4 ms·

Well, maybe he should not have also offended (in the law and the colloquial sense) his „real“ hosts. It’s almost as if no man is an island, and also Karma.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Or raped someone, for that matter.
- cotelletta 8y ago
  *had consensual sex without a condom with, whose partner wanted to compel him to get an STD test, when a prosecutor with a chip on her shoulder and possibly a dollar bribe in her pocket turned it into what you now think it is. Or at least want us to believe.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    I see no material difference in your description and the term rape. An agreement to have sex with a condom only is certainly not valid for condom-less sex. And your spurious accusation of bribery is just baffling.
    - whamlastxmas 8y ago
      Violently and forcibly penetrating someone against their will is a pretty big difference to not using a condom when previously asked to do so. Depending on the country, yes they're both rape by the legal definition, but it's absolutely worth clarifying.
      - matt4077 8y ago
        I‘m sure he would have had to use violence, if his victim had not been asleep at the time.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        One of those is recklessly exposing someone to the risk of an incurable disease, the other is doing the same thing with additional immediately visible damage.
      - erikpukinskis 8y ago
        No, it would be a small difference to some people, and it would be a big difference to others. Just like being choked suddenly without consent would be delightful to some and horrifying to others. It's not a matter of "which act is more violent". There are a class of acts which rise to the level of rape. This includes condom removal, forcible penetration, unforced penetration following clear withdrawal of consent, etc. "Is it rape?" is not a matter of which of these different acts is considered most violent. The law doesn't establish a hierarchy. It's a bar. Either the act rises above the bar or not. It's a matter of whether parties explicitly gave consent, whether they explicitly withdrew consent, and which parties committed which acts under those circumstances. It's important that it is a bar, so that people can know rationally whether they or others have crossed it. A hierarchy with "bad rape", "better rape" and "best rape" would not be a useful social contract.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    What he was accused of doing violated, albeit by my not-qualified-in-law reading, multiple sections of the UK’s Sexual Offences Act 2003. As I recall, the judge in his case said something similar, and agreed to his extradition partly on that basis (although Wikipedia says there isn’t a requirement for double criminality in cases like this).
- ataturk 8y ago
  Uh, ok. That "rape" was a female intelligence agent provocateur. They took one look at his character flaws and came up with an awesome entrapment plan. Look, being a spook isn't hard when most political figures and guys like Assange love to drink and chase tail. It's even easier when the tail comes on to you, ostensibly because you're website is well known and you're a sort of counter-cultural hero because of your cause (exposing wrongs through leaks). Assange was set up. Regardless of his personality, he was clearly targeted by the CIA and MI5/6.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

Or raped someone, for that matter.

cotelletta 8y ago
*had consensual sex without a condom with, whose partner wanted to compel him to get an STD test, when a prosecutor with a chip on her shoulder and possibly a dollar bribe in her pocket turned it into what you now think it is. Or at least want us to believe.
- matt4077 8y ago
  I see no material difference in your description and the term rape. An agreement to have sex with a condom only is certainly not valid for condom-less sex. And your spurious accusation of bribery is just baffling.
  - whamlastxmas 8y ago
    Violently and forcibly penetrating someone against their will is a pretty big difference to not using a condom when previously asked to do so. Depending on the country, yes they're both rape by the legal definition, but it's absolutely worth clarifying.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      I‘m sure he would have had to use violence, if his victim had not been asleep at the time.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      One of those is recklessly exposing someone to the risk of an incurable disease, the other is doing the same thing with additional immediately visible damage.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      No, it would be a small difference to some people, and it would be a big difference to others. Just like being choked suddenly without consent would be delightful to some and horrifying to others. It's not a matter of "which act is more violent". There are a class of acts which rise to the level of rape. This includes condom removal, forcible penetration, unforced penetration following clear withdrawal of consent, etc. "Is it rape?" is not a matter of which of these different acts is considered most violent. The law doesn't establish a hierarchy. It's a bar. Either the act rises above the bar or not. It's a matter of whether parties explicitly gave consent, whether they explicitly withdrew consent, and which parties committed which acts under those circumstances. It's important that it is a bar, so that people can know rationally whether they or others have crossed it. A hierarchy with "bad rape", "better rape" and "best rape" would not be a useful social contract.
- ben_w 8y ago
  What he was accused of doing violated, albeit by my not-qualified-in-law reading, multiple sections of the UK’s Sexual Offences Act 2003. As I recall, the judge in his case said something similar, and agreed to his extradition partly on that basis (although Wikipedia says there isn’t a requirement for double criminality in cases like this).
ataturk 8y ago
Uh, ok. That "rape" was a female intelligence agent provocateur. They took one look at his character flaws and came up with an awesome entrapment plan. Look, being a spook isn't hard when most political figures and guys like Assange love to drink and chase tail. It's even easier when the tail comes on to you, ostensibly because you're website is well known and you're a sort of counter-cultural hero because of your cause (exposing wrongs through leaks). Assange was set up. Regardless of his personality, he was clearly targeted by the CIA and MI5/6.