Assange Arrested; Media Continues to Mis-Report the Charges
I haven’t blogged at all about the little issue of Julian Assange being wanted in Sweden for “sex crimes,” mostly because I find it completely irrelevant to the broader questions about the ethics of what he’s doing with his website and am annoyed by the narrative that suggests otherwise.
However now that he’s actually been arrested in London, and given that not only the press but also a number of people I respect seem to buy the media’s claim that he is being charged with “rape” let me just direct readers here. Also here. Also, if you want to know what I think about conflating sexual predators with those who accidentally or even intentionally violate repressive, Victorian standards of consensual sex, see here.
None of this has any relationship, in my mind, nor should it, to the wider debate about the legitimacy of his politics. I would make this argument even if he were charged, or found guilty, of actual rape. Though it is to be expected now that the media will conflate and confuse the two stories, I for my part will attempt to keep issues of Assange’s personal conduct distinct from my ruminations about his wider political and professional agenda.
The Swedish government’s conduct in not only this case but others have only shown it to be the tool of the transnational corporate elite.
For his part, I hope Assange has left the entirety of the operation in capable hands and has his deadman’s switch handy.
if you want to know what I think about conflating sexual predators with those who accidentally or even intentionally violate repressive, Victorian standards of consensual sex, see here.
I don’t know what “repressive, Victorian standards of consensual sex” have to do with intentionally trying to impregnate a woman when she has made her consent to sexual behavior contingent on using birth control. Even leaving aside the legal issues, the moral and ethical problems with this have nothing to do with Comstockery.
Yeah, describing what Assange is being accused of as merely violating “repressive, Victorian standards of consensual sex” is outrageous.
And the first link Charli gives, in particular, is outrageously cavalier about the whole thing.
I’m so old I can remember Scott flagging Jezebel for giving their space to people with idiotic viewpoints.
… intentionally trying to impregnate a woman when she has made her consent to sexual behavior contingent on using birth control.
“Intentionally impregnate”? You are aware that condoms are sometimes worn for purposes other than birth control? Like, um, the prevention of STDs. Many ladies who have a reliable method of birth control still have a policy of requesting condoms with unfamiliar partners.
Is this really your first rodeo about how condoms are used in modern society?!
Yes, of course this is bad for other reasons as well.
The Curious Case of Schroedinger’s Intentionality.
Did Scott just accuse Assange of having a STD?
Beyond this comment, I refuse to get drawn into this distracting discussion. However let me go on the record as saying I do not condone forcing someone to continue having sex when they have withdrawn their consent.
I can see how my comment (above) could be taken out of context – sorry about that. But the “Victorian standards of consensual sex” I am talking about are those in the blog post to which I linked, and were meant to highlight the problems with conflating a wide continuum of things governments call “sex crimes” with the worst on that continuum.
My concern is not with what Assange did or didn’t do – let the Swedes sort that out. My critique is with the term “rape” – which has a specific meaning at least in the English speaking press as well as in international law – being used to characterize these allegations, which may be criminal but are of a different character than what comes to people’s mind when they hear the word ‘rape’ or ‘rapist’ and are being used to demonize Assange rather than accurately report on the case at hand.
As to the question of whether Assange has been charged with rape (whether or not you think he should be): according to this article from Reuters today:
And:
And my bigger critique is that the sensationalism about this case will draw attention away from the wider debate about Wikileaks, to which I will be putting my intellectual energy as soon as I submit this comment.
I swear, Charli, you are the most egregiously tone-deaf blogger I have ever come across. And there’s competition.
How is that? I don’t see anything wrong with her defense.
“Rape” is unconsensual sex. Consent, once given, can nevertheless be withdrawn. Consent subject to a condition is no consent at all if the condition is not satisfied.
I see absolutely no legal objection to characterizing what this man is man is accused of as “rape,” and I suspect I could write a fairly ironclad brief in support of that chracterization
First of all, if you’re going to make a comment in a blog post that refers to something you link to, you should be aware that people don’t necessarily click on the links, and even if they do, they generally read the entire blog post before clicking on any links. So if something you write in your post refers specifically to the content of the link, then you need to make it clear. Your comment was not “taken out of context,” it was taken in the context of the blog post itself, and the opinions expressed therein.
And if you didn’t want to be drawn into this “distracting conversation,” why discuss it at all? In the words of the rape apologists, you have nobody but yourself to blame.
P.S. Even if you’re talking about the link at “See here,” if makes no sense unless “conflating sexual predators with those who accidentally or even intentionally violate repressive, Victorian standards of consensual sex” somehow relates to the current situation.
Charli, I’ve lost a lot of respect for you in the last few hours.
Yes – this is exactly right. Why are you even writing about “repressive, Victorian standards of consensual sex” if that is now what you think is the situation here?
The Firedoglake link dances and prances around pretending that there’s some Swedish law against having having sex without a condom. It parrots the defense’s argument as complete truth. The Guardian’s coverage I linked to above claims he’s charged with:
That’s what the prosecution is claiming he did, not that it was only consensual sex without a condom.
Doesn’t mean he did it, but that’s close enough for the term rape in my book. I’ll assume Charli is not advocating for the “only if it’s a stranger who jumps out of the bushes does it count as rape standard” but I really don’t understand what the problem is with calling what Assange is accused of rape. Especially in the case of the allegation of holding the woman down and in the case of having sex with the other woman when she was sleeping.
Come, come, surely you know that all public figures have to be held to the highest standards of morality in every aspect of their lives at all times.
Unless they’re Republicans, of course.
It’s a nomenclature battle, and Assange has already lost. “Sexual Assault” seems to be a more accurate phrase for what he is accused of, but it’s all hair-splitting now that he is in the system and subject, presumably, to extradition proceedings.
[...] [...]
The Guardian reported that the allegations reported to the court in Britain included more than this.
Am I misunderstanding, because the details I’m seeing reported at Pandagon for instance, appear to be that one woman claims they were having sex with a condom, it broke and he refused to stop? That’s close enough to rape for me. I wouldn’t do that shit and it’s not at all insane to call it rape.
The charges the Guardian is reporting were offered in the British courtroom included “holding a woman down with his body weight” and “having sex with a woman who was asleep.”
That doesn’t equal the stuff in your link, mentioning statutory rape laws at all in my mind and to suggest that it does is pretty repugnant. I think you at least need to clarify what you think the allegations are.
Oh, great, stupid link thing.
If the charges are correct, the victim did not consent to what Assange did to her. Failing to see a morally relevant distinction with rape as defined by the common law.
Are you suggesting that all nonconsensual touches are the same, morally speaking? Simple battery, for example, is no different from rape?
If the reports are correct, the victim consented to having Assange’s penis in her vagina, what she did not consent to was that his penis be unsheathed. I am quite comfortable that both may be considered crimes, but I’m not sure why they must be treated as equally morally reprehensible.
Continuing to have sex with someone when they tell you to stop is rape.
Because she said stop, and was thus no longer consenting to having his penis in her vagina. Consent can be withdrawn, especially if the circumstances change. Which they did. Whatever else Julian Assange may or may not be, if the allegations are true and he did continue to have sex with a woman after she told him to stop, he is a rapist, period.
How about an assault analogy? Say you’re in a martial arts class; brazilian jujitsu. Your sparring partner puts you in an armlock, causing excruciating pain on your shoulder joint. You tap his shoulder franticly to indicate submission and end the match.
He ignores you and keeps applying the pressure.
You signed up for this after all. You consented to getting put in a painful situation, with certain expectations of your partner, including certain moves which are banned for their chances of causing permanent damage. Now, at your most vulnerable point, you realize the person you’re sparring with has no regard for the rules and restrictions you thought you’d both agreed to.
How is that suddenly less horrifying than being in a bar fight?
Certainly, with the condom, there are equivalent issues of harm: The wrestler might suffer a broken bone or dislocated shoulder. The woman is exposed to STDs and pregnancy, both of which have longer-term consequences. It’s a staggering abuse of trust to do so.
This is an excellent analogy.
This analogy is useful but it glosses over the difference between explicit and implicit safewords.
It does what to the which now?
i.e. What do explicit and implicit safewords have to do with this story, or the assault analogy?
Sorry for my lack of clarity… let me see if I can do better.
The jui jitsu analogy has an explicit safeword provision, the tap-out. In some ways this makes it a lot safer; but it also means that in jui jitsu one can go “full speed ahead” and attempt any (legal) position or hold until the partner taps out. In other words, the partner has pre-consented to the full repertoire of moves until they tap out.
With casual intercourse, there are often no explicit safewords, no agreed way to indicate withdrawal of consent. The obvious first order effect of this is the risk of ambiguity or misunderstanding (so partners seeking to withdraw consent need to send a loud message). However, consent may be negotiated and often occurs in stages; so partners may not be welcome to exhaust their entire repertoire of interests without some further consent.
I’m not sure if that helps make anything any clearer, but what I am trying to say is that in jui jitsu you are welcome to switch positions in a radical fashion but perhaps in intercourse a consenting partner might still appreciate further consultation.
=========
It’s a nice analogy, it captures something important, but it understates the case about how tentative and affirmative sexual consent is.
More concretely relating it to this example:
Assange is accused of having sex with someone while they are asleep — have they tapped out? Perhaps you don’t even have to tap out to withdraw consent. Consent may have an expiration date.
I’m replying to this question since the clarification is too deeply nested to reply to.
First of all, this wasn’t intended to be a perfect analogy, but was intended to address Glenn/Charlie’s implications that overriding consent conditions during sex is less of a crime than forcing someone who was never willing. I wanted to evoke some sense of empathy with the fear and trauma from being compromised when you are at your most vulnerable.
As to the issue of Implicit vs. Explicit, I think it’s largely irrelevant to this discussion. The issue as argued was that hypothetical guy violated the express boundaries presented by hypothetical woman; the point I’m trying to make is larger than this one case.
Accidents do happen, and there can be a grey area in which “No sex without a condom” turns into “Oops, it broke”. That’s an area where individual actions and behaviours can greatly range between honest accident quickly remedied and an actionable offense.
If I were to continue the analogy though, I’d note that short of a professional MMA match or BSDM, “No” “Ouch!” and “Stop” are absolutely explicit with no need for predetermined contracts in either realm.
I hope that “might appreciate further consultation” is comedic understatement; I mean, no shit. As to your final example, having sex with a woman while she slept would be akin to sucker-punching your sparring partner in the back alley after the match. Unless they’ve explicitly cleared it in advance, it’s just NOT DONE; a sleeping/drugged individual cannot consent in any meaningful way. That should be common fucking sense.
“common fucking sense”
An admirably apt term . . .
Oh, and an apology to Charli for the misspelling.
Well, I guess we’ll see what happens back in Sweden. I really have no idea whether he will get a fair trial or not. Hopefully he does, but there is a lot of story left to play out here before too much judgment is drawn.
From a Swede:
Let us not be derailed by the farce of “rape” (i.e.,$10,000 of crisp bills in a paper bag).
We don’t know what happened between Assange and the two flickas, but the whole operation against him reminds me of how they supposedly got Capone: tax avoidance.
Really? The Capone model is usually employed to signify convicting someone guilty of massive crimes for a relatively trivial one.
So . . . What do you claim to be Assange’s massive crime?
The massive crime of not listening to the US government.
I think the point is that people can be brought down by crimes unrelated/tangential to what the system really wants to get them for.
At what point, I wonder, does diminished self-control during intercourse rise to anything like a defense for a male participant?
What happened could’ve been criminal, it could’ve been trivial, and it’s going to be entirely he-said/she-said. Even apart from the political aspect, it’s rather dicey-sounding, though if the facts are egregious enough, I can see where the women are right to press charges.
I wonder what the typical penalty would look like in a case where the politics were absent?
Perhaps if men (and women) can’t muster the self-control to stop having intercourse if their partner decides/realizes that they don’t want to, they shouldn’t begin having it in the first place.
I suppose that if a woman said “stop” while her male partner was in the actual throes of orgasm, I could understand, but unless he is actively coming, I’m pretty unsympathetic to the “self-control” argument. It reminds me a little too much of why Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair and ankles and don’t sing in public: because the men can’t control themselves. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the men’s problem.
Girl, word.
What Anderson maybe meant to say is that communication clarity is diminished during intercourse. It’s not that males cannot physically stop; their already overtaxed brains are filtering the partner’s comments with a crippling bias towards continuing intercourse.
I trust we can all imagine erotic situations where one partner says the actual word ‘no’ or ‘stop’ in the throes of passion but is not communicating the message “any further sex is rape.” BDSM has to use explicit safewords to combat this risk. But in vanilla sex, there are some implicit safewords. ‘Condom’ is one. Saying to a partner “stop, there is something wrong with the condom” is very clear; no one has sex-play talk about condoms, everyone is pretending to ignore them. ‘Rape’ is, of course, another implicit safeword.
If I were King of the World, our sex ed classes would cover some of these concepts; I would want to eliminate any plausible deniability surrounding communication lapses.
I understand that. And my point is that if they’re not going to be able to overcome that bias (which I’m fairly certain has been managed at least once or twice in the history of the world), they should keep their penises out of anything other than Fleshlights.
(Obviously “no” does not always mean “stop,” but I assume it was pretty clear in this/these case(s). Anyway, they wouldn’t have said “no”. They would have said have said “neg,” according to Google Translate.)
Wouldn’t it be more likely that an Australian man and a Swedish woman would be communicating in English than in Swedish?
Excellent point: maybe she said “no” in Swedish because that’s her native language and thus the one she would use if upset, and he just didn’t understand. Should I send this defense idea to his attorneys?
Abby Spice, if you think (like I do) the difference between “no” and “neg” is trivial and foolish, I suggest we place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the person who introduced that distinction.
Whenever I have heard someone say that it is impossible for a man to “just stop”, my answer has been, What if your mother walked in? How long would it take you to stop?
Not that most adults have their mother on hand for this, but just to imagine, I bet it would be pretty prompt.
There has been no evidence that has been on available to public scrutiny. This is a great crime to use for a political hit job because of the severity of the penalty and the lack of physical evidence.
Regardless, Assange will pay the price for his transgressions against the global ruling power structure one way or another. I am more concerned that this prosecution doesn’t stop the greater project that he began. And so far I am optimistic that it won’t.
Just curious, what possible “good” can come from some of Wikileaks’ more recent postings?
Plus, Wikileaks apparently has backed off a threat to release Russian material- which I can kind of understand- The US will whine, complain, and possibly suborn perjury- but Putin WILL have you killed.
John F, I can think of 2 positive effects:
1. Demonstrating that secrecy is being massively abused in liberal democracies… no one ever wants to discuss how many documents are required to establish mass-scale abuse of secrecy, no one will even throw a number out there. So I’m willing to keep counting these postings as whistle-blowing until everyone agrees that the crime has occurred. Perhaps until the crime stops occurring.
2. Instilling a fear in government officials in liberal democracies that at any moment some subset of their secrets will be made public. The threat of a little sunshine goes a long way.
(I also think that there is one mixed result from WikiLeaks: sharpening the contradictions of the totalitarian tendencies of the information age. I mean these contradictions in a technological sense… the efforts to shut down WikiLeaks servers are revealing what degree of control over the internet itself that the United States (and other liberal democracies) is attempting to claim. And exposing the vulnerabilities in the architecture. Nations and corporations have been up to shenanigans, while claiming to protect us from child porn (etc). Now employing the shenanigans against a more sympathetic target might have different consequences. Or it might end up just sealing in very bad consequences. Too soon to even guess.)
What possible ‘good’ can come is all a matter of perspective. For the people with all of the resources and all of the power nothing good can come out of exposing the system which ensures their continued control of resources and power.
I hadn’t heard of any Russian material being withheld. Governments that take it upon themselves to kill people in order to silence their work need to be exposed the most.
Well, if the Russian material is released, I guess there are less-safe places to be than a Swedish prison.
If we believe Asange’s accusers, then his behavior was utterly reprehensible and criminal. It is not Victorian prudery to find it so. Being open-minded about sexuality does not entail tolerating fundamental violations of a woman’s agency and sexual and reproductive autonomy.
(If we think Assange’s accusers are lying, then it’s a completely different matter of course. But at this stage in the public knowledge of the cases, what would be the relevant epistemic principle at work here–prima facie, assume women who claim sexual misconduct are lying?)
Those who think that the intense manhunt for Assange’s arrest was politically motivated, and who think important free-speech issues are at stake in the Wikileaks bruhaha, do not need to whitewash the crimes with which Assange has been charged. Indeed, since progressives doing so has more than a whiff of hypocrisy and tribalism about it, it is quite counterproductive.
…do not need to whitewash the crimes with which Assange has been charged.
Fair point, but then you have to consider that Assange turned himself in, so surely some reasonable progressives who support Assange can carve out some skepticism without whitewashing.
There is an inherent tension between “innocent until proven guilty” and avoiding the prima facie assumption that accusers are lying.
I occurs to me that Assange may have turned himself in because he decided he would be safer in a British (or Swedish) prison than walking the streets waiting for the rendition to a US black site. It’s not so unlikely, after some of the things that have been said. And given that one of the Wikileaks revelations was that the US govt perverted the course of Spanish justice, maybe the US govt might find Swedish justice, being forewarned, more resistant, and resort to other tactics.
You mean the now-you-see-now-you-don’t sealed charges, which were the basis for an international arrest warrant which was insufficient as issued to generate a valid arrest warrant in England, where Assange was at the time? Which was followed by the multi-capital car chase… no, sorry. Which was followed by Assange turning himself into the English police the day after a valid arrest warrant was issued in England?
Really, the “manhunt” was all in the fevered imaginations of the anti-Wikileaks chattering classes.
Quite so. It is possible to emphasize the obvious political element while still condemning the original crime, if it occurred. Assange obviously needs face these charges, given that we are talking about being returned to face a Swedish court, not one in Myanmar.
Meanwhile, however, I don’t recall any Interpol red flags over Roman Polanski; quite the opposite. The swiftness with which Switzerland declared Assange persona non grata and seized his assets is also informative, given that it’s normally quite acceptable for mass murderers (or Roman Polanski, for that matter) to stuff their loot in Swiss banks.
Exactly. How many years did it take for Interpol to arrest Polanski? Who had already pleaded guilty to child rape?
But Polanski knows famous people, who LIKE him. Assange threatens famous people. I mean, this is a just world after all, and the distinction is perfectly legitimate.
The “Sexual Perversion” angle has been exploited in war propaganda at least since the 1930s. During WWII, British intelligence maintained a unit devoted to producing pamphlets on Hitler’s sexual perversions (all dreamt up by the team) and sent planes over Europe to drop them. Recall the much touted Saddam Rape Room™. And we are in Afghanistan “for the women” (koff, if the the US was serious about that, it would have left the Marxist regime alone).
Now we can be sure that DOD has been tailing Assange for months and may have even been complicit (cash, coersion) in getting these girls to go along with the sting.
By all means, let’s give Assange the benefit of the doubt on these accusations. Innocent until proven guilty.
Meanwhile, it behooves us to speculate wildly on the integrity of the “girls” claiming to be all raped and stuff. For example, I read on the internet that the DOD may have even been complicit (cash, coercion) in getting these girls to go along with the sting. Does anyone know (or imagine, which is just as good) how much cash and coercion were involved?
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
LOL. How is that anything but textbook rape apologia?
Speculation that a rape accusation was cooked up buy the CIA can be called a lot of things, but textbook it ain’t.
People who work with rape victims don’t believe that this is textbook rape apologia.
Charli, given that you don’t believe that Julian Assange’s personal behavior is relevant to the discussion of Wikileaks and its practices, it was a mistake to hazard an opinion. I find it odd, too, that you find a snarky Business Insider opinion piece to be more reliable than, for example, this paraphrase of what was said in court today:
“Attorney Gemma Lindfield, acting on behalf of the Swedish authorities, outlined one allegation of rape, two allegations of molestation and one of unlawful coercion stemming from Assange’s separate sexual encounters in August with two women in Sweden.
“Lindfield said one woman accused Assange of pinning her down and refusing to use a condom on the night of Aug. 14 in Stockholm. That woman also accused of Assange of molesting her in a way “designed to violate her sexual integrity” several days later.
“A second woman accused Assange of having sex with her without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.”
That’s from an AP article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/05/international/i083539S60.DTL
Sorry, I meant “…irrelevant to the discussion of Wikileaks and its practices…”
This is why it’s best to wait and see how things proceed. Assange’s lawyer has publicly claimed that tweet records have at least one of the women bragging about sleeping with Assange afterwards. If that were true, it would substantially undermine the claims that are being alleged. So I will wait and see. The claims are all over the map at this point.
Yes, in situations like these, where accusations and counter-accusations are flying around, and the rumor- and opinion-mills are going full blast, it’s a mistake to make a quick judgement. I have no strong opinion except that what has been alleged is a serious crime; whether or not it actually occurred is up to the court to decide.
[...] (via) [...]
So you admit not having facts and post a “guess” as a factual rebuttal to the media. Great. How about leaving the issue alone if it’s irrelevant, rather than disparaging rape charges. My “guess” is that at least one of the individual withdrew consent and he raped her. Even in the US — which is hardly a site of radical feminism — this is a crime.
Let’s consult Occam and ask whether one goes to Sweden, the cradle of The Sexual Revolution, for the purpose of become the World’s No. 1 Sex Offender.
A radical feminist member of a Christian Peace organization, The Brotherhood Movement, which invited Assange to speak on “War and the Role of the Media” Stockholm meets celeb and entreats him to spend the night in her small apartment. She is also the movement’s Public Relations officer. They have sex. in. Next day host throws a party in Assange’s honor (c’mon, after a “sex crime”?) and he spends _another_ few days there. During his stay, a 20 year old from Enkoping, 60 miles away, comes to Stockholm, infatuated with celeb, and they bed as well. That’s the “rape” story reported in Europe.
Bad pragmatic behavior but the rape charge is smacks of a pee-cee end-run to get Assange in US custody. So just arrest him on NATO Article 15 or something, instead of the “pervert” angle.
I think you’ve cut yourself shaving.
There’s not anything surprising about her still throwing the party. Professionalism, shame, a desire to just get back to normal. Not to anyone who’s ever read anything about rape victimes, or how people react to trauma in general.
The simplest explanation is 1.) he did commit the rapes alleged and 2.) it’s being used to get to him for political reasons.
The Guardian isn’t reporting it that way.
Okay, seriously? You’re a fucking moral moron.
Tell me, exactly how does one have to act after being the victim of sexual assault? Are you seriously saying that no rape victim could possibly continue to socialise with her attack? Because if you are you know absolutely nothing about sexual assault or its dynamics. Congratulations, by the way, on managing to occupy to same position on this as Robert Stacy McCain. It takes some real effort to be as overtly hideous as he is.
Of course I don’t know if Assange is guilty or not. But if your first reaction to someone you like being accused of rape is “how dare those sluts?!” then you are a misogynist.
If you read the Reuters article posted at Greenwald’s site (twitter feed), it certainly appears to be a case of trumped-up charges instigated by a high-priced lawyer (shocking, I know) looking for publicity. The women don’t appear to have been upset with Assange after their encounters but were concerned with the transmission of STDs and were unable to contact him afterward due to his clandestine, mysterious movements. We’ll see how the investigation plays out, but it shouldn’t be surprising that certain elements (US and European governments, credit card companies) have seized upon this allegation to create as much pain as possible for the organization and its founder. They fully recognize the threat he poses.
I don’t think anybody could have predicted that jeer9 would argue that a famous man should be immunized from being prosecuted for sexual assault.
I don’t think anyone could have predicted that Lemieux would ignore the thrust of the article mentioned in order to drudge up an old argument he can’t let go of. Since when is the notion that the facts are not all in and that the investigation needs to play out a call for immunization? I can’t imagine that politics has anything to do with this case.
the notion that the facts are not all in and that the investigation needs to play out
This is perfectly reasonable. “These are trumped-up charges brought by flaky women and their rich lawyer,” not so much.
Nice edit. “Certainly appears” is in no way a qualifier, I guess. “Flaky” is a interesting touch. I hope that’s not a projection. I’m not as good a mindreader as you.
From the Guardian:
Because nothing says “of a different character than rape” and “trumped-up charges” than having sex with a person who’s asleep.
And nothing says “Where’s my pitchfork? Get some torches” like taking a prosecuting attorney’s statements at face value.
Given that Charli is saying he wasn’t accused of rape, I think it’s legit to quote the prosecutors to demonstrate what it is he’s accused of.
Yes, absolutely because how one interprets a random prosecuting attorney’s statements is what determines whether sex with an incapacitated person is rape and a legitimate concern. Not, you know, the lack of consent.
I’m baffled by the mental gymnastics it takes to think that the CIA has cooked up these charges as some kind of plot against Assange. Because accusations of sexual assault ALWAYS destroy the careers of famous and influential men! That’s why Roman Polanski is languishing in jail, Ben Roethlisberger was hounded out of professional sports in disgrace, and Modest Mouse broke up.
What Assange is being accused of is serious, absolutely, but there’s nothing remotely crazy about thinking the US might be behind the charges. For one thing, precisely because rape is, unfortunately, not prosecuted this energetically, we have to wonder what makes not just the Swedish police but Switzerland, Britain, and Interpol so eager to collaborate…
Slightly off topic, but– fabulous post on your other blog.
Kate Harding breaks it down for you over at Salon. There are a dismaying number and variety of people who are trying to slut-shame the accuser.
[...] Charli Carpenter admonishes us that Assange hasn’t techically [...]