The charges against Assange

[Pure]

note to tx

So what is wrong with the thread on this subject that is already posted to the tune of 10 pages? Why not just throw your two cents in there instead of starting a whole new thread of stuff that has been already hashed over? I posted to that thread also.

[...]Why don't you post this crap in your own forum?


speaking personally only...

the other thread is about the leak problem, not the leaky condom problem.

you'd best stick to non-crap intellectual pursuits like being 'the last person who posts here' and discussing the singing mouse.

 

[sr71plt]

Why doesn't Pure post this to his own forum? My guess is that he's embarrassed to show up at the Story Discussion forum at all, seeing as how he has no (zero, nada, zip) stories of his own posted to Literotica--just three two-year-stale poems. That doesn't answer why he posts to a forum area designated for Lit. authors and readers, though.

Best I can guess is that he has this self-obsessed view that all he has to do is collect a bunch of Internet postings that support his take on matters irrelevant to erotica writing and the world will change for him. Perhaps if he put the stuff on some discussion board more relevant to his topics than an erotica porn board . . .

 

[TxRad]

So what is wrong with the thread on this subject that is already posted to the tune of 10 pages? Why not just throw your two cents in there instead of starting a whole new thread of stuff that has been already hashed over? I posted to that thread also.

[...]Why don't you post this crap in your own forum?


speaking personally only...

the other thread is about the leak problem, not the leaky condom problem.

you'd best stick to non-crap intellectual pursuits like being 'the last person who posts here' and discussing the singing mouse.

Oh the leaky condom problem was mentioned several times. You're the one who needs to learn to read before posting crap.

You see if you posted enough around here to know anything about this forum, you wouldn't shoot your mouth off about things you don't understand. Singing mice are much more interesting than some guy sticking his dick in where it shouldn't be. Actually, he shouldn't have pissed off all the nations of the world. Then he wouldn't have these crappy ass charges hanging around his neck.

This topic is another in a long list that has been talked to death.

 

[sr71plt]

Singing mice are much more interesting than some guy sticking his dick in where it shouldn't be.

Ummm, well, I'd have to say I'd be more interested in the dick sticking (especially in relation to singing mice) if that was all I saw here--in passing. But Pure and others beat topics to death that are pretty much what I'm escaping by coming to this particular part of the forum.

Pure mistakes this for the General Board. That's probably because Pure (like most of the other "EveryonewantstoknowwhatIthinkaboutpolitics" posters here) is a parasitic drone here--doesn't contribute squat to the story file.

 

[Pure]

note to sr

sr71But Pure and others beat topics to death that are pretty much what I'm escaping by coming to this particular part of the forum.

let's get this straight. you post to this thread to *escape* crap and beaten-to-death politics. you click on it and read me and the other posters because.... oh, i know. you can't stand such discussions!

 

[TxRad]

sr71But Pure and others beat topics to death that are pretty much what I'm escaping by coming to this particular part of the forum.

let's get this straight. you post to this thread to *escape* crap and beaten-to-death politics. you click on it and read me and the other posters because.... oh, i know. you can't stand such discussions!

No, I think he's making a point about your stupidity for posting politics on a porn board. Duh!
take it to a political site. Oh wait, you can't they've already discussed this and concluded there is nothing to say until a trial or whatever starts. Why can't you be so insightful?

 

[sr71plt]

sr71But Pure and others beat topics to death that are pretty much what I'm escaping by coming to this particular part of the forum.

let's get this straight. you post to this thread to *escape* crap and beaten-to-death politics. you click on it and read me and the other posters because.... oh, i know. you can't stand such discussions!

No, I clicked on this thread with the thought that you are beating this topic to death in your usual collect-gobs-from-the-Internet-and-dump-it-here fashion and wanting to use my free speech right to tell you you are a parasitic drone here who apparently has nothing worthwhile to do with your time except push your "look at how well I can copy from the Internet" tomes on an irrelevant corner of the Web out of your frustration that you are impotent and unused in real life.

 

[Pure]

note to stell

[pure conflates two things]One is whether or not (I think by your wording) the women had the right to make the complaints, which, yes they do by the laws of their land.

the women have a right to their complaints, given the law. but such a law, proceeding with sex w/o condom, lacking violence or threat thereof, and lacking demonstrable harm [e.g.AIDS] should not be on the books as a criminal matter. IMO, it's a civil wrong, likely hard ever to demonsrate in court.

care to answer my question (without pre judging the facts of the case)

would you agree that a person who voluntarily has (consensual) sex soon after [an] alleged non-consensual sex [act], and is not a prisoner, throws some doubt on any claim to have suffered a harm that the larger society should pay any attention to (or lay charges against).?

 

[Pure]

sr71

sr71

parasitic drone

and you know about how many stories i, and others, have posted at Lit, how?

 

[sr71plt]

sr71

parasitic drone

and you know about how many stories i, and others, have posted at Lit, how?

That shows how little you know about the Web site you're a moderator for. (You don't give too figs for erotica, do you? You're just here to dump political chat irrelevantly, aren't you? Because you get kicked off other Web sites where you bore people with regurgitating Internet files?)

There's an author's list on the Web site, giving the story list of Lit. author's works by name. That's had I found out about your two-year-old three measally poems constituting the dues you pay to Literotica.

And let's not have any of the "I post in other names" crap. The only works published by the account under the name of Pure are the works listed under that name.

If you have other account names, yes, as already mentioned, you should not be posting anything not related to your moderator duties in that name if we can't put you on ignore.

 

[sr71plt]

So, why do you post your long, rambling, mostly Internet regurgitations of general topics to the AH rather than the General Board, Pure? You can't hold your own on the General Board? You can't really call yourself a Literotica author, and you don't demonstrate that you are a Literotica reader either--or have any interest at all in erotica. So, why do you choose this part of the forum rather than some place more relevant to your brand of rambling pseudo-intellectualism (living off the writings of others)? Been chased off other forums because you can't cut it there?

 

[Pure]

sr71

your bits of tubercular phlegm [above] stay posted at AH because of its free speech rule.

you want to deny others that right unless you assess them to be worthy contributers to Literotica, which you have no way of knowing.

 

[Handley_Page]

This whole event kinda reminds me of Elliot Ness getting Al Capone for Tax Evasion.
Has Uncle Sam got a hand in this ?
the cynic might well say Yes!

 

[sr71plt]

your bits of tubercular phlegm [above] stay posted at AH because of its free speech rule.

you want to deny others that right unless you assess them to be worthy contributers to Literotica, which you have no way of knowing.

Oh, no. I'm just using my free speech here to tell you how useless I think you are here.

And of course I know who contributes what here. The Web site is transparent in that regard.

And you are obviously here with what you post because you are frustrated that no one in the real world pays a bit of attention to your political views and because you can't hold your own anywhere where what your posts would be relevant.

You irritate me here, so I'm just using the privilege to irritate you back a little.

Back to writing stories here that actually pay dues to be posting to the AH.

 

[Austin8]

This whole event kinda reminds me of Elliot Ness getting Al Capone for Tax Evasion.
Has Uncle Sam got a hand in this ?
the cynic might well say Yes!

I actually thought this discussion had potential....

Yes!

 

[TxRad]

your bits of tubercular phlegm [above] stay posted at AH because of its free speech rule.

you want to deny others that right unless you assess them to be worthy contributers to Literotica, which you have no way of knowing.

No one is trying to deny you anything. In fact, it's the other way around. You are denying us the right to ignore you by using your moderators ID.

I could care less what you post as long as I can ignore it if i so wish. It's just that simple.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Okay, I don't have any work posted here. I write, though; professionally in the past, and now on scripts that I hope to produce. I come here because there are other writers and smart, thoughtful people who I enjoy having discussions with. What makes this forum unique, in my mind, is that there is a common understanding that topics that are sexual in nature should be treated legitimately. I have discussions here that would be difficult in other venues, with other people who share, at least, an interest in writing about human sexuality from diverse points of view.

Yes, I think this case is interesting for the same reasons Pure and Stella appear to: First, for the laws pertaining to what has come to be translated as "sex by surprise", and the cultural assumptions behind them; second, for the complicating factors surrounding Assange himself in his Wikileaks role. I've contemplated starting a thread on this topic several times.

 

[Pure]

handley This whole event kinda reminds me of Elliot Ness getting Al Capone for Tax Evasion.
Has Uncle Sam got a hand in this ?
the cynic might well say Yes!

i think yes, but there's a dissimilarity here: the tax evasion was intimately connected to Capone's crimes, which made huge sums.

this is more like nailing Capone for loitering, forcing him to pay a $200 fine.

i'm reminded of dirty tricks against mr. ellsberg, who incidentally appeared on tv recently, drawing some parallels to his case. the tricks are to upset and destabilize the enemy.

ellsberg was the first leaker ever charged, he said. i don't believe the charges went anywhere, nor will charges of 'espionage' against assange go anywhere, unless the espionage act covers upsetting and embarrassing US government officials.

 

[JackLuis]

Here is a Link to MC Clatchy that covers their coverage of the story.

There are many interesting aspects to this case, 'Sex by Surprise" is only one.

Karl Rove advising the Swedish Government is another.

The Australian response is interesting.

Not much doing today so far, check my thread if you want to keep up with the story.

Here are the Spiegel Links

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, I think this case is interesting for the same reasons Pure and Stella appear to: First, for the laws pertaining to what has come to be translated as "sex by surprise", and the cultural assumptions behind them; second, for the complicating factors surrounding Assange himself in his Wikileaks role. I've contemplated starting a thread on this topic several times.

And the point is that threads have been started and worked over ad nauseum on this topic already on the AH. (And amateur legal briefs on who did what to whom and whether they can be prosecuted for it are just a bunch of hot air. What will happen will happen.)

This one has turned off someone who actually is a Literotica author and sent her or him screaming into the night.

Again, if Pure insists on piling the crap on, I don't mind shoveling some of it back to him.

 

[Stella_Omega]

would you agree that a person who voluntarily has (consensual) sex soon after [an] alleged non-consensual sex [act], and is not a prisoner, throws some doubt on any claim to have suffered a harm that the larger society should pay any attention to (or lay charges against).?

Nope.

 

[Pure]

aussie links and others

http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml

http://www.theage.com.au/national/assange-case-flawed-20101221-194i9.html


chronology
http://wlcentral.org/book/export/html/13

the key phone call accusers made
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20100824,00.shtml

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ounder-Julian-Assange/articleshow/7068149.cms


The two Swedish women who have brought sex charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange boasted about their relationship with him days before going to police.

Based on information available on various websites quoting police and court files, and reports in the Swedish media, here's an account of what happened.

The story goes back to August this year, when Assange was in Stockholm to speak at the invitation of Sweden's Social Democratic Party.

The event organizer was 31-year-old “A,” press secretary of the Brotherhood Movement, which is an adjunct of the Social Democratic Party. A, who has been described as a feminist, leftist and animal rights activist, previously worked at the Uppsala University, handling equality issues for the students' union. (After pressing charges against Assange, she has been called a "CIA agent" on various blogs and Twitter. The internet is abuzz with conspiracy theories on how Assange was framed. Speculation about her ties to CIA is being fuelled by her alleged association with anti-Castro groups funded by the US.)

When Assange arrived in Stockholm on August 11, A invited him to stay at her flat while she visited her family for a few days out in the country. A returned home on August 13; she and Assange had sex that night. Both have admitted a condom was used and it broke. On August 20, A would go to police alleging that Assange deliberately broke the condom during sex.


A's co-accuser, 26-year-old “W” an aspiring photographer, had sex with Assange on the evening of August 16 and again the following morning. The first time, a condom was used; the second time, there was no condom. On August 20, W would go to police alleging that Assange had refused to wear a condom.

Assange insists that the sex with both women was consensual. After the sexual encounters, neither woman seemed to harbour any resentment against Assange. One of Assange's lawyers has been quoted as saying: "The exact content of W’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither W's nor A's texts complain of rape."

On August 14, the day following the night of "crime", Assange delivered a 90-minute speech about how the first casualty of war is truth. A was in attendance (as was W) but showed no signs of the previous night's "trauma". The two women can be seen in a video of the conference . At 2 o'clock that night, while hosting a party in Assange's honour at her flat, A tweeted: "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."

After going to police on August 20, she deleted the tweet. The post deleted from can still be seen on this cached page . After sex with Assange on the morning of August 17, W went out, and bought, then cooked breakfast – oatmeal and juice.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of COURSE people are calling her a "CIA agent" and shit. Of COURSE he says the sex was consensual. OF COURSE his lawyer claims that they were bragging about fucking him. That's what men DO when they have to defend themselves against charges of sexual impropriety.

Being a firebrand activist for freedom of information does not mean he is a perfect human being. Admiring him for his activism does NOT mean I have to dismiss other considerations into his character. Or excuse them.

Folks, the firefox plugin in my signature will allow you to ignore pure even though he's a moderator-- or merely ignore this particular thread, which is what I am about to do.

 

[Huckleman2000]

{...]
This one has turned off someone who actually is a Literotica author and sent her or him screaming into the night.

Again, if Pure insists on piling the crap on, I don't mind shoveling some of it back to him.

Ye Gods! Someone having a tiz over a thread on the Internet! I'm shocked! They may have to skim over the title in the highlighted lists of the two threads that have been updated in the previous half hour since they last visited the site!

Yes, perhaps the legalities will sort themselves out as a typical case. I'm not so much interested in that as I am in the different views of people here on what it is in this case that constitutes "rape", and why they believe that.

I'm old enough to remember when the mainstream male attitude towards rape was that the best course of action for the woman was to "lie back and enjoy it." This gave way to the argument that rape is not a "sex-crime", but a crime of violence. Then came the idea of "date-rape", that "no means no", and the idea of "consent" was introduced. Men at universities were taught to get permission for every touch they contemplated. Men have been convicted on rape charges because women cannot give "consent" when they are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

So, in the course of my adult life, "rape" has been redefined, at least from the legal and courtroom standpoint, and in the cultural context as well. I don't think that's a bad thing.

But I have to wonder when "rape" now means "oops, the condom broke", isn't that a different sort of personal trespass than forcible assault with intercourse?

There is also the case of the Arab man who was accused of rape because he told the woman he was Jewish. If that held up, I'm sure it would squelch any conversation in airport and hotel bars.

Yet, women are attracted to "confidence" more than any other trait. The infamous Duke University coed's fuck report rated the men on their "aggressiveness". Women's erotica is rife with bodice-ripping cliches of upstanding men who are so consumed with passion that they become sexual animals under the spell of the heroines' beauty or something.

What recourse is there for men who have impregnated women who they thought were on the pill? Is not telling your sexual partner that you forgot to take your birth-control pill last Tuesday and Wednesday also "rape"? What of women who, having been told "no" plead and tease men to bed them until the men become erect, then take that reflex as "consent"? Is that somehow less traumatic than other date-rape scenarios?

And what of groupies, and the dangers of "fucking while famous"?

 

[sr71plt]

Ye Gods. Nine paragraphs of tiz.

Guess that's a difference between us. I'm on an erotica site busy working on erotica to post to the site and to put out to the market for profit. And you are giving deep thought to something that has nothing to do with you and that you couldn't do anything about even if it did. A month from now, your work on Assange will be a pile of worthless words and time wasted, and I'll be collecting royalties.