Slashdot Mirror
Why Julian Assange Should Embrace 'The Fifth Estate'
Nerval's Lobster writes "It's no secret that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a low opinion of the new film, "The Fifth Estate," in which he's portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. He's railed against it several times, culminating in a lengthy statement (posted Oct. 9) in which he called it 'a geriatric snoozefest that only the US government could love.' That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.' WikiLeaks and Assange are clearly attempting a bit of damage control ahead of the film's Oct. 11 release in the U.K. (followed by its U.S. debut on Oct. 18). But what if that pushback is the wrong reaction? That's not to say that Assange should gleefully embrace the film —the script portrays him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past. Whatever its qualities, however, the film could get people talking about WikiLeaks' role in the broader geopolitical context, and that's ultimately a good thing for the organization: It's been quite some time since Assange and company have provided the world with an explosive, game-changing revelation. If nothing else, Assange can take some cold comfort from the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for the worst as the release date approached, but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth."
I hope that Wikileaks can continue to get information to the public. I suspect that government agents have infested WikiLeaks in every way they can and wonder if Wikileaks can still function.
> These guys employ terrorist tactics,
Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.
> act like they are above any law
Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?
> That's terrorism
who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?
I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It's no secret that the US military has a close relationship with hollywood at times. They loan military hardware for use as props, in return for assurances that the movies will portray them in a good way. This isn't a shadowy backroom dealing - a few minutes googling will show it's all done out in the open. There is even a small department within the Pentagon, the Film Liaison Office, dedicated to the task.
So is it possible that someone pressured the studios involved (Principly Dreamworks) to make sure that Assange was shown in a suitably scoundral-like manner? I'm not talking about anything serious like threats of jail for no-cooperating, just a reminder that studios which insult the military or lend support to wanted enemies of the state are not going to be getting any of those oh-so-useful support agreements in future. 'If you make Assange look good, don't come to us next time you want to film scenes on an aircraft carrier.'
It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.
History would indicate otherwise. The move "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson took terrible liberties with history, painting the British to be far worse than they ever were. One example, the movie contains a scene where locals were rounded up, herded into a church, and burned alive (with the church). This happened...in France, during world war II. So Mel Gibson and his writers took a Nazi atrocity perpetrated in France, and portrayed it as an atrocity committed by the British against Americans, when no such thing ever happened.
Similiar falsehoods were spread in another Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart, regarding the Scottish rising up against the English (true) in reaction to various English atrocities against the Scots portrayed in the movie that were demonstrably false and never happened.
The result in both cases: acts of intimidation, threats, and in some cases violence against the English by Americans (in the case of "The Patriot") and the Scots (in the case of "Braveheart"). These type of historical falsehoods are not rejected by audiences, and are in some cases taken very seriously. If similar falsehoods are being spread about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, then he is right to be pissed off, and right to push back.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well who's going to trust someone whose last name looks like 'dumb shit berg'.
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving.
High profile people tend to have large egos. Go figure.
He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information,
And yet he *is* stuck in an embassy for reasons that defy any real logic, stemming from a case that has been prosecuted in a truly baffling manner.
Just one example would be the level of commitment the UK police have demonstrated in ensuring he stays in that embassy -- a 24x7 stakeout for coming up on 16 months at cost of around 300,000 GPB per month... so closing in on 5 million GPB for a guy accused of something ranging from a misdemeanor sexual assault to something like date-rape.
Not that I condone date rape or think he should get away with it... but 1 in 4 college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape... how many UK rape victims could they have investigated with 5 million GPB?
One would think it would be pretty hard to justify that budget for keeping one penned up in an embassy for years on end over a sexual misconduct in another country for which the evidence ultimately amounts to he-said she-said.
But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...
How would you feel if you had started a movement that you truly believed it, only to have some filmmaker come along and try to discredit that movement on the big screen by smearing your personal life with a cartoonish, exaggerated, and sometimes downright fictional portrayal (based on the work of a guy who had betrayed said moment, no less)? I can understand why he might be more than a little pissed at that.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
In both cases the sex act was consensual. In one case he told the woman he would wear a condom and didn't. In the second case, a day earlier than the first, he had sex with a condom and then woke up in the middle of the night and had sex again, this time without a condom. The women, who knew each other, wanted him to get tested for stds. Both charges are misdemeanors in Sweden, punishable by a fine, and not even a crime in the UK.
Assange has offered to receive questioning in a neutral location and Sweden has refused. He has offered to return to Sweden for questioning if they promise, with the force of law, that he will not be extradited to the U.S. Again, Sweden refused. Between Sweden and the UK, they have spent more than $10 million on this case.
What Assange did is not acceptable behavior, but the actions of Sweden and UK make little sense solely given the crimes for which he is accused.