Slashdot Mirror
Domain: studentactivism.net
Stories and comments across the archive that link to studentactivism.net.
Comments · 9
-
Re:To America? Yes. To the GOP? No.
Actually it's about equality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/f... http://www.firstpost.com/india... http://www.hindustantimes.com/... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/... http://www.weeklystandard.com/... http://douchebagdork.tumblr.co... http://www.ageofconsent.com/co... http://studentactivism.net/201... http://i.imgur.com/Vac0UOk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aob5k.jpg http://www.law.fsu.edu/journal... http://www.genderratic.net/?ta... http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/d... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.theguardian.com/com... http://www.saveservices.org/pd... http://www.law.fsu.edu/journal... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://jezebel.com/294383/have... http://anescapedconviction.tum... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://news.nationalpost.com/2... https://imgur.com/zoR6eQ0 https://twitter.com/CodeusaSof... https://twitter.com/FabioFacch... https://twitter.com/DanielleGi... https://twitter.com/ForemanEri... http://theflounce.com/harassme...
-
Re:Guilty?
British Judges have already said in their ruling that all four complaints would be unlawful under English law.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.
http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/
-
Re:Buggars!
The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/
Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf
-
Re:Pepper Spray IS 'non-violent' law enforcement
And while I'm sure you're qualified to tell us when the use of pepper spray is appropriate, after they ignored the notice they received TWO WEEKS ago telling them to vacate, they were given a 24-hour notice that if they did not voluntarily leave they would be forcibly removed. Pepper spray was listed as one of the options for their removal.
It doesn't matter if they were warned about pepper spray two weeks, a month or a year in advance - it's still illegal.
“Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should only be used in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”
“Arrestees and suspects shall be treated in a humane manner they shall not be subject to physical force except as required to subdue violence or ensure detention. No officer shall strike an arrestee or suspect except in self-defense, to prevent an escape, or to prevent injury to another person.”
It doesn't really matter what the people in the video did a day or a week before, either. What matters is what they were doing there and then - and that's sitting on the ground, not moving, and not making any threatening actions. That should not get you pepper sprayed.
Anyway, watching the video, it's very clear that the police wasn't feeling threatened - just look at the guy parading around with the pepper can, holding it up for everyone to see, for a good half a minute before he actually proceeds to shove it right in people's faces. Watch, furthermore, how he first sprays the line indiscriminately, and then goes back and individually sprays everyone who didn't get enough spray on the first go.
In a civilized society, the offenders would be removed without being pepper sprayed. In U.S., a sadistic policeman felt like "punishing" the kids for not obeying, and right-wingers like you are exalting it as some kind of service performed for the public that should be cheered; quite a few people actually chimed in to say that "they should have used baton on those hippies". The cop in the video, by the way, actually threatened to shoot the students if they don't move away. I don't think I was that disgusted with U.S. - both the country, and many of the people - ever before.
-
Re:Video bites are no better than sound bites
However, police protocols are moving away from touching the people to encourage them to disperse. This is to prevent legal ramifications of accidental injury.
5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.
From the University of California’s Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures: “Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should only be used in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”
6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.
Another quote from the UC’s policing policy: “Arrestees and suspects shall be treated in a humane manner they shall not be subject to physical force except as required to subdue violence or ensure detention. No officer shall strike an arrestee or suspect except in self-defense, to prevent an escape, or to prevent injury to another person.”
-
Re:Ooooo, Infamy.
5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.
From the University of California’s Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures: “Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should only be used in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”
6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.
Another quote from the UC’s policing policy: “Arrestees and suspects shall be treated in a humane manner they shall not be subject to physical force except as required to subdue violence or ensure detention. No officer shall strike an arrestee or suspect except in self-defense, to prevent an escape, or to prevent injury to another person.”
Following orders from legitimate authority that require one to perform an illegal action does not absolve the person performing them.
-
Explanation of the protest
Blog explaining the protest:
-
New York Times, November 18, 2010
That certainly isn't in the referenced article - where do you find that she appealed to him to stop and he did not?
Sweden Issues Warrant for WikiLeaks Founder
By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA
Published: November 18, 2010The money quote:
According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.
The big problem that I see is that there's some media right now whose "reporting" is basically repeating Assange's lawyers' statements at length.
-
Re:Friday Was the Hot Day
I submitted the same story, but included your link as well as the one from Student Activism instead of the submitter's link. (Better to use the source material rather than make the
I read over everything in the source pages and honestly it's rather difficult to say whether or not the whole thing is being caused by some active effort on Twitter's part. There's the genuine possibility that the algorithm somehow didn't think #wikileaks was a viable candidate for trending. However, my gut feeling tells me that it was an active participation in censorship on Twitter's part; it would be relatively simple for them to predict #wikileaks and put in counter-measures to ensure that it doesn't trend, but it would be more difficult to predict a term that was created relatively quickly like #cablegate.
