Assange Seeks To Sue Prime Minister Gillard For Defamation

First time accepted submitter menno_h writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he has hired lawyers to investigate how to sue Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation." Assange "says comments made by Ms Gillard in 2010 that WikiLeaks acted illegally in releasing US diplomatic cables have affected the viability of his organisation. 'Mastercard Australia, in justifying why it has made a blockade that prevents any Australian Mastercard holder donating to WikiLeaks, used that statement by Julia Gillard,' he said."

Comments

could be interesting

[rbrausse]

you may or may not support Assange or Wikileaks - but the lawsuit will be interesting: Mastercard used a semi-official statement by Julia Gillard to justify the blocking; is this a good-enough argument?

Re:could be interesting

[Dan667]

He has a very good case or I don't believe he would even try. Holding publicly elected individuals accountable is something that has precedence.

Re:could be interesting

[peragrin]

The thing is does he have a case. Assange very much enjoys the public spot light. He wants to be where he is. The responsible thing for him would have been to hand wiki leaks over to some one he trusted to maintain wiki leaks integrity. Now wiki leaks reputation lives and dies with Julian. For the last two years wiki leaks has been sidelined because of his antics

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off. Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case. Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

Doesn't matter, no charges were filed. They acted on a vague public statement. That is definitely in bad faith. Now we find that Assange really doesn't believe in free speech when he's the target. Wikileaks doesn't need him, he should just give himself up, so we can get back to discussing the much more important issue of what's in the leaks. ...unless you want to argue that we should never take the word of the Prime Minster at face value.

You sure as hell shouldn't! Especially when the government (basically all governments) has a long history of lying to protect their interests.

Re:could be interesting

[Bronster]

It's called "non-core promises".

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Government#cite_note-Ward-9

Not taking the word of the Prime Minister at face value is an Australian tradition.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

In that sense you are correct, unless they froze his assets. So really Assange has no case whatsoever, much less so against the prime minister.

Re:could be interesting

[Charliemopps]

Currently, the only thing keeping Mr Assange from torture and death is the public spotlight. Every time the public starts to forget about his plight you can rightly expect him to make a stink to get our attention again.

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.

Re:could be interesting

[MysteriousPreacher]

Really? A guy that suborned a US Army private to illegally give him access to classified diplomatic cables wouldn't do something if he didn't have a good case? Oh, wait he might sue ME now because I said he did something illegal that he has bragged that he did only I said that it is illegal. Well it IS illegal to do what he did. You might disagree with me about whether it ought to be illegal but there's no real question that it IS.

Was it actually proven that Asange did that?

Re:could be interesting

[Gadget_Guy]

He should sue MasterCard.

It would be premature to sue MasterCard when they can fall back on the defense that they relied on the statements of the Prime Minister. Deferring to the authority of the government seems quite reasonable and makes for a compelling defense.

The first step is to have the original statement ruled as libelous before tackling MasterCard. They can still say that they acted in good faith at the time, but it means that they could not as easily justify continuing to block payments to Wikileaks.

Re:could be interesting

[cheater512]

MasterCard is only a example of how the remarks have caused damage.

If Gillard made the comments but nothing came of them, you'd get a much smaller payout in a defamation case.
But the MC bit proves the comments caused financial damage, not just damage to his character. = Bigger payout.

Re:could be interesting

[hot soldering iron]

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders. Government pukes play dirty by using guys like "my friend", and always have. If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

Re:could be interesting

[cheater512]

In what country? Its certainly not illegal in Australia to leak classified *US* documents. Possibly illegal to leak Australian documents - I'm not sure about that.
Just like if someone in the US leaked Iranian top secret documents, they'd probably get a handshake from the FBI not arrested.

The US is not the world government. Just because they say it is top secret and illegal doesn't make it so and the rest of the world will rightly ignore them.

Re:could be interesting

[Yvanhoe]

I doubt he enjoys being prisoner in an embassy. I doubt he enjoys being unable to ever have sex again without knowing if this is a CIA trap. I doubt he enjoys his wikileaks organization to be labelled half-terrorist and having lost a few millions of donations.

He doesn't enjoy spotlight. He needs it to survive, because otherwise, he will die in an accident without anyone noticing.

Re:could be interesting

[Charliemopps]

If you even speak with Julian Assange, you can be killed. Not kidding:
http://news.yahoo.com/jullian-assange-enemy-state-023345613.html

The US government successfully talked parts of the Australian government into attempting to charge him with Treason... but the Australian federal police commission rejected the argument after determining he had broken no Australian laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_possible_extradition_to_the_United_States

The only reason the mans not dead, is because he's famous. The US government, my government, has already tortured and killed people for less. Both during the Bush and Obama administrations. Our governments stance is that Alkiada is the same as a foreign government, so our actions against them are the same as if we were fighting a foreign government, we are not dealing with criminals. And yet, when we caught their "head of state" we executed him in front of his family. Which violates US law. They literally knelt him down, in front of his wife and shot him in the head. Read the account of the navy seal that wrote about it. Then this very same president declared a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and has a drone fire a missile into his home, while he was on foreign soil. No trial, no justice, just summary execution. This is our government. We can debate weather this is all justifiable or not, but the fact that Mr Assange has angered the US government enough to put his life in grave danger is a fact.

Re:could be interesting

[Gadget_Guy]

It is their main weapon.

And we are all free not the respond. So, as a weapon it is entirely ineffective. The power is in the response, not the speech.

You are incorrect. The power is not in the response, because if it was then Assange could just ignore the PM's claim and there would be no problem. But there was a problem. In this case MasterCard has allegedly based (at least in part) their decision to block the payments on the government's statement.

And what if MasterCard didn't block the payment? They could have conceivably ended up facing a public backlash against them because they were seen to facilitate the funding of an alleged illegal group. So the original incorrect claim could have had repercussions all the way down the line. If that scenario happened, what could MasterCard do to prevent it? You think that Assange should sue MasterCard, so does that mean you think that MasterCard should sue all their customers that stopped using their credit card in protest?

So you see, the power of defamation is can be far reaching. If you think that this is a free speech issue, then why should people be allowed to make false and damaging claims about anyone? Whose best interest does this serve?

Re:could be interesting

[Mr. Slippery]

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

I don't know what the original posters intent was. But as for me, given that MasterCard 1) is a corporation, that is an artificial entity created by government fiat, and therefore not possessed of any natural rights; and 2) is a financial institution, and therefore should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and regulation than other businesses; and 3) enjoys such market dominance that it has long raised anti-trust concerns, my conclusion is that fsck yes, MasterCard should be forced (upon pain of having its corporate charter and/or its privilege to conduct interstate and international commerce revoked) to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions, for any business or individual not convicted by a court of some relevant crime.

Re:could be interesting

[Capsaicin]

The thing is does he have a case.

Why wouldn't he? He was accused of criminality. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought accusations of criminality were one of a species of imputations that are regarded as prima facie defamatory?! In any case, I don't think it would be overly burdensome to prove that calling someone a criminal is liable to lower their reputation in the eyes of upstanding citizens, or?

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off.

Under what head of action? Are you claiming MasterCard is under an contractual obligation to process payments to Wikileaks? Or do you imagine their liability is tortious?

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

The PM made a defamatory statement outside the protection of parliament. Why does he need to find an official government document?

Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

I'm not sure that MasterCard even comes into the question of whether he can sue. After all you don't need to show monetary damage to sue in defamation. Wouldn't the fact that MasterCard may have acted on the basis of the PMs alleged defamation only be relevant when it came to decide damages?

You know, despite your authoritative pronouncements on this matter, I'm not even sure you are an Australian lawyer.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders.

Is that a fact? And your friend actually told you this*? Leaves me wondering what kind of a friend you have there, sharing what would obviously be highly classified information. . .if true. . . for you to spread around? Even more so, does he have friends . . . . or maybe a team (?) of his own preparing for action against Assange . . . . maybe with FBI support?

I would think that when it comes to Assange, even if the US government was inclined to direct action, they would be open to following Napoleons advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Assange has made plenty of them, and they seem to be continuing. Instead of going to Sweden to clear his name, he has managed to commit actual offenses in the UK (jumping bail and fleeing the law) and confine himself in a small apartment for an indefinite term. As things are going he could easily be there for years, ultimately be captured and sent to Sweden, be cleared in Sweden, and then returned to the UK to face charges for jumping bail and fleeing the law.

Besides, since the US only waterboarded three people, the most recent in about 2003 in pretty much the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to try to get some insight into Al Qaeda's next attack after having just suffered 3,000 dead, and there has been endless carping about it ever since, what do you think would happen if the US employed your "friend", or someone that is actually dangerous, to kill a "journalist" like Assange, and word got out -as it inevitably would? Somehow I just don't see that happening since Assange hasn't actually participated in direct warfare against the US, unlike Al Awlaki.

In any event, you can rest assured that Julian Assange takes strong evasive measures whenever possible - no catching him with his pants . . . down.

* So you fancy your friend as the ruthless sort then?

 

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

Libel has no case, ever. It's a bullshit charge.

So when Arthur C Clarke fought false pedophile accusations made in a tabloid newspaper via a libel suit, he should have lost?

Words have consequences, particularly when they are false and come from the mouth of the PM or anyone else with influence. The Westminster system holds politicians to account for their words via a concept called "defamation". If said defamation merely causes hurt feeling then there is no legal recourse for the "victim", similarly if a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to believe the words then there is no case to answer. eg: I can say that the PM has sex with donkeys but a "reasonable person" could be expected to know I was bullshiting.

Everything changes if the victim can show material harm (as in someone refusing to do business with you because of those words), the defamation concept is there to redress that injustice. To balance that political level of accountability, politicians also have right called "parliamentary privilege" which is basically a license to make false accusations when speaking in parliament. The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference, and she knows it!

It's a long standing (legal and social) tradition in Oz and the UK that politicians should keep their nose out of the judiciary by staying silent on the issue of guilt until a conviction has been secured. Failure to do so can result in a miss-trial which could allow real criminals to walk. I simply don't believe the PM is ignorant of all this, she did what she did knowingly and should be held to account.

PM's, FM's and Attorney General's, these people should be setting a role model for society as to how our democracy is supposed to function. One of the corner stones of that democracy is "innocent until proven guilty" that replaced "trial by ordeal" in the UK around 1000yrs ago. So when I see my political "leaders" who routinely request judicial investigations standing in front of a mob pointing fingers, I KNOW they are deliberately subjecting that person to "trial by media".

OTOH, around the same time our PM was deliberately smearing Assange, our foreign minister was one of the first politicians on the planet to stand up and say the "free press" rights of Assange should be respected in the same way the rights of the three mainstream newspapers had been respected. Despite the fact the cables were "politically embarrassing" to the FM at the time, he correctly questioned why Assange was being universally attacked while the NYT, Guardian, and De-Speigal (sic?) were being praised by "reasonable people".

Aside from all that, libel is a civil suit not a criminal charge, you don't go to jail for it, you pay for the damages you caused. When you are being metaphorically burnt at the stake, it hardly matters if the "lies" were uttered out of malice or ignorance. Clarke took such risks so seriously he refused to pick up his knighthood for the two years it took him to find justice (in the form of a printed apology). If I were the Judge in Julian vs Julia I would not award financial damages, I would order the PM to hold a press conference and publicly apologize to Assange for the accusation, and I would do the same if Hicks were to sue Howard and/or Ruddock.

As for MC they're the "reasonable person" who believed the false accusations made by the PM.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

Al Qaida is not being treated as a government, in nature it is essentially like pirates - Hostis humani generis - enemies of all mankind.

Bin Laden wasn't a head of state but the military leader of a band of unlawful combatants and war criminals. Killing him was not a violation of US law, but a strike against an enemy military commander, no different than the planned ambush and killing of Admiral Yamamoto.

I have never seen any claim that the SEALs made Bin Laden kneel, but rather they shot him on sight. If you want to claim that the SEALs made him kneel and executed him - (serious) reference, please.

As to killing a US citizen, I assume you are referring to Al Awlaki, who was openly calling for the killing of Americans and acting as an Al Qaida trainer and planner for planned, attempted, and actual attacks against the United States. He was making war against the United States. Killing him was entirely appropriate, reasonable, and legal. There was no more need for charges and trial against him than there was against the many other Americans in a similar position, many of whom were shot down en mass by the US government without trial - and quite rightly so. (One interesting note - the men depicted there were not actual war criminals and unlawful combatants, unlike Al Qaida, so they had far more legal protection than Al Qaida is entitled to in terms of the Law of War.)

Assange faces essentially no risk of either torture or "torture" by the US government as President Obama banned enhanced interrogation techniques. Even if charged with espionage, the death penalty is more theoretical than actual as the US hasn't executed a spy for about 60 years - they have all been getting life in prison. This includes the disastrous John Walker who passed the Soviets the means to local US submarines at sea - a much more serious problem than the worst allegation against Assange. As to a missile for Assange - those are being shot at terrorists trying to kill people, or those directly supporting them. Assange just doesn't qualify.

I could go on, but you should be getting the drift by now.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

USA in nature is essentially like pirates - Hostis humani generis - enemies of all mankind.

George W. Bush and Barack Obama weren't heads of state but the military leaders of a band of unlawful combatants and war criminals.

FTFY.

President Obama banned enhanced interrogation techniques

Yeah, he did it with NDAA, I suppose. See Bradley Manning's treatment, which qualifies as a torture (not in the USA but in countries who have the notion of human rights and decency).

As to a missile for Assange - those are being shot at terrorists trying to kill people, or those directly supporting them. Assange just doesn't qualify.

Come on. What the USA does in Afghanistan and Iraq (but not limited to those places) is terrorist in nature, which with the help from Manning Wikileaks proved beyond a shadow of doubt. And Assange does qualify for an "accident."

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Torture and death from whom? It wouldn't be the US.

Yes it would.

Good

[JazzXP]

While I'm not a fan of Mr. Assange (quite the opposite really), I find the way he has been treated by our government absolutely deplorable. Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) and Shappele Corby (convicted drug smuggler) have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

Re:Good

[bug1]

Yep, the Howard regime did a lot of damage to Australia and Australians.

However, its not a good time to be seen to be attacking Julia Gillard given all the personal attacks she has recieved. I would expect it to do more harm than good.

Re:Good

[JazzXP]

When the Prime Minister openly mocks a person, their intentions are pretty obvious.

Re:Good

[clockwise_music]

Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) ... have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

David Hicks did not have any help from the Australian government. He was left to rot in Guantanamo for five years without being charged for anything. The government's response was absolutely deplorable, especially considering how UK citizens were pulled out from Guantanamo. Compare Jack Straw's efforts compared to Philip Ruddock or John Howard sometime.

Re:Good

[Pseudonym]

Whoever marked this "Troll" clearly doesn't know about what's been preoccupying Australian news over the last week. (Answer: Navel-gazing, as usual, only this time it involves dirty personal attacks against the PM.) In context, this was a good point.

For the benefit of those who are unaware, here's the brief summary: Julia Gillard's father died a couple of weeks ago, and right-wing radio-shock-mouthpiece Alan Jones (for the non-Australians, or even non-Sydneyites, he's roughly the Australian equivalent of Rush Limbaugh: moderate-sized but dedicated following, and self-parody to everyone who doesn't listen to his show) decided to use that in a very insensitive cheap shot at the PM. The remarks were made at a private function, but of course, nothing is private in the Internet era. Alan Jones has since issued a sincere, rambling semi-notpology.

The point being that the PM's PR people are currently enjoying a grace period where personal attacks are Not Cool. The PM herself is, of course, probably not enjoying the fact that her father just died.

On the other hand, Underground screened last night. From that perspective, this is the best of all times to go on the offensive. It's unfortunate that the two events coincided, but there's not a lot you can do about that.

Woah, this must be how Russel Howcroft feels.

Sue in Sweden

[srussia]

The Swedish legal term for defamation is actually is actually "reputational rape".

Re:Sue in Sweden

[dominux]

from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Sweden words for defamation include:
ärekränkning
grovt förtal
förolämpning

and rape is våldtäkt. I call BS on the "reputational rape" claim. +5 informative indeed.

Sovereign immunity?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

You can't sue prosecutors for accusing you of a crime, in general. This official wasn't a prosecutor, but does the principle apply?

I wonder if Assange has considered a business interference suit as well. Inducing Mastercard to go back on a contract might be a tort, depending on the outcome of some questions I'm not even qualified to enumerate.

Re:Sovereign immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

She is not protected. The Australian prime minister can say what she wants in parliament, and be protected by parliamentary privilege, but as soon as she says it outside parliament, in a press interview for example, which is where she slurred Assange, she can be sued.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

An Aussie icon

[sturat]

As an Australian I look forward to the day when a story about Australia is accompanied by something other than a picture of Crocodile Dundee's hat.

Re:An Aussie icon

[Bremic]

I would be fine with the hat as long as any story about the US is accompanied by a picture of Laura Palmer wrapped in plastic.

Same cultural relevance; same era; same coverage level.

Re:Julian vs Julia

[z0idberg]

Thats only if the US government gets it way.

In Australia they would go to gaol.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[lsatenstein]

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.
2: Used public transit.
3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.
4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.
5: Never "went out" on the town, or bought luxuries, ever...
6: Said "NO" to the fairer sex.

Things have changed now, [for the better], gladly. In fact, you wouldn't recognize me now. But please do not tell me one can't survive on minimum wage.

Try doing it with two kids, for 20 years.

Fugitives, on the run from the law

[wisnoskij]

How can a fugitive, on the run from the law, sue someone?
I imagine that a lawyer might be able to set up a case, but would he not be expected to show up to court?

Re:Fugitives, on the run from the law

[evilviper]

See the Roman Polanski case a couple years back. He's living in France, a fugitive of US justice, having been convicted of drugging and raping an uder-aged girl. He couldn't travel to the UK for fear of extradition to the US, but the UK allowed his lawsuit to proceed, regardless. He was involved via video link, IIRC.

Though the US is a common-law territory, I expect the rules are a bit more strict, but I don't know how much so. However, Assange isn't, in-fact, accusted or charged with any crimes in the US, and extradition laws from the US to other countries are... intentionally weak.

Re:Fugitives, on the run from the law

[evilviper]

Absolutely everything you've said is 100%, provably false. I don't know where in the hell you get your incorrect info, but you really need to stop.

she had consensual sex with him. No rape ever occurred except of the statutory kind.

Complete bull. Not only was she only 13 years old, it is also on the record as CLEARLY non-consentual.

"Polanski had sexual intercourse with the teen despite her resistance and requests to be taken home." "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6237442/Roman-Polanskis-victim-is-mother-who-wants-charges-dropped.html

The statute of limitation has been reached long ago,

Nonsense. The CASE WENT TO TRIAL right away, long before the statute of limitations could be an issue. He even accepted a plea-bargain, yet he fled, just before he was about to be sentenced for his crimes.

But since he fled, his plea bargain is out, he will likely face a new trial, and potentially the maximum sentence for all his felonies.

The girl never wanted to press charged and she still don't.

Bull. Geimer "sued Polanski in December 1988 when she was 25 years old, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction."

She has requested dismissal, NOW, because she's tired of having it hanging over her head. He could have served his expected 90 days in jail, and been done with it, letting her move on with her life, instead he victimized her once again by fleeing. He deserves every bit of bad press he gets, and deserves to be hounded, to his dying day, for living as a fugitive.

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[drinkypoo]

He knows exactly when to quit; about five minutes before he's ready to die.

Assange doesn't have the option of a quiet retirement at this point. He needs to continue to be loud.

Re:Truly a hero for our times

[drinkypoo]

Julian Assange is famous for being a tireless champion of free speech. How does he respond to someone saying something nasty about him?

Neither free markets nor free speech work when fraud is permitted.

Mod me down, "libertarians". In your hearts you know I speak the truth.

I'm not a libertarian, just a liberal (e.g. not a democrat) and I know you're full of shit, which is the most popular reason to post as an AC. You haven't said anything that could likely get you shot or fired, so there's no other reason.

Sexual discrimination of men

[gay358]

Would prosecutors prosecute a woman who lies by saying that she is using pills and a man has sex with her on the condition that she is using pills? If not, this is a clear case of sexual discrimination of men, for which Sweden is notorious.