Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Founder Arrested In London
CuteSteveJobs writes "The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by London police on behalf of Swedish authorities on allegation of rape. Assange has admitted that he is exhausted by the ongoing battle against authorities. The Swiss Government has confiscated $37K in his Swiss Bank account. PayPal and Mastercard have frozen Wikileak's accounts, hampering Wikileaks from raising any more funds."
Had submitter even bothered to read articles he has linked to? Government has not 'confiscated' Assange's money. Bank closed his account, but Julian is free to pick up his money and make deposit in another bank.
Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.
***
"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html
He had consensual sex with 2 women, who are now complaining he didn't use a condom, which is apparently illegal in Sweden, but it's hardy rape by most people's definition.
Actually, according to an editorial penned by Assange's lawyer last week, he started having sex with each woman with a condom on, with their consent. At some point, the condom either came off or broke. The women then withdrew consent, appealing to him to stop. Assange did not stop.
That certainly isn't in the referenced article - where do you find that she appealed to him to stop and he did not?
Consent in law is a very complicated subject in law. Depending on circumstances the withdrawal of consent for a activity that is in-progress may be void. For example, if you consent to be operated on but your anaesthetic wore off and woke up, you cannot suddenly withdraw consent.
On the other hand, private activities between consenting adults may be deemed to be against the public good and the consent found to be void. See the case of R v Brown.
The idea of consent being a legal defence, or if it actually negates the actus reus is often debated subject in law. There is more to it than just, "was there consent?", which is what people here seem to be so preoccupied with. The lack of quality in the Slashdot army of armchair legal scholars is a bit disappointing.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
If you value democracy then you should understand that the backlash from the WL episode will be a push for laws and technology to control communications at the direct expense of democratic ideals which require free speech. Anonymity and secure peer-to-peer communications, already at risk, will be further threatened under the premise of terrorism. If you want to help ensure that democracy prevails in the face of reactionary politics, then run a TOR server ( http://www.torproject.org/ ) now, and consider any of these alternatives.
That interpretation contradicts the factual record. The article made it very clear that a condom was not even used in the second liaison with Jessica, therefore it would have been impossible for it to "come off or break."
From my reading of the article, it appears that consent wasn't actually withdrawn until the two women found out about each other. When Assange's 40-something feminist activist lover discovered that Assange had some enjoyed a hot 20-something piece of ass on the side, then both the encounters retroactively became "rape".