for his arrest in Sweden on the charges of rape. But it was withdrawn shortly thereafter. Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.' On top of that, a new site (parody?) called has been launched by the chief editor of Gawker to give Wikileaks a taste of its own medicine. You can find links to details on the molestation charges there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Rape Case Reopened

Comments Filter:
  • Childish (Score:4, Informative)

    by RafaelAngel ( 249818 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:07AM (#33434468)

    Gawker is just mad they didn't get the scoop. Maybe next time they should offer Assange cash. Apparently that's how they get their scoops.

    • Re:Childish (Score:5, Interesting)

      by E IS mC(Square) ( 721736 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:46AM (#33434864) Journal

      Gawker media has become Fox News of the blogs. But unlike Fox, their loyalty is only towards money - weather it's earned with facts, rumors or slanders.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I wondered few days ago why on earth Gawker has started such hate campaign against Julian Assange: they have several posts with titles like "Are Wikileaks Activists Finally Realizing Their Founder Is a Megalomaniac?". What is their motivation?

  • He'll just wear the darn condom! REALLY.... This is a joke, right?

    • Re:Next time... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:42AM (#33434814) Homepage Journal

      according to the daily mail [] there is some confusion over whether the condom used with woman A broke intentionally or accidentally, but they claim that the police report clearly shows that the condom was worn but it failed. Then the following report about woman B from an anonymous source:

      One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
      This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
      Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. 'I didn't feel I knew him very well,' she explained.

      So let's see, at night she said wear a condom, in the morning he boned her without one, but she went out and bought him breakfast and left him in her apartment even though she "didn't know him very well", so obviously she wasn't too concerned.
      It seems to me from where I am sitting that one or both of these women were coerced or at least cajoled into testifying against him on the basis of their anger for both being seduced by the same guy who wasn't as into them as they were into him. It's called jealousy, and it's sad, and at least one of these women has already realized that.
      Of course, there could be additional facts to which I am not privy...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sjs132 ( 631745 )

        ok... ok.. I got it, so they are pissed that they were just used as a penis cozy and now upset that it wasn't exclusive. So women being women and scorned now show fury by trying to make life tough for him with trumped up charges.

        Hmmm... Sorry, she fed him. At that point there was a payment (food & train ticket) made for the sex and then becomes a male prostitute doing her a service. Case closed. Go home. :)

        He must have a magical penis to get this kind of attention. His client list is going to sky

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DarkIye ( 875062 )
        Just to let you know: The Daily Mail is never to be cited for anything, ever. Ever. It's simply not factual on a regular enough basis to be used in such a way.
        • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:47AM (#33436576) Journal

          The Daily Mail is perfectly trustworthy. You're just upset because they're telling the truth about the black gay Muslims who are ruining good, honest, hard-working, British society with their evil immigrant ways that killed Princess Diana (peace be upon her).

          Amusingly, you will see their figure for the number of street cameras in Britain, which was created by counting the number of, mainly private, CCTV cameras in a mile busy shopping street in London and multiplying it by the number of miles of roadway in Britain, quoted here quite often. In spite of having been debunked, this is still used by a lot of Slashdot posters as evidence that Britain is an Orwellian surveillance state.

      • Re:Next time... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:33AM (#33435426)
        Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time. By that logic, if a woman insist on using a condom each time then after several months of a committed relationship and several STI tests they have sex without he could be brought up on rape charges. I'm sorry, but there's something very wrong here. Given the claim she's making that he broke the condom on purpose, I have to assume that there's something going on here because that's a very strange assertion to make. And probably grounds for a slander suit as well.

        Strikes me that the rape charge could be motivated by the CIA or another intelligence organization, or more likely she's using the claim as a way of protecting herself should she wind up pregnant as a result. I'm not sure about her religious beliefs, but there's a lot of Christians that believe that abortion is only OK in the case of rape or incest.
        • Re:Next time... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <> on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:11AM (#33436030)
          To all the conspiracy theorists out there on this - do you really think the CIA/NSA/Pentagon Special (because their mommy says so) Activities Group couldn't come up with something a little more watertight and less ... rubbish than this? Do you really think they would have any difficulty coming up with an *actual* rape victim if they were behind this? Someone who had a black eye, bruises on their wrists and arms, signs of forced entry, high emotional distress rather than a case that hinges on whether a condom was worn or not?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time.

          Not so sure about this. It depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in question, but there are jurisdictions where using certain types of deception or fraud to obtain consent to sex is rape. The classic examples are deceiving a woman as to your identity (e.g., if her boyfriend's twin brother were to impersonate him), or making her believe it's a necessary part of a medical p

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Znork ( 31774 )

            It's not a stretch to say that it's rape if a man obtains consent for sex by falsely telling her he will wear a condom.

            Rape implies the sex was non-consensual. If the sex was consensual but the risks of unprotected sex were not, that would be more appropriately regarded as assault (similar to subjecting someone to such risks in other ways, such as deliberately exposing them to various hazardous substances without their consent).

            In the same vein of legal exploration, if a male consents to sex on the conditio

      • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:12AM (#33436044) Homepage Journal
        She was probably angry after breakfast when he went out in the sunlight and didn't sparkle, dispelling her idea that he was a vampire.
  • by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:10AM (#33434500) Homepage

    Now the case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges.'

    The case will then be dropped.

    It will then be reopened to investigate 'looking at boobs, whilst pulling out his shirt collar and making a phwooar face', which will also be dropped.

    Don't worry, they'll get him even if they have to resort to the testimony of a girl who was pushed over by him in the playground when they were both 4 years old.

  • how do you get the woman to the cheese?

  • by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:12AM (#33434518) Homepage

    ...try charging them with everything you possibly can.

  • by halivar ( 535827 ) <bfelger@gm a i l . c om> on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:13AM (#33434526)

    Note that "molestation" is a broad category of sexual offenses in Sweden. Two women came forward to the police to report sexual misconduct, but denied that rape had occurred. Thus the dropping of the rape charge. In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course. Apparently, in other cultures, this is a sexual offense.

    • by jgtg32a ( 1173373 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:18AM (#33434572)
      Oh wow

      The only time you hear about molestation in the US is when it involves a minor.
    • If that is the case, I know a lot of serial molesters.

      The problem is the name of the charges is inflammatory, and carries certain connotations in different parts of the world. From the details that have emerged, it really does sound like he is just a player.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course.

      It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.

      • by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:52AM (#33434924)

        Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.

        Well, with that hair, he really should be going more for pastels.

        Uh... I mean yeah, women... not fair man. Beer and stuff.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thijsh ( 910751 )

        It's par for the course when the guy buys the stuff and the woman doesn't ring back. Like most things, when you reverse the sexes it becomes an act of deviancy. Assange may as well have worn a neon dress and high heels.

        The sexual revolution is not over until that statement no longer holds! People always confuse feminism with the sexual revolution but that is just half the story. It's time for men and women to be completely equal in rights while keeping in mind the differences and strong points of both sexes. And to achieve that we first need to get trough the masculist revolution. Although I must admit I am not looking forward to the prospect of walking around on high heels... ;)

    • by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:04AM (#33435080)

      After reading this [], assuming it's at all accurate, whatever you attribute these charges to, they are all absolutely ridiculous. So... the guy had sex with two women, both groupies, who found out about the other one, and then got angry that they had agreed to have sex without a condom with him because shocker-of-shockers, he had banged some other woman recently.

      This is classic rape-after-the-fact, i.e. not rape at all, since they had already consented to the relationship. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the guy forced himself or coerced anybody. Nor even that he lied or misled anybody, beyond saying that he'd call and then not calling.

      I think Julian Assange is a narcissistic creepy fellow, and I have serious reservations about some of what Wikileaks has done. I support the goal of more openness in government, but they do a terrible job at presenting information in an unbiased fashion (at least with those leaked videos) and they dump out huge volumes of classified information without consideration as to whether the public interest in that material outweighs the risk to people's lives of having that information disclosed.

      I don't claim to know whether these charges originate with the US Government in any way, but it sounds more like the by-product of the Swedish legal system gone completely and absolutely bonker-nuts-insane, having criminalized relatively normal everyday behavior among single men and women.

  • by GreatBunzinni ( 642500 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:18AM (#33434574)

    Governments either are or should be open, something which, unfortunately for any of their citizens, is routinely opposed and undermined by the very same people who swore to represent their fellow citizens, uphold the law and respect democratic values. Sites such as wikileaks are here to enforce the rules of government that those who managed to find themselves in positions of power and influence actively push to quench or undermine.

    The main point is that governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour, and their constituents must be informed of their actions and of the consequences that they bring. In short, every government, due to their nature, must be opened and failing to be so constitutes a violation of their own founding principles.

    On the other hand, private citizens do not have that responsibility. Private citizens have the right to privacy and do not have absolutely any responsibility or obligation to disclose every single piece of information regarding their lives, their business or even their relations. They are entitled to live free from tyranny and free from any oppressive influence imposed by their government and, even moreso, by fellow citizens.

    Therefore, trying to impose to private citizens the very same full disclosure principles that is expected from governments is either a perfect sign of ignorance or a poorly thought out harassment campaign based on an unexplainable demand for revenge. I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy. What I know is that this sort of campaign, which is nothing more than persecuting someone for his attempts to defend healthy and lawful government behaviour is not in anyone's best interests.

    • Exactly. What I think is hilarious is that if these same things would have been released about fraud in a company everyone would be calling Assange a hero, but do it to actually make democracy work and apparently Assange is equivalent to Bin Ladin.
    • governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour,

      You are assuming that ethical and legal are the same thing. They aren't.

    • Tell that to the named individuals in the wikileaks reports. Whether it be soldiers or informants (whose lives are now at risk).

      Also, your belief that governments and their employees should have different rights to 'private citizens' is fundamentally flawed and doesn't create a fair and equal society at all. It creates a tyranny of the majority where people pick and choose which people should have which rights.

      Don't believe me?

      OK then: Tell me exactly who should be treated as 'government' and who s
      • by radtea ( 464814 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @02:32PM (#33439048)

        Tell me exactly who should be treated as 'government' and who should be a private citizen. Give me a cast iron definition in a single sentence.

        One of the general principles I teach my kids is that people who think that difficulty in drawing an infinitely precise line based on a trivially simple criterion constitutes an argument are intellectually bankrupt.

        Here's my counter-challenge: give me a cast-iron definition in a single sentence that will tell me exactly, to within the width of an atom, where the ocean ends and the land begins. Can't do it, can you? You can't even get one that will be good to within a couple of meters! So I guess you have to accept that boats and cars are impossible, as they would require knowing excatly where the land ends and the water begins.

        Difficulty in defining precise boundaries is completely unrelated to the the ability to clearly identify entities that are undoubtedly on one side of the (ill-defined) line or the other, and only people who've never been to the beach can possibly believe otherwise.

  • That's Great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by techsoldaten ( 309296 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:21AM (#33434608) Journal

    That's great. Someone comes forward with evidence of war crimes, and all anyone wants to talk about is his sexual habits.

    I was just in Denmark, a friend and I met 2 Swedish women in a bar. Contrary to the rumors, they did not have blonde hair. They were out celebrating a recent birthday, and appeared to have all the same motivations going for them as anyone from anywhere else in the world.

    Let me be the last person on Earth to attack a victim, if this 'molestation' actually happened that is just awful. But let me be the first to say, war crimes are more important. Evidence of armies going around wiping out villages is not something to ignore because there is some juicy innuendo (which may or may not be true) going on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by victorhooi ( 830021 )


      Err yeah, but there's little evidence of these so-called war crimes so far.

      I mean, Assange drummed up excitement, played the media really well, and then released these so-called Afghan War Diaries, to much fanfare...and it's turned out to be a fat lot of nothing.

      Most of the data in there was already public knowledge.

      Let's see... []

      Err, we have evidence that Pakistan is screwing over the US, UK and other NATO nations, and aiding the Taliban to kill our soldiers.

      • Re:That's Great (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chrb ( 1083577 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:53AM (#33435728)

        Assange drummed up excitement, played the media really well, and then released these so-called Afghan War Diaries, to much fanfare...and it's turned out to be a fat lot of nothing.

        The of course, we have the civilian casualties, currently standing at a few hundred.

        The very Wikipedia article you link to, and your second statement above, contradict your first claim that the leak was "a fat load of nothing". Wikipedia says "revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents," and "Hundreds of civilians have been killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed."

        The fact that hundreds of civilians have been killed by NATO troops and that this has been hidden from the public is significant.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      That's great. Someone comes forward with evidence of war crimes, and all anyone wants to talk about is his sexual habits.

      I thought that was kind of the point. Isn't it obvious that this is a smear campaign to discredit him and distract from the evidence?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by c6gunner ( 950153 )

        Yeah, he's being smeared / discredited by a hardline feminist member of the far-left organization which invited him to speak in Sweeden in the first place. Right. Makes perfect sense.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by abigsmurf ( 919188 )
      So to sum up your argument, people should be allowed to break the law if they do important work?

      What do you think is the worst crime he should be allowed to (allegedly) commit before he gets arrested then? Shall we draw the line at rape? Murder?
  • puppies (Score:5, Funny)

    by strack ( 1051390 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:23AM (#33434626)
    i hear assange also picks up stray puppies and stews them up. into puppy stew. with puppies in it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Manfre ( 631065 )

      He also flipped off a box of kittens and punched a baby in the face. In his defense, the baby was being a dick.

    • by wiredog ( 43288 )

      Mmmmm. Puppy stew. Only kitten stew is better, with a side of roast baby seal.

  • From what I've understood, "molestation" in Swedish law isn't necessarily sexual. It seems closer to what anglophone systems call "assault". FWIW.

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:27AM (#33434662)
    The real charge is "Pissing off the CIA."
  • These "charges" seem to be that Assange had a one-night stand with some girl. If you were one of the millions of other guys having one-night stands that night, it's a nonissue. If you're associated with Wikileaks, you're a rapist or molestor.

    Assange was charged with rape in a highly public manner. It was all over the news everywhere that Assange was a suspected rapist. The next day, it was withdrawn, because there was nothing to the case. Now they're going to do it again. Soon I'm sure he'll be a child mole

  • by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:33AM (#33434724)
    I've been following the case and the speculation around it on Swedish forums and blogs. A story in English that seems to have what is known / believed to have happened without any obvious errors can be found here [].

    In addition, it's known the police officer interrogating the younger woman has filed a complaint about not being allowed to give her view on what offenses if any were described to the first prosecutor and that her colleague who contacted the prosecutor refused to communicate. The colleague says she has contacted superiors and others and everyone agreed the charge would be rape. The initial prosecutor is under investigation for possibly issuing an arrest warrant without enough cause to do so and, in addition, for confirming Assange's name to a journalist.

    The lawyer of the women says the published story is missing crucial details. He also says he's gone through material used in the preparation of the current law on rape in Sweden. To the question of why the older woman filed harassment charges instead of reporting a rape, he replied "She's not a lawyer".

    Given that the chief prosecutor dismissed the charge of rape saying there's no reason to disbelieve the younger woman's story, but no crime has been committed, but the organization supervising the work of prosecutors think otherwise, it would seem to me there's disagreement on whether there was consent or not. If it was an issue of whether a sex act is rape vs molestation vs harassment etc, they wouldn't be flipping between rape and no crime like this.

    What's absolutely clear is that much of the speculation on what Assange could have done is completely and utterly wrong since the chief prosecutor would never have simply dropped a case where he's accused of strangleholds, forcing himself on a sleeping woman, etcetc.
  • This is just childish... Trying so hard to find dirt on the founder of an organization is ridiculous. And they forget that 'finding' dirt on Assange in no way means that Wikileaks is *evil* all of the sudden. Even the worst people in history had some good ideas, and Wikileaks is a great idea for people of the world!

    That parody site is in no way comparable to the journalistic right to out the wrongdoings of one of the worlds largest governments. When the government hides stuff like the video of the air-str
  • by tmk ( 712144 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @09:47AM (#33434880)
    The credibility of Wikileaks is at stake, but not because of Assanges bedtime stories.

    For example: Assange claimed for years, Wikileaks contributors are protected by the Swedish law, he even threatened to sue anyone who tried to expose a Wikileaks source.

    But if you read the Twitter-stream of Wikileaks carefully, you will see this: this []:

    Confirm our editor applied for Swedish residency on Aug 18 to obtain prior-restraint protections []

    When you follow the link, you will read nothing about "prior-restraint" protections - in fact Wikileaks has until now no protection at all under the Swedish press laws. And they will not get it soon, because Wikileaks did not fill out the application correctly.

    Another migration board spokesperson, Gunilla Wikstroem, told Swedish news agency TT the application was on hold since some information was missing,

    This is only one of the countless contradictions Assange was caught on. For example Assange claimed in 2009 a 17 year old Wikileaks contributor by the police in Iceland to press him for information about Wikileaks. In fact the juvenile was caught breaking into a business premises and was subsequently interrogated in the presence of his parents, police did not even know about any Wikileaks connections. Even when he had to wait for less than 30 minutes at an airport in Australia Assange did spread conspiracy theories about foul play and intelligence agency involvement.

  • by pEBDr ( 1363199 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @10:27AM (#33435354)
    1) Molestation ("ofredande") is NOT a sexual offense, but "sexual molestation" ("sexuell ofredande") is. These are two separate things and there is a big difference in punishment: sexual molestation often puts you in jail, molestation will usually only result in a small fine (but theoretically up to a year in prison, but that never happens). The legal distinction between the two is that in sexual molestation, the person committing the crime has to be sexually motivated, which is of course often very difficult to judge. Also note that in Sweden, neither sexual molestation or molestation has anything to do with the age of the victim.

    2) The charges on molestation was never completely dropped. The attorney was still arguing for the charge to be rape of two persons, while the case was still classified as "molestation" (note: not sexual molestation). The judge was to decide whether to re-open the rape charges, as requested by the attorney. This was to be decided yesterday, but since new information came up, it was delayed until today. And obviously it was decided that the rape charges should be reopened. The submitter claims that "case has been reopened to investigate 'molestation charges'", this is therefore only partially true, since the charge now is:
    rape ("våldtäkt"), sexual forcing ("sexuellt tvång") and sexual molestation ("sexuellt ofredande"). This is A LOT worse for mr Assange than only "molestation".
    It is probable that Assange will be taken into custody (to prevent him from attacking more swedes)... (Google translate with more on this. [])

    3) Yes, Sweden has less macho culture than most other countries. Yes, women in Sweden more often dare to report rapes/sexual offences to the police. Yes, the police usually actually listens to them. And no, this is not a bad thing.
    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @02:02PM (#33438588)

      As with most things in life, and especially most things in law, it isn't cut and dried.

      Unfortunately you are talking to a very biased audience here. For many /. types, Julian Assange is a hero. He mad the US government look bad and they don't like the US government so that makes him a great man. Now something you also discover, certainly in US culture but I suspect in most of them, is that when people decide someone is a hero, they want to over look any potential wrong doing from that person. Faults are downplayed, or claimed to be creations of those who would seek to bring down the hero.

      You see it big time in history books. Try and find a US history book that mentions any faults of any president. They were all model citizens according to that telling of their lives.

      So same thing here. Read the comments and you'll see most people are convinced this HAS to be a CIA (or US government at any rate) plot. They aren't interested in the facts of the case, or that Sweden might be its own nations with its own laws and its own reasons for an investigation. Their hero is being attacked and thus it must be for nefarious reasons. They can't accept that he could possibly do both things they approve of and things they do not.

  • Oh the irony (Score:3, Interesting)

    by trifish ( 826353 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:39AM (#33436418)

    What made me laugh in the Bloomberg article was this gem of irony:

    "Assange is also disappointed that his name was released to the media, he said."


  • by narcolepticjim ( 310789 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @11:40AM (#33436436)

    Of course he didn't wear a condom -- they prevent leaks!

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN