For the single ladies

"do you therefore believe that these journalists should have their personal details revealed?"

That's frigging cradle-of-mankind logic.  I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway; No, I am not a big believer in 'an eye for an eye', but when someone does something provocative they shouldn't be excessively surprised when there's a negative response.  He pissed off a lot of people, and got away with it for a while.  He was onto a fairly good thing, and now it's come back to bite him thanks to his own irresponsibility.  There's a difference between "he had it coming" and "he could've predicted the obvious backlash here".

" I don't see how you can call him a sociopath"

Because it's fucking funny :D

Zebonka12 wrote: ""do you therefore believe that these journalists should have their personal details revealed?"


"That's frigging cradle-of-mankind logic.'

That doesn't make sense, nonetheless, I would suggest it's perfectly logical.

"I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question but I'll answer it anyway; No, I am not a big believer in 'an eye for an eye',"

You completely missed the point. It has nothing to do with an eye for an eye, or revenge. The point is that numerous journalists publish leaked material, and yet we allow them to keep their privacy. Assange is no different.

"but when someone does something provocative they shouldn't be excessively surprised when there's a negative response."

Perhaps not, but it doesn't excuse some of the responses.

"He pissed off a lot of people, and got away with it for a while. He was onto a fairly good thing, and now it's come back to bite him thanks to his own irresponsibility."

His irresponsibility? I disagree. Firstly, nothing can justify the extremism and hatred that has been the reaction of some of his critics, not to the mention that the Swedish thing is quite fishy IMO. Secondly, it is entirely debatable as to whether or not he was ever irresponsible. I think there are legitimate arguements either way, although I'm more for the responsible side than the irresponsible side.

"There's a difference between "he had it coming" and "he could've predicted the obvious backlash here"."

Well, yes, but I don't see your point.

"Because it's fucking funny :D"

I disagree. You often are funny, but that was completely unfunny.

Zebonka12 wrote: "do you not see that there is a difference between leaking personal details and between leaking diplomatic cables?"


"You say that as though there's an absolute answer, and there isn't. Where precisely does one draw the line between personal privacy and state secrets?"

It's not that difficult. There is much difficulty in determining whether he did the right thing, but I don't think there is much difficulty in determining the difference between 'personal privacy and state secrets.'

"I say this again - I have not yet been given remotely sufficient reason to trust Assange in his judgement of what is appropriate for the public to be privy to."

That is entirely different though. Many people object to it for that reason. However the arguments that he must therefore accept his personal details being exposed are completely absurd.

Nobody is accusing him of criminal stalking YV.  The word is used loosely  in the vernacular all the time.   I don't think Julian Assange is the devil. Truthfully I feel my knowledge of world affairs and world history is too shallow for me to have a solid opinion either way on Julian Assange's activities with WikiLeaks. I'm neither seeking to credit nor discredit him, and those email notes simply are what they are. I do think they demonstrate, at least in that place and at that time, an unusually awkward yet entitled approach to interpersonal relations that would more likely than not leave a person uninterested in his affections uncomfortable.  In a perfectly ethical world, that woman would not have released private correspondence, Gawker wouldn't have published it and we wouldn't be choosing to read it. But she did, they did, and we are. I've already listed the many pitfalls and caveats in trying to make it mean anything important at all, but it's not completely unenlightening either.

It would of course be wildly dumb not to acknowledge that Assange is potentially vulnerable to abuse of power in the Sweden situation.  But from the very beginning in August he has cast the accusations as a politically motivated smear engineered by dark forces unhappy with WikiLeaks, and it would be equally dumb to dismiss the possibility of a person trying to bury potentially criminal behaviour under the popularity of his whistleblower project.  The warrant to compel him for questioning on suspicion of rape, coercion and molestataion ('Sex by Surprise' is a dismissive slang term for rape which his lawyer invoked, not a legal term) was requested in Sweden a couple of weeks before the diplomatic cables were released.  The whole investigative timeline, which is detailed in Julian's wiki page, doesn't look to be unduly influenced by outside events to me.

I don't see this as a feminist issue, or an issue of unfairly pathologizing and criminalizing male behaviour. I see this as a common sense and common decency issue.   The law of the land is not supplanted by the law of the jungle the moment two adults enter into a sexual situation.  Forget WikiLeaks for a moment, and forget Julian Assange.   Make the encounter between two anonymous men if you want.  When proven, effectively denying someone safe sex against their wishes for your optimal gratification is not a trivial thing.   Societies have spent decades pouring blood, sweat, tears and capital into campaigns to make people use condoms consistently in uncommitted relationships, and I don't think people who are repsonsible enough and strong enough to enforce condom use should be effectively told to call a wahmbulance just because they elected to have a one night stand. The events as detailed in The Guardian make the notion that he is being persecuted simply because Sweden has decided they do in fact need to have him respond further to the allegations a thin one.  I don't think he's guilty of rape, but neither do I think the question of coercion should be dismissed out of hand.  There are dozens of explanations that could fit around the alleged facts that if true would absolve Assange of anything more than being a bit of a jerk.  It's not asking too much that he go make them.

Dear GFF, I really cannot believe that you keep up trying to make a "stalking" case out of a - maybe strange but perfectrly innocent - email exchange. And stalking is not a loosely used general term, it's a criminal offense - please ask an actual stalking victim. If you (not you personally) publish a photo of someone with the words STALKER under his face you are not suggesting that you are relating to 6 email within 9 days and two phone calls. This sensationalist article is meant to create "circumstances" to make Assange look like a creepy woman abuser with a history.

We really do not disagree about the fact that Assange had to answer the Swedish law enforcement when charges were brought against him. He did and because there was no case he was released and free to leave the country. Nobody can deny that it is more than unusual that the Swedes issued an international arrest warrant for a relatively minor offense compared to actual rape, murder, kidnapping, terrorism etc.

I think that Holly is perfectly right and law makers will certainly agree to him: it is very hard to make a case when two adults have a sexual encounter behind closed doors. We can find someone's behaviour weird or despicable as much as we want but the state has to make a case when someone is charged - we cannot let the digust of Joe Public decide if someone is guilty or not. Laws like the Swedish one are designed to educate the society like for example the rape in a marriage charge or the law against beating children. Very few rape in a marriage cases are actually charged but the general public knows it's not okay what was still "legal" 50 years ago.

When a person who made such noise by publishing US goverment documents is prosecuted for such an offense while there is no legal handle to make him responsible for the damage caused by the publication I find that extremely disgusting and journalists should be much louder in defending the right to publish these documents. I totally agree with Amazon that it is just appalling how US politicians responded to the issue - arrogant and showing no respect for the right of the  free press. As to the public interest: if there were no public interest the New York Times, Guardian and Spiegel certainly would not employ hundreds of editors to sift through the material and publish it. It's really tough to see how cowardly companies like MasterCard and paypal and the so-called mainstream media kneel before the US power.

I once attended a seminar / talk about the risks of email correspondence and cell phones.  We were told that you really should never put anything in an email that you wouldn't want the whole world to read, and we were told to get a digital cell phone so others could not listen in, etc.  Of course this was during the early days of email usage in companies, and when people didn't realize people could intercept their phone calls, but by now, with all the publicity about people getting in trouble for texting, etc. (Tiger Woods, for example), you would think that people might start to rethink what they are putting out there electronically.  Obama once brought this up (I forget the occasion) - warning youngsters that what they put on their Facebook page may come back to haunt them later when they are applying for college or looking for a job.  Anyway, I think a lot of people still see these electronic forms of communication such as texting and email as "secure" and "private" but they are not (there is no guarantee). 

And on the subject of creepiness ... ha - maybe all of us have been "creepy" in some form during the quest for love (or friendships or jobs or other things), and just as the unskilled do not realize they are unskilled, most likely the creepy do not realize they are creepy - especially when blinded by love.  Because if they did, they would change their approach - that is, if they actually cared how they were perceived by others.  But that has to do with thinking of others and their well being and doing what is best for other people.  Because it would not be normal or nice or healthy (I say) to want to make another person fearful or uncomfortable or disgusted.  

But when people are abusive, it usually happens more than once, in my opinion.  Usually things are not happening for the first time, I mean, so if two women have come forward with complaints about the surprise sex, I wouldn't be surprised if there are others out there - maybe many women - who he has treated this way, but are not willing to bring it up and become famous over it.  Also, I think that any legal system is based on costs and practical aspects (time, included) as well as what is and is not against the law.  So, just because a person is not prosecuted, it does not mean that he is "innocent" or not a danger to society.  I don't know how they make decisions about this sort of thing in Sweden.  

I'm enjoying everyone's comments.

YourValentine wrote: Dear GFF, I really cannot believe that you keep up trying to make a "stalking" case out of a - maybe strange but perfectrly innocent - email exchange. And stalking is not a loosely used general term, it's a criminal offense - please ask an actual stalking victim. If you (not you personally) publish a photo of someone with the words STALKER under his face you are not suggesting that you are relating to 6 email within 9 days and two phone calls. This sensationalist article is meant to create "circumstances" to make Assange look like a creepy woman abuser with a history.

We really do not disagree about the fact that Assange had to answer the Swedish law enforcement when charges were brought against him. He did and because there was no case he was released and free to leave the country. Nobody can deny that it is more than unusual that the Swedes issued an international arrest warrant for a relatively minor offense compared to actual rape, murder, kidnapping, terrorism etc.

I think that Holly is perfectly right and law makers will certainly agree to him: it is very hard to make a case when two adults have a sexual encounter behind closed doors. We can find someone's behaviour weird or despicable as much as we want but the state has to make a case when someone is charged - we cannot let the digust of Joe Public decide if someone is guilty or not. Laws like the Swedish one are designed to educate the society like for example the rape in a marriage charge or the law against beating children. Very few rape in a marriage cases are actually charged but the general public knows it's not okay what was still "legal" 50 years ago.

When a person who made such noise by publishing US goverment documents is prosecuted for such an offense while there is no legal handle to make him responsible for the damage caused by the publication I find that extremely disgusting and journalists should be much louder in defending the right to publish these documents. I totally agree with Amazon that it is just appalling how US politicians responded to the issue - arrogant and showing no respect for the right of the  free press. As to the public interest: if there were no public interest the New York Times, Guardian and Spiegel certainly would not employ hundreds of editors to sift through the material and publish it. It's really tough to see how cowardly companies like MasterCard and paypal and the so-called mainstream media kneel before the US power.
=======================

"Stalker" may not be used loosely and casually there, but I can assure you it is here and in the United States where gawker.com is based.  In fact gawker has a whole thing called 'Gawker Stalker' that is nothing more than an ongoing list of celebrity sightings. In reference to Assange, they called the communications 'stalker-y" which isn't even a real word.  Few reading here in this culture would interpret this as an accusation of criminal stalking. It's typical of the glib and catty tone of gossip sites that are in abundance, and people know how to parse this stuff by now. I do understand and share your expectation of fairness, I just don't tend to see these kinds of articles as having much impact on that.

At this point the complaints in Sweden could be many things: perhaps vengeful women, a state too feminist in it's sexual assault laws, an unfortunate series of misunderstandings,  a guy behaving badly but not illegally, or a guy who has crossed the line and committed a personal crime in a sexual setting.  It's this latter possibility, that the evidence at this point does not eliminate, that I don't think you pay enough attention to.  If you insist on seeing everything through a lens of Assange's activities with WikiLeaks, as he'd certainly like you to, you may be handicapping your own potential to fully appreciate the gravity of what he may have done and the degree to which the evidence may support those assertions.  I simply can't share your view that waiting until a partner is sleeping to get around their previous insistence on condom use, as may have happened, is all that minor.  What does that look like in real time anyway?  It's hard to imagine it looking anything other than predatory and assaultive.  Certainly there is a place in the law for protecting individuals from being compelled to have unprotected sex against their wishes.

We agree that weak or ambiguous evidence should never, never be enough to convict someone of any crime. And that  rape is a serious crime that should remain a serious crime, and not one trivialized by too broadly defining it and too casually accusing people of committing it.  We agree that if Julian Assange has been falsely or unfairly tainted by the investigation it is an absolutely grievous injustice, as it always is when someone is wrongly put through particular terrible wringer.  But the thing preventing the case from moving forward toward greater clarity is Julian Assange.  He neglected to return to Sweden in October as he knew was expected, and everything that has followed has followed from that.  The original prosecutor never closed the investigation for molestation (thought I don't know which specific act that potential charge relates to) and the reexpanded investigation happened as a result of the August appeal of the women's legal counsel.  Neither you or I are in a position to assess whether the decision of the first or second prosecutors was the more appropriate one because we don't have all the evidence. My response to your "Sweden let him go" is "Well, Sweden let him go".  It wasn't a rush to judgement and they didn't overstep their civil authority to keep him in the country.  This is a criminal investigation, and as much empathy as I might have for Assange and his unique circumstances, his contempt for the process is not particularly flattering.

Well, I have to say I never saw someone labelled "stalker" for sending some emails to a totally unknown person and  I still believe that this blog is a tabloid-type piece of rubbish designed to discredit Julian Assange. However, this blogger is certainly not Assange's biggest problem. We can hope that the Swedish jurisdiction does not succumb to the wishes of the USA and that he has a fair procedure.  We read that the US are offering Mr. Manning less jail time if he helps to fabricate a charge against Assange. 

Funny how the  public outrage about WikiLeaks is so much bigger than the outrage about the material they published. Funny how American officials blame WikiLeaks for endangering the lives of Afghanistan civilians when they killed over 100 000 civilians themselves. Funny how the majority of the press fall for this scheme - it's apparently not the murderer who is at fault, it's the jounalist who shows the video who is to blame.

It's a little shocking how many knives are coming out for Assange now, and from all sides.  I bought the New York Times WikiLeaks eBook today, and PVRd him on 60 Minutes tonight. I'll report back when I've read/watched.