3 ms·

The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. A lot of the evidence is what she thinks he was thinking -

The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. A lot of the evidence is what she thinks he was thinking - this is not high quality evidence. He seems to have done everything she asked him to do. The last dot point is from the other set of charges (SW rather than AA). That one is a fairly clear case of straight up exceeding the scope of consent. If it happened like that, it is bad behavior. He could reasonably be unwise rather than malicious. A formal apology and a moderate fine for any medical expenses seems appropriate to my moral judgment, although the courts would know what is appropriate legally. At any rate, the two cases here are rather minor compared to the suspicion that the US government is setting him up with a smear campaign. The forces against him include a government which apparently has a secret court and a spy network that was being run by the executive without the apparent knowledge of the American congress. These charges may not exist in a vacuum. Lots of people are not perfect, the issue is that he deserves some freedom from persecution for his political actions. Someone obviously agrees with me here that these charges were politically motivated, because the Ecuadorians are granting him asylum.

Tomte 11y ago
So you're saying Assange should be allowed to do whatever he wants, because USA? And re: Ecuador, there are certainly reasons why they have granted asylum. Wanting to protect a victim of persecution is virtually guaranteed not to have been a real consideration. Pissing off the USA and the UK is the obviously much bigger motivation.
- another-one-off 11y ago
  I'm being quite specific, saying that this extradition order for these specific charges should be ignored, because USA. If they had solid evidence that he was dragging women off the streets and threatening them with a knife then this is all reasonable. No-one is alleging anything like that. I'm also throwing in an uninformed opinion that people are throwing 'sexual assault' and 'rape' around expecting a strong reaction, but I don't see the justification for getting worked up here. Setting aside any STDs (basically, assuming Assange doesn't have aids), the issue is that he did something that didn't hurt anyone, doesn't appear calculated to humiliate, was in circumstances where he might have misunderstood as having consent (given he was already having sex with these women), and can be rectified in 24 hours with drugs and a doctors visit. This would be grounds to discipline him, but not grounds to get worked up.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    You're ignoring the part where he's holding her arms down and forcing her legs open. He's no different than the "dragging women off the streets" rapist, he just didn't need to do that in this case.
    - another-one-off 11y ago
      So my answer to that is below; just in closing the wikipedia article insinuates [1] that the reason that any of this was reported to the police was because the women involved wanted Assange tested for STDs, not because they wanted him prosecuted for rape. The Chief Public Prosecutor didn't think it was rape at the time. This seems pretty reasonable, and to me says that rape in Sweden is potentially about as serious as a traffic violation - there was potential, if other things had gone wrong in a somewhat unusual conjunction of events, for someone to have been harmed. An unsavvy woman (potentially those involved) would have been completely unaware that she had been raped. I'd need to see something new, but while Assange may have committed a crime in Sweden he shouldn't be stigmatised. The word rape, in this very specifc case, is being used in a very technical manner and is clearly a slightly arcane legal term. Maybe discipline is required, but it isn't clear-cut what sort of penalty is needed. Again, I think an apology and some time with a doctor seems in order. Maybe a fine. Possibly this could be handled outside the courts. An extradition is uncalled for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Complaints_and_initial_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    > the issue is that he did something that didn't hurt anyone, doesn't appear calculated to humiliate, was in circumstances where he might have misunderstood as having consent (given he was already having sex with these women), and can be rectified in 24 hours with drugs and a doctors visit. This would be grounds to discipline him, but not grounds to get worked up. I honestly can't conceive that you could apply this logic. Not all rape is the same in severity or impact - but it is sure as hell all rape. And feeling like someone had sexual contact with you in a way that you did not want is pretty much the end of the story. Whether there are explicit physiological medical repercussions or not.
rayiner 11y ago
> The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. Whether or not it was a broken condom or he ripped it on purpose is a red herring. If the allegations are true, he was trying to have sex with a woman he just met while holding her arms down and trying to force her legs open. That's attempted rape.
- another-one-off 11y ago
  Later in the paragraph: > After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. [...] Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom [...] I can read this as being not that great at sex. Depending on how long "a while" is, he might just be in the habit of grabbing his partner. This doesn't seem malicious.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    That might be reasonable, unmalicious behavior if you have a history with someone and can infer things about their state of mind. It's utterly reckless as to someone you just met.

Tomte 11y ago

So you're saying Assange should be allowed to do whatever he wants, because USA? And re: Ecuador, there are certainly reasons why they have granted asylum. Wanting to protect a victim of persecution is virtually guaranteed not to have been a real consideration. Pissing off the USA and the UK is the obviously much bigger motivation.

another-one-off 11y ago
I'm being quite specific, saying that this extradition order for these specific charges should be ignored, because USA. If they had solid evidence that he was dragging women off the streets and threatening them with a knife then this is all reasonable. No-one is alleging anything like that. I'm also throwing in an uninformed opinion that people are throwing 'sexual assault' and 'rape' around expecting a strong reaction, but I don't see the justification for getting worked up here. Setting aside any STDs (basically, assuming Assange doesn't have aids), the issue is that he did something that didn't hurt anyone, doesn't appear calculated to humiliate, was in circumstances where he might have misunderstood as having consent (given he was already having sex with these women), and can be rectified in 24 hours with drugs and a doctors visit. This would be grounds to discipline him, but not grounds to get worked up.
- rayiner 11y ago
  You're ignoring the part where he's holding her arms down and forcing her legs open. He's no different than the "dragging women off the streets" rapist, he just didn't need to do that in this case.
  - another-one-off 11y ago
    So my answer to that is below; just in closing the wikipedia article insinuates [1] that the reason that any of this was reported to the police was because the women involved wanted Assange tested for STDs, not because they wanted him prosecuted for rape. The Chief Public Prosecutor didn't think it was rape at the time. This seems pretty reasonable, and to me says that rape in Sweden is potentially about as serious as a traffic violation - there was potential, if other things had gone wrong in a somewhat unusual conjunction of events, for someone to have been harmed. An unsavvy woman (potentially those involved) would have been completely unaware that she had been raped. I'd need to see something new, but while Assange may have committed a crime in Sweden he shouldn't be stigmatised. The word rape, in this very specifc case, is being used in a very technical manner and is clearly a slightly arcane legal term. Maybe discipline is required, but it isn't clear-cut what sort of penalty is needed. Again, I think an apology and some time with a doctor seems in order. Maybe a fine. Possibly this could be handled outside the courts. An extradition is uncalled for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Complaints_and_initial_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
- Ntrails 11y ago
  > the issue is that he did something that didn't hurt anyone, doesn't appear calculated to humiliate, was in circumstances where he might have misunderstood as having consent (given he was already having sex with these women), and can be rectified in 24 hours with drugs and a doctors visit. This would be grounds to discipline him, but not grounds to get worked up. I honestly can't conceive that you could apply this logic. Not all rape is the same in severity or impact - but it is sure as hell all rape. And feeling like someone had sexual contact with you in a way that you did not want is pretty much the end of the story. Whether there are explicit physiological medical repercussions or not.

rayiner 11y ago

> The first 3 dot points read more like a case of a broken condom than exceeding the scope of consent. Whether or not it was a broken condom or he ripped it on purpose is a red herring. If the allegations are true, he was trying to have sex with a woman he just met while holding her arms down and trying to force her legs open. That's attempted rape.

another-one-off 11y ago
Later in the paragraph: > After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. [...] Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom [...] I can read this as being not that great at sex. Depending on how long "a while" is, he might just be in the habit of grabbing his partner. This doesn't seem malicious.
- rayiner 11y ago
  That might be reasonable, unmalicious behavior if you have a history with someone and can infer things about their state of mind. It's utterly reckless as to someone you just met.