3 ms·

Assange denies having said that, according to the article linked from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4078607

by blast 2y ago

Assange denies having said that, according to the article linked from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786073. Is there proof that he did, such as a recording? "Willing to hand death lists to psychopaths" is the language of a hit piece so your link seems a little biased.

consumer451 2y ago
Since this was written in the UK, couldn't he use their libel laws to sue if he hadn't said it? The article states that there were multiple journalists who could be called as witnesses, and could testify as to what happened, one way or the other.
- blast 2y ago
  "he didn't sue me for libel" is not much of an argument. Most false reports don't end up in a libel suit even in the UK. I'm not saying it's false, I don't know, but the reporting on this has been hotly contested and there are charges of politicization all around.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    If I was him, and never said this, I would fight tooth and nail to prove that this was the case. He certainly appears to have enough supporters to fund such an endeavor.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      In fairness, he's been busy with another legal battle that he appears to consider a matter of life-and-death. (I don't buy the argument that it was actually that, but I'm willing to believe that he convinced himself that it was).
      - consumer451 2y ago
        > In fairness, he's been busy with another legal battle that he appears to consider a matter of life-and-death. Agreed, it will be very interesting to see how this particular thing goes forward from today. Ideally, he would defend himself. I wouldn't hate to be proven wrong, as heroes are few and far between. However, post-release, becoming a main character in a certain political branch of the podcast-sphere might allow him to ignore any of these annoying factual issues and do just fine. /cynical
    - blast 2y ago
      If "he didn't take it to court" is the strongest argument that the claim is true, that seems weak to me. I'd invoke "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" in that case.

by blast 2y ago

consumer451 2y ago

Since this was written in the UK, couldn't he use their libel laws to sue if he hadn't said it? The article states that there were multiple journalists who could be called as witnesses, and could testify as to what happened, one way or the other.

blast 2y ago
"he didn't sue me for libel" is not much of an argument. Most false reports don't end up in a libel suit even in the UK. I'm not saying it's false, I don't know, but the reporting on this has been hotly contested and there are charges of politicization all around.
- consumer451 2y ago
  If I was him, and never said this, I would fight tooth and nail to prove that this was the case. He certainly appears to have enough supporters to fund such an endeavor.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    In fairness, he's been busy with another legal battle that he appears to consider a matter of life-and-death. (I don't buy the argument that it was actually that, but I'm willing to believe that he convinced himself that it was).
    - consumer451 2y ago
      > In fairness, he's been busy with another legal battle that he appears to consider a matter of life-and-death. Agreed, it will be very interesting to see how this particular thing goes forward from today. Ideally, he would defend himself. I wouldn't hate to be proven wrong, as heroes are few and far between. However, post-release, becoming a main character in a certain political branch of the podcast-sphere might allow him to ignore any of these annoying factual issues and do just fine. /cynical
  - blast 2y ago
    If "he didn't take it to court" is the strongest argument that the claim is true, that seems weak to me. I'd invoke "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" in that case.