The discussion revolves around the reactions to leaked information regarding Julian Assange and the implications for his legal situation. Participants explore the roles of Assange's attorney, the nature of the allegations against Assange, and the broader context of government secrecy and media reporting. The conversation touches on themes of legal ethics, public perception, and the intersection of personal and political actions.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the allegations against Assange or the appropriateness of the attorney's response. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the leaks and the motivations behind the allegations.
Some participants note the complexity of the legal and ethical issues involved, including the potential impact of media leaks on the judicial process and the subjective nature of public opinion on the allegations.
russ_watters said:I assume that's meant to be your answer to the question of wikileaks being a media outlet? That's not sufficient, as the article goes on to point out that there are questions as to whether it really is. So I want you to explain what you think it is about wikileaks that makes it a news outlet/Assange a journalist. I want you to show that you are actually thinking and not just reacting. Ok...so what is your point? That's a train wreck of thoughtlessness:
1. Have you not been paying attention to the news or to the other threads here? There has been a ton of discussion of that legal standing, both for the rape charge and for the [potential] espionage charge. Dismissing it with a handwave implies you've either read nothing or put no thought into the issue or both. Either way, ignorance is not an argument.
2. The courts get to decide if there is legal standing. For the rape charge, they have decided there is.
3. The last sentence doesn't follow from the first: being innocent until proven guilty still requires a charge.
4. Whether a person here personally believes he's guilty of rape is not relevant to whether he is or will be found guilty - and for the record, I believe in holding a fair trial.
5. What he did with wikileaks is public knowledge, so we all know what he is "guilty" of. Whether you can successfully attach a legal case to that (or even get him into a court room to hear it) is still an open question.
6. None of this has anything to do with your claim that it is ok for Assange to leak classified information while wrong for the government to.
f95toli said:That is not what he is charged with. Also, it is worth repeating that his is NOT charged with rape as it is usually understood in the US and the UK; he is charged with what I guess one could call coercion: basically forcing/making a woman do something when she did not agree to do it. It is a milder charge (in terms of possible sentence etc) than rape; it is sort of like the difference between manslaughter and murder.
I don't know what the sentence would be if he was found guilty; but my guess would be 6-12 months or so in prison ("normal" rape would -if I am not mistaken- result in a sentence of between 2 to 6 years)
nismaratwork said:Of course, if a woman could prove that at some point during sex she wanted to stop, and that the man continued despite her protests or introduced some other element that was unwanted in the USA... IT WOULD BE A CHARGE OF RAPE... at least to start with... he's probably plead to something like sexual battery
f95toli said:But once again, the rape charges were dismissed by the original prosecutor. The current charges are sexual coercion (or maybe a better translation would be "sexual forcing", the Swedish term is "sexuellt tvång") and sexual molestation. These are separate crimes, NOT the same as rape, according to Swedish law (which is why the maximum sentence is lower than for rape).
Gokul43201 said:Thanks for the clarification and elaboration.