Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t is now accused of rape – updated


by John B    
3:41 pm - December 2nd 2010

      Share on Tumblr

[Update 9th December 2010 - The charges are now clarified and written about here.]

It’s become a prevalent meme across the western media – who, completely coincidentally, hate Wikileaks – that Julian Assange is currently being sought by the Swedish police on rape charges.

He isn’t. He’s sought on made-up-weird-charges that aren’t a crime in the UK, or anywhere else sensible.

Killer line:

The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.


Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom, with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time, but who subsequently was cross about the fact that he didn’t use a condom.

[Editor's update: it seems it is more complicated than that. See this blog post too. Either way, it is not an allegation of sex without consent at the time of the act.

It's also worth re-stating that the opinion that this is not 'rape' refers to the English legal definition rather than the Swedish legal definition.

update 2: It now turns out, he is accused of rape by authorities, within Sweden's definition of the case. According to this report, it is being alleged that Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use.]

Swedish law on this sort of thing is, actually so deranged that nobody in Angloland could comprehend it (except for people who’ve read Steig Larssen’s books, at which point various plotlines start making more sense: yes, that whole thing about Salander being held as a ward of the state for no discernible reason, which would have be overturned in a second in any Anglophone jurisdiction, was based on reality. Larssen’s early death? Well, I wouldn’t put money on natural causes…).

So why do the non-Swedish press keep lying he’s accused of rape, rather than something which isn’t a crime (and so which isn’t extraditable) outside of Sweden?

Well, that’d be the “Wikileaks being an massive embarrassment to polite political society” thing. Mr Assange is a threat to the comfy order of international lying, various mad Americans want him dead, and so complying with international pressure to lie that poor bedroom etiquette is the same thing as rape fits in.

Which is pretty revolting and sick, when you come to think of it.

The tabloid press creates an impression, by sensationalising the trials of those few women who make proveably-false fake rape claims, that lying about rape is a common thing. It isn’t, and the impression that lying about rape is common hurts rape victims and poisons the discourse about the whole subject.

But, in terms of ‘ways to trivialise the experience of rape victims’, the tabloid’s crass misreporting pales into insignificance when compared with a country taking laws that were (one would assume) drafted to ensure that more rapists came to justice, and using them to conveniently brand a whistleblower who’s inconvenient to the global establishment as a sex criminal.

It’s not just an affront to free speech, which you’d expect from pretty much all governments on the Wikileaks case, but it utterly demeans the ordeal of women who are actually the victims of sex crime. And it’s a cold and cynical way of exploiting the horror that sex crime understandably provokes in the eyes of bystanders to silence someone who is very clearly not a rapist, and very clearly not guilty of anything that’s illegal in the UK.

The fact that he isn’t actually guilty of anything that’s a crime here is also why, one might surmise, despite the UK police knowing his whereabouts, Mr Assange hasn’t been arrested…

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
John Band is a journalist, editor and market analyst, depending on who's asking and how much they're paying. He's also been a content director at a publishing company and a strategy consultant. He is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy and also blogs at Banditry.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Civil liberties ,Crime


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


So basically it is easier to say something the government doesn’t like in a country like Britain or the US, with very clear rules of law, than it is in Sweeden where the state has strange authority to make things up?

Now that’s unexpected…

Thus, people like Max “Such A Git That I Just Can’t Be Fucked To Think Up An Amusing Pun” Boot can cheerfully tar him as “accused rapist” that people “collaborate” with.

3. Chaise Guevara

@2

Quick, accuse Boot of something so everyone will know not to collaborate with him!

Although the rest of his article (judging from a quick, I-really-should-be-getting-some-work-done scan) seemed ok.

4. Luis Enrique

blimey. I had no idea.

Assange was accused by two women of not using a condom despite their consent being predicated on him using a condom. Is that rape?

The Guardian had a timeline in relation to this up to 24 August 2010, when all charges were dropped! Now Assange is wanted for questioning again, and despite the absence of any formal charges an Interpol Red Notice has been issued (to which we tend to pay heed) and a European Arrest Warrant (if I recall correctly).

It’s all very odd and you have to wonder if it would have happened to anyone else. I suspect not, unless they had been of equal embarrassment to Sweden and/or its allies.

ukliberty: did you read the linked piece? It’s clear that immediately after their encounters with Assange, both women sent texts that showed they had no regrets about their encounters with Assange. Which means, given that neither was on drugs or under 18, that there is no case here and anyone who suggests that there is one is bloody weird.

7. Chaise Guevara

@ 5

“It’s all very odd and you have to wonder if it would have happened to anyone else. I suspect not, unless they had been of equal embarrassment to Sweden and/or its allies.”

I assume the plan is to bring him in on these charges so that they’ve got him and can try to do him for the WIkileaks thing too (although I’m unsure on what basis). What are US/Swedish relations like, anyone know? Would they hand him over?

Either than or they’re distracting him while Palin sneaks up with her shotgun, of course.

8. the a&e charge nurse

“Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom” – are any other prominent Swedes wanted for condom related crimes?

Surely the Pope must have to say about this anti-catholic legislation?

These are trumped up charges designed to have him arrested then spirited away to some camp in Central America by the fascist US government. Sweden is often used for this sort of thing. They’re a bit like the Swiss in that regard.

I am sorry to rain on the parade – because John B is copying directly from a defence written by Assange’s lawyer.

However, lets come back to reality – news flash:

Today the Supreme Court of Sweden upheld the order of the lower courts which states that Assange is suspected of rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of sexual coercion

Now this is becoming truly a place for the loonies in the left – and everyone falls hook line and sinker based on what the defence attorny for the accused says.

Its like agreeing with Glenn Beck that the tea party do not have any nutters in them.

What;s wrong with you folks?

And as for me, I would believe what the Supreme Court of Sweden has to say on this than his defence lawyer – fffs

12. Flowerpower

John B

Setting this particular case and its rather special context aside, you do see it is possible that a woman might consent to sex on condition a condom was used and have grounds for legal complaint if her sex partner failed to keep his word?

I mean – it’s not such a weird, Swedish thing…. could happen anywhere.

3 – He’s a warmongering sod who puts extraordinary energy into defending the U.S. crimes of past and present…In the circles that he moves, however, this would seen as a veritable boon.

Shamit,

Today the Supreme Court of Sweden upheld the order of the lower courts which states that Assange is suspected of rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of sexual coercion

Learn how to read.
The Supreme Court upheld a detention order for questioning. There are still no formal charges.

Just being doing some interesting reading on Swedish law and if my interpretation is correct, it is somewhat strange by our standards.

For a start, there is normally no jury. The judges (a mixture of professionals and lay judges – a bit like our magistrates I presume) make the verdict, and in some criminal cases (presumably the more serious ones) there is a majority of professional judges in the court. So it would be conceivable that Sweden could convict people quite easily for crimes they had not committed, although I suspect that courts have to be public (not stated, but they come from a very public court tradition).

There is an interesting exemption to all this – freedom of expression cases are pre-screened by a nine-person jury. So if a case concerns freedom of expression, it is (initially) much more similiar to an Anglophone legal system.

Conspiracy theorists can play with this information quite easily, but I’d recommend confirming it first – at least what the composition of the court to try Mr Assange’s case would be. Just thought this was quite interesting.

14 – is there more than a semantic difference between being ‘accused’ of rape as per the op, and being ‘suspected’ of rape as per the Swedish Supreme Court? I’d certainly agree that both are substantially lower than ‘charged’ with rape.

Tim/uklibery/Shamit,

Can I suggest you stop having a semantic debate about this in English, since the Swedish proclamation in question would presumably be in Swedish.

Any Swedish (or Danish) speakers who can help with this?

I did not say he has been charged – an arrest warrant has been issued in suspicion of rape and sexual molestation.

So I did not say charged – I said the Court has uphled an order from the lower courts to issue an arrest warrant. So what did I say wrong

Tim J, I agree with your point. My response to Shamit is part-based on an earlier comment he made in another thread as well as his comment above (my emphasis in bold):

And, I guess being accused of rape and not facing the charges is okay now – or does the law and our sensibilities change because this wanker Assange is a hero.

Other commenters have so far been careful to distinguish between “being accused” and “facing charges”.

Shamit,

I did not say he has been charged – an arrest warrant has been issued in suspicion of rape and sexual molestation.

So I did not say charged – I said the Court has uphled an order from the lower courts to issue an arrest warrant. So what did I say wrong

See my response to Tim J.

Funny how contributors to this blog routinely complain about rape charges being dealt with too leniently by prosecutors… except, it seems, when a certain cyber-criminal is the accused. Usually the moaning is that prosecutors dismiss womens’ allegations all too easily, but in the Assange case the women accusers are to be dismissed with nary a wave of the hand. Curious.

21. the a&e charge nurse

[17] this should give a translation if anybody has an electronic version of the relevant ruling?
http://translate.google.co.uk/?hl=en&tab=wT#

Uk Liberty:

When I said facing the charges – I meant him going to Sweden and dealing with the accusations. never ever did I say he was charged with rape. So, if I was unclear I apologise but what I meant was he should go to Sweden and deal with this accusations and not hide here.

UK Liberty – Do you accept that this post is erroneous at least?

That yes Assange is accused of rape and he should go and subject himself to questioning or are you joining the grouthink that no there is no case to answer for – so as far as the law in Sweden goes if he does not return – he is absconding and usually innocent people don’t run away from courts.

And as for this post – this is proper Faux News style article – so women who go to police and accuse him of rape are now lying according to this post or have been coerced by the Swedish police to give false testimony.

Anything else – bollocks.

…I would believe what the Supreme Court of Sweden has to say on this than his defence lawyer…

Shorter: Don’t trust that false authority; truth this false authority!

A&E, you can get the general gist from Google Translate but can’t rely on it for precision.

@24: Even shorter. Trust who you want to believe

Ben Six – Hang on.

So, the Supreme Court of a country is not trustworthy in defining its own laws but a defence attorney of a suspected criminal is. I am sorry but that just does not make sense.

A defence lawyer’s goal is to get his client off at any cost as long as he does not commit a criminal act while doing so – while the Supreme Court of any country is the custodian of its laws and Constitution and you find them to be equal authorities.

Wow – no wonder I call you lot the loony left -

Imagine if the thing was turned – a defence attorney for Glenn beck says something and the UK supreme Court says something completely different on that case – who would you believe?

So why the different treatment – oops I forgot you don’t give a shit about the law – its all ideological and then you wonder why the country votes in Centrist PMs. And actually so did the Labour MPs and Constituency party members -

“Larssen’s early death? Well, I wouldn’t put money on natural causes…”

Larssen was a 60 a day smoker who was regularly warned that he was mistreating his body, and who eventually died of a heart attack, after climbing 7 flights of stairs when an elevator broke. Your conspiracy theory here does set rather a poor tone for the rest of the piece, I must say.

“Mr Assange is a threat to the comfy order of international lying, various mad Americans want him dead, and so complying with international pressure to lie that poor bedroom etiquette is the same thing as rape fits in.”

Here, as per the New York Times, is what Assange has been accused of, and it hardly amounts to merely poor bedroom etiquette:

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. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts.

You can argue, if you like, that the allegations lack veracity. I make no judgement about whether Assange is guilty. But it is utterly irresponsible to ridicule the nature of the allegations themselves. Sweden is far from deranged to take seriously complaints by women that their partners refused to stop having sex with them when they withdrew their consent. Indeed, I don’t see that it is inappropriate to use the word ‘rape’ to describe such behaviour.

Shamit,

That yes Assange is accused of rape and he should go and subject himself to questioning or are you joining the grouthink that no there is no case to answer for – so as far as the law in Sweden goes if he does not return – he is absconding and usually innocent people don’t run away from courts.

He is absconding? Running away? You seem to be spinning things yourself.

I agree that Assange has been accused of rape – because, um, he has been. But in today’s case the Supreme Court apparently downgraded the rape accusation to the equivalent of a minor felony (maximum four years prison IIUC). Regardless, he ought to submit to questioning. But anyone in his position would be concerned about where they will eventually end up, surely?

It is my understanding that in August, when the original accusations were made, a warrant was issued and then retracted; charges were made and dropped. What has happened between now and then? As I say, all very odd.

Indeed, I don’t see that it is inappropriate to use the word ‘rape’ to describe such behaviour.

Agreed: stop means stop.

32. the a&e charge nurse

[29] the timing of allegations seem rather convenient from the point of view of the anti-WikiLeak lobby?

I just don’t buy the serial condom problem (I might if it was an inexperienced youngster, say) – especially given that even if the rape accusation do not stand up it still leaves the potential for additional charges related to condom crimes if the case is heard in Sweden?

So, the Supreme Court of a country is not trustworthy in defining its own laws…

Er, no – not absolutely. Someone’s job description doesn’t necessarily describe their job.

…a defence attorney of a suspected criminal is…

Er, no.

I forgot you don’t give a shit about the law…

“I forgot” is presumably serving the purpose of “I just made up that…”?

UK Liberty – that i accept that there is something fishy here – but I am not going to second guess the Supreme Court of a country as Ben Six does and equate them to a defence attorney.

The source for this is an Australian site called Crikey, that uses writes ‘r-pe’ and ‘s-x’ rather than speak in big boy language?

“I just don’t buy the serial condom problem (I might if it was an inexperienced youngster, say) – especially given that even if the rape accusation do not stand up it still leaves the potential for additional charges related to condom crimes if the case is heard in Sweden?”

I don’t follow your point, sorry – probably my fault. But the allegation is that the condom burst, Assange was asked to stop, and he refused. I do not see how this is a ‘problem’ that could only happen to an ‘inexperienced youngster’. Refusing to stop makes one guilty of non-consensual sex, which is never merely ‘bad bedroom etiquette’, as the OP astonishingly claims.

37. the a&e charge nurse

The story presented by the NYT implies that Assange raped his first victim after a condom broke (presumably the last condom available in Sweden or wherever the act took place).
“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”.

How extraordinary, a man rapes his first victim (instead of buying a packet of johnnies) – then presumably having got the taste for it goes through a near identical routine of raping another partner, despite the fact she was initially consenting but then changed her mind because of what for Assange must have become a rather predictable condom issue?

As I say the story doesn’t seem to stack up especially when the accused is feared because of association with WikiLeaks?

Someone above says this: One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke.

The OP says this: [the alleged victim] didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time, but who subsequently was cross about the fact that he didn’t use a condom

Which is correct?

39. Flowerpower

a& e charge nurse @ 37

I think you’ve got the order wrong. The broken condom was in Chapter 2, as it were.

But could Tim J or any other legal eagle here tell us what the legal position would be here if the following scenario took place:

Woman invites man back to her flat for sex. She supplies him with a condom and makes clear her consent is conditional upon him using it.

The two have consensual sex and then fall asleep.

The woman awakes next morning in a state of partial arousal to find the man stroking her. Before she knows what’s happening they are having (apparently consensual) sex again.

Only when it’s over and the man has rolled off does it dawn on the woman that this time he had not used a condom. The packet with two left in it is on the bedside table.

She is furious he didn’t bother.

Has she been raped? Assaulted? What, then?

I’m disappointed to see this piece up at LibCon to be honest. I mean, I get that we all want Assange to be beyond reproach so we can hail him as this big heroic figure and all that, but the fact is that he just might not be Mr bloody Perfect..

Soho Politico is absolutely right. If the women withdrew consent and Assange carried on regardless, then that’s rape. It would be rape in this country, rape in the USA, and so there’s nothing weird about the fact that it’s also rape in Sweden.

If consent for sex was given only on certain conditions being met, and those conditions were not met, then consent wasn’t given, and it’s rape. Pretty straight forward.

The man desrves a fair trial though to prove he was guilty of doing what is said he did. The trouble is that Sweden has an unfortunate reputation at the moment for prosectuting people because of pressure from the US.

[39] my comments followed on from the NYT item highlighted at 29.

This article claims, “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”.

Two rapes – two condom malfunctions ……….. allegedly?

43. Shatterface

A law against unprotected sex would be tyrannical as well as absurd – but that’s not he’s being accused of.

If wearing a condom is a condition on which consent is given then that consent ends the moment he stops wearing one.

If he’d been asked to stop for ANY other reason – or for no reason at all – we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

The moment a woman says stop you fucking stop.

Yes, if Soho Political’s right – and she’d clearly expressed a desire to stop – that would be rape. The charge that she “didn’t mind [it] at the time” stems from this…

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern.

45. Chaise Guevara

@ 40 Cath Elliott

“I’m disappointed to see this piece up at LibCon to be honest. I mean, I get that we all want Assange to be beyond reproach so we can hail him as this big heroic figure and all that, but the fact is that he just might not be Mr bloody Perfect..”

Very true. Although I think this is less about defending his reputation and more about trying to work out whether he’s being smeared (i.e. the big issue re Wikileaks is whether the US and Swedish governments are using this as an issue of repression).

“The tabloid press creates an impression, by sensationalising the trials of those few women who make proveably-false fake rape claims, that lying about rape is a common thing. It isn’t”

This isn’t really true.

Estimations of false claims range from one or two percent (various feminists etc) to as high as 10% (Baroness Stern’s report mentioned this number).

And as we keep being told, the conviction rate for rape is 6% or so.

So the estimation of false claims is of roughly the same number as the number of rapes that we actually manage to prove someone did.

This really isn#t “uncommon” then, is it?

47. Shatterface

‘In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern.’

So are you saying that both women made these stories up? That they are, in fact, in the pay of the CIA or someone?

Funny how the MSM is so hostile to this man and his site. I thought the media liked getting information to publish.

Oh silly Sally, you forgot, the MSM is just a PR organisation for the global elites and their rich friends. It is frankly priceless to watch the overpaid news anchors tut , tutting and complaining about the ethics of the way this information was obtained. Murdoch’s joke organisation was bugging peoples phones and their editor was so stupid he did not even Know. (or so he claims)

Remember, Dick Cheney outed a CIA agent Valerie Plame because she dared to suggest that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Not a squeak did we hear about that. Her cover was blown but the MSM cheered Cheney on because they are nothing more than his Pravda.

@Tim

Here you go, Rape Stats.

Learn a little from our own great Unity. It appears your 10% is a little suspect, to say the least.

@ sally

“Oh silly Sally, you forgot, the MSM is just a PR organisation for the global elites and their rich friends. It is frankly priceless to watch the overpaid news anchors tut , tutting and complaining about the ethics of the way this information was obtained. ”

It’s not just that, Wikileaks is direct competition to their business model. If people have unfettered access to the original sources, then what use the commentariat? It’s why blogs are routinely attacked. People doing their own research? releasing for free? allowing people to make up thier own minds? madness! the death of informed journalism!

If the MSM had been doing their job properly and holding the rich and powerful’s feet up to the fire, Wikileaks wouldn’t be needed.

y quien se cree esto?????Animo fundador de wikileaks eres el mejor

“If the MSM had been doing their job properly and holding the rich and powerful’s feet up to the fire, Wikileaks wouldn’t be needed.”

Indeed.

@1 Watchman “So basically it is easier to say something the government doesn’t like in a country like Britain or the US, with very clear rules of law, than it is in Sweeden where the state has strange authority to make things up?”

No. In fact, Sweden is joint #1 (i.e. joint best) in the World Press Freedom rankings. (Australia is 18th, the UK 19th, the US 20th. NZ is 8th, Ireland 9th. http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html )

@35 Foomandoonian: “The source for this is an Australian site called Crikey, that uses writes ‘r-pe’ and ‘s-x’ rather than speak in big boy language?”

It sort of makes sense if you read to the bottom of the article where the author identifies himself as a (former?) lawyer for Assange. I’m assuming that the author is trying to avoid turning up in web searches for Assange and the allegations. A bit silly in my opinion but it is the sort of thing people do when they don’t understand how the web and links work.

This shows why we need to get rid of the European arrest warrant

If Sweden was such a poor country for free expression, why does Wikileaks still have servers based there (which, unlike their US servers, haven’t been shut down yet, although they have been subject to severe DDoS attacks – which, however, there is no good reason to blame the Swedish government for)?

Now there’s a bunch of conspiracy-theorising rape-apologist rubbish if I’ve ever seen one; add me to the list of those disappointed to see it on LibCon. Newsflash: it’s entirely possible to do many heroic acts for lefty (or indeed righty) causes and be a rapist or other sex offender. It doesn’t imply that the justice system of that country is suddenly corrupt if they then decide to investigate.

BenSix/44: certainly the idea that a woman who is raped should:
– instantly recognise what happened as rape
– immediately report it
– have no contact with her rapist after that
means that women who don’t do those have reduced chance of getting a conviction.

On the other hand, they’re also all extremely commonplace, so it’s hardly the “and therefore he obviously couldn’t have raped her” evidence that his defence lawyer suggests. Though, of course, it’s his defence lawyer’s job to pretend that it is.

There certainly seems from the prosecution’s statements to be a case to answer, worth bringing to trial, for something that would be a crime in, as Cath Elliott says, pretty much any country with a half-decent rape law.

@46 Tim Worstall: Estimations of false claims range from one or two percent (various feminists etc) to as high as 10% (Baroness Stern’s report mentioned this number).

These are all estimates, or, if we’re being honest, guesses. I don’t know what proportion of rape allegations are false, and I do not believe anyone else in the UK knows either. Short of fitting up every bedroom with CCTV cameras, I’m not even sure it’s possible to know.

@48 sally: It is frankly priceless to watch the overpaid news anchors tut , tutting and complaining about the ethics of the way this information was obtained. Murdoch’s joke organisation was bugging peoples phones and their editor was so stupid he did not even Know. (or so he claims)

Good point. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

As to whether Assange is a rapist, these allegations are very conveniently timed for the authorities.

So, yet another vicious and ugly post on Liberal Conspiracy. We’ve had homophobia and celebrations of violence in the streets. Now we get denigrations of women who claim they were sexually abused, including this troofer-style line:

Well, that’d be the “Wikileaks being an massive embarrassment to polite political society” thing. Mr Assange is a threat to the comfy order of international lying, various mad Americans want him dead, and so complying with international pressure to lie that poor bedroom etiquette is the same thing as rape fits in.

The Tories should fund this blog. It does an excellent job of discrediting the left.

Imagine if the thing was turned – a defence attorney for Glenn beck says something and the UK supreme Court says something completely different on that case – who would you believe?

So if, say, the Home Office of the United Kingdom said that Glenn Beck was engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts, and he denied it, you’d believe the Home Office? What if, instead of Glenn Beck, it was Michael Savage?

its all ideological and then you wonder why the country votes in Centrist PMs.

Eh? Has Ed Miliband been elected PM already?

FWIW, and going back through the quotes from one of the women in the Guardian back in August, I think the complaint of rape stems from both women comparing notes afterwards and finding that they both had a sexual encounter with Assange during which the condom broke and he then persuaded them to continue without it. The inference being that this was a trick on his part to have unprotected sex, rather than a coincidence. Personally, while it might make him a bastard, I don’t believe it constitutes rape.

Tron,

FWIW, and going back through the quotes from one of the women in the Guardian back in August, I think the complaint of rape stems from both women comparing notes afterwards and finding that they both had a sexual encounter with Assange during which the condom broke and he then persuaded them to continue without it. The inference being that this was a trick on his part to have unprotected sex, rather than a coincidence. Personally, while it might make him a bastard, I don’t believe it constitutes rape.

But apparently the women claim consent was predicated on use of condoms. If that is true, and if he had tricked them, are you saying it would nevertheless not amount to rape?

Incidentally, if John B is wrong in that “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape”, will John B, LibCon and nearly 200 retweeters make a retraction?

64. Dennis Spence

Wanted for rape? No! Here are MORE the facts.

The complaint was lodged by a radical feminist Anna Ardin, 30, a one-time intern in the Swedish Foreign Service. She’s spokeswoman for Broderskapsrörelsen, the liberation theology-like Christian organization affiliated with Sweden’s Social Democratic Party. She had invited Julian Assange to a crayfish party, and they had enjoyed some quality time together. When Ardin discovered that Julian shared a similar experience with a 20-year-old woman a day or two later, she obtained the younger woman’s cooperation in declaring before the police that changing partners in so rapid a manner constituted a sort of deceit. And deceit is a sort of rape. The prosecutor immediately issued an arrest warrant, and the press was duly notified. Once the facts were examined in the cold light of day, the charge of rape seemed ludicrous and was immediately dropped. In the meantime the younger woman, perhaps realizing how she had been used, withdrew her report, leaving the vengeful Anna Ardin standing alone.

One of the documents dumped showed how the US stopped the Spanish from investigating American torture,

“Attention has focused on three separate matters, each pending in the Spanish national security court, the Audiencia Nacional: the investigation into the 2003 death of a Spanish cameraman, José Cuoso, as a result of the mistaken shelling of Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel by a U.S. tank; an investigation into the torture of Spanish subjects held at Guantánamo; and a probe into the use of Spanish bases and airfields for extraordinary renditions flights, including the one which took Khaled El-Masri to Baghdad and then on to Afghanistan in 2003.
These cables reveal a large-scale, closely coordinated effort by the State Department to obstruct these criminal investigations [...]
Diplomats routinely monitor and report on legal cases that affect national interests. These cables show that the U.S. embassy in Madrid had far exceeded this mandate, however, and was actually successfully steering the course of criminal investigations, the selection of judges, and the conduct of prosecutors. Their disclosure has created deep concern about the independence of judges in Spain and the manipulation of the entire criminal justice system by a foreign power.”

America likes fucking over other countries criminal justice systems so who is surprised.

66. Shatterface

All this could have been avoided if defendants in rape cases were granted anonymity until after a succesful prosecution.

“But apparently the women claim consent was predicated on use of condoms. If that is true, and if he had tricked them, are you saying it would nevertheless not amount to rape?”

Yes, because to me rape is characterised by a man forcing a woman (or another man) to have sex against their will, and neither woman has said that that happened. Their claim is that their consent to continue having sex after the condom broke was only reluctantly given. They have said that he wasn’t violent, he wasn’t intimidating, he didn’t force them to continue – he persuaded them to. So, I don’t see how it can be rape.

68. Luis Enrique

I’m a bit confused by all this. is the accusation that:

1. the condom broke, at the time wanted to carry on anyway. Later the women objected to this.
2. the condom broke, and at that time the women withdrew consent, but he forced them to carry on anyway. At first they made no complaint, did so later.

I don’t think 1. is rape. Unless consent was withdrawn at the time, he was not having sex without consent. 2. clearly is.

I suppose there is a grey area is they were “persuaded” to consent to carry on. But that strikes me as very grey indeed – somebody is persuaded to give consent, they have given consent – unless persuasion amounted to coercion.

69. Luis Enrique

oh crap – missing bit “at the time the women wanted to carry on anyway”

@67 Tron: “Their claim is that their consent to continue having sex after the condom broke was only reluctantly given. They have said that he wasn’t violent, he wasn’t intimidating, he didn’t force them to continue – he persuaded them to. So, I don’t see how it can be rape.”

This is not a convincing argument in favour of Assagne. If a condom splits, you think “woops” and get another one out of the packet.

@70 This is not a convincing argument in favour of Assagne. If a condom splits, you think “woops” and get another one out of the packet.

You and I might. But I’m not making an argument “in favour” of Assange. I can readily believe that he did do it on purpose and that he is a chauvinist who wanted to have sex without a condom. Still, that doesn’t make him a rapist – he did not force them to have or to continue to have sex. I know men who have used bogus declarations of love and fidelity to persuade women to have unprotected sex with them. It’s not nice, but it’s not rape either.

@68 Luis Enrique: “1. the condom broke, at the time (the women) wanted to carry on anyway.”

The prosecution will argue that the women’s judgement was impaired and that Assagne should have acted more rationally.

On a positive note, not too many quickies for Assagne in the immediate future.

I am not surprised of this…

74. the a&e charge nurse

[68] yes – very confusing.

According to this report, ‘both women met to discuss their experiences before going to the police – later they (? jointly) retained prominent attorney Claes Borgstrom, who met with them Monday. He was Sweden’s Equality Ombudsman from 2000 to 2007. In 2008 he was appointed as the Social Democrats’ spokesperson on gender issues’.
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/20773/

The first sexual encounter took place 14th August – the second three days later.
The Fail claim the Yard are poised to nick Assange,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334899/WIKILEAKS-Julian-Assange-arrested-Swedish-rape-Interpol-issues-warrant.html?ITO=1490

Why has it taken nearly 4 months to press charges when two violent crimes are alleged to have taken place?

75. the a&e charge nurse

[72] “the prosecution will argue that the women’s judgement was impaired” – by what, pressure to take down somebody responsible for WikiLeaks?

58/Phil Hunt: “these allegations are very conveniently timed for the authorities.

Given that he’s not spent that much time in Sweden, when else would they have been made? He’s been inconveniencing governments for so long that any time would be convenient for them.

61/Tron: I don’t believe it constitutes rape.

Fortunately the law disagrees. I’m not familiar with Swedish law, but under English law, Sexual Offences Act 2003 Section 76.2.a there is clearly a case to answer in those circumstances.

66/Shatterface: All this could have been avoided if defendants in rape cases were granted anonymity until after a succesful prosecution.

The idea that Assange is being harmed by too much press freedom amuses me.

“Assange, who has been missing from public life for undisclosed reasons for the last twelve months, recently resurfaced. We know perfectly well where he was, but have been legally instructed not to report on it. Perhaps you should check Wikileaks for the secret government documents detailing his location instead.”

Public justice is generally for the defendant’s benefit.

@76: Fortunately the law disagrees. I’m not familiar with Swedish law, but under English law, Sexual Offences Act 2003 Section 76.2.a there is clearly a case to answer in those circumstances.

Neither woman has accused him of decieving them as to the nature or purpose of the act or of impersonating someone they know. So, no case to answer there.

Tron/71: “decieving them as to the nature [...] of the act” seems a fairly good description of obtaining consent on the condition that a condom was used and then later not using a condom.

But they knew that a condom was not in use but were persuaded to continue with the act. The nature of the act changed, but they were not decieved about that and were talked into consenting to continue.

80. the a&e charge nurse

[78] how is it possible to deceive somebody about wearing a condom?

The packet has to be opened – the condom has to be put in placed – and it is usually polite to check that the recipient does not suffer with a latex allergy since anaphylaxis can often ruin the moment.

Are you suggesting that Assange inflicted consecutive acts of rape in a pitch black room?

@75 the a&e charge nurse: ““the prosecution will argue that the women’s judgement was impaired” – by what, pressure to take down somebody responsible for WikiLeaks?”

Thanks, a&e, but I was trying to avoid stating that horny women are prone to irrationality. This is not a made-up fact but one that is supported by the number of children conceived outside of stable relationships. Horny women do not always act in their own interests or those of a future, unperceived child.

You could have had a go at me that in the scenario of a good heterosexual shag, the male and female participants might have acted equally irrationally when condom problems arose. We do not know whether that occurred.

But you chose conspiracy theory to address my point. I believe that security agencies meddle with civil behaviour; I have experienced it personally. However if you believe that Assange is the victim of a plot, your sympathy is misplaced.

It does seem to me to be a genius-level move to accuse Assange not of mere rape simple, but of a complex one in a country with an unfamiliar legal system (Sweden being one of the relatively few countries worldwide never to have been occupied by the UK, France or a subcontractor thereof).

That way, you are sure to get people talking rape-apologist bollocks in what they think is his ‘defence’.

Occam’s razor says it is quite likely not a smear, but a just a logical consequence of applied transparency. Of the 20 top or so people involved in wikileaks, some proportion of them will, statistically speaking, also have been involved in one thing or other immoral and/or illegal. Picking the most useful is just an exercise in ego-tweaking and PR.

@81

Thanks, a&e, but I was trying to avoid stating that horny women are prone to irrationality. This is not a made-up fact but one that is supported by the number of children conceived outside of stable relationships. Horny women do not always act in their own interests or those of a future, unperceived child.

Er, wouldn’t the same also apply to horny men? Is that really something that should be dragged into a courtroom, given that it would make “Mr. How Do I Not Rape Someone It Is So Difficult” a valid position?

Ffs. What is it with this site? First you play the nasty old trick of a gay “smear” against a councillor because you don’t like his opinions on economics, then you pull this rather unpleasant trick against a couple of women whose case hasn’t yet been heard, and all because in your stupid little world, if someone does something good (which Assange undoubtedly has done in his capacity as a publisher of guilty secrets) they have to be regarded as a saint, incapable of doing any wrong. No bloody wonder we never make any real progress.

If one adds the two posts together, it might even suggest that there are some really weird hang-ups about sex (as well as to lots of other things) on the left.

As you don’t tolerate misogynistic comments on this site, how about you stop tolerating misogynistic posts too?

@81 – so you are saying that they went along with the sex because they were horny, but both regretted it later but weren’t influenced in that decision?

cim – Well, yes, I wasn’t endorsing the suggestion. On the other hand, a guilty charge would be convenient for all manner of bastards that anomalies should be noted, even if it would unjust to draw conclusions from them.

I’ll admit to either misunderstanding or being hoodwinked by the Crikey piece. I didn’t realise that the accusation was that she’d asked for him to stop mid-way through the, er — process, but thought she’d agreed to barebacking, gone through with it and then thought, “In retrospect…” Can’t tell if that was John’s thinking as well.

Seems to me any discussion about this case – such as it is – should be left well alone until actual verifiable facts are known, or at least what Assange is actually accused of. Right now it’s gossipy weblinks here and Swedish translations of prosecuters or lawyers there – not really enough to think about in terms of who what where and why.

I’d agree that it is convenient for the establishment for these charges (if they are such) to be brought against Assange, however I’d also agree with whoever mentioned Occam’s blade upthread – statistically there are going to be some morally dubious or downright evil scumbags working in any organisation.

None of this changes the debate surrounding Wikileaks – I do not use George W Bush as an example of why I hate democracy, or the BNP’s Nick Eriksen [who claimed that being raped was on par with being force-fed chocolate] as an example of why I hate free speech, or the personal peccadilloes of former Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten as an example of why the Lib Dems are not a good party to support – and I remain in favour of Wikileaks as an organisation and its function at the present time.

tl;dr – Assange =/= Wikileaks.

Is the accusation that:
1. the condom broke, at the time [they] wanted to carry on anyway. Later the women objected to this.
2. the condom broke, and at that time the women withdrew consent, but he forced them to carry on anyway. At first they made no complaint, did so later.

The accusation is 1.

If the accusation was 2, it’d be unequivocally rape, and I wouldn’t have written the bloody article.

“The tabloid press creates an impression that … lying about rape is a common thing… It isn’t.”

Actually lying about rape is extremely common. Eugene Kanin’s study “False Rape Allegations”, published in the peer reviewed Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994) showed that 41% of rape allegations are false.

A few more housekeeping things:

1) Crikey started as (and still is) an email newsletter, hence the euphemisms – they’re filter-beaters, not coyness. It’s Australia’s biggest alternative political publication, equivalent to something like Private Eye in the UK.

2) Yes, the piece is by Assange’s lawyer, but it’s making falsifiable statements of fact based on the evidence the Swedish prosecution has disclosed to him. Lawyers in Anglosphere jurisdictions don’t get to stay lawyers by proveably lying about statements of fact, so it’s reasonable to accept his factual claims about what the prosecution are alleging (it would not be reasonable to accept his claims about Assange’s character, or about *what actually happened* on the occasions in question, but that isn’t what the piece is doing).

3) The Larssen reference wasn’t entirely serious.

91. the a&e charge nurse

[87] “Seems to me any discussion about this case – such as it is – should be left well alone until actual verifiable facts are known, or at least what Assange is actually accused of” – agreed (even though I’m more guilty than most) – what seems to be emerging is a very convoluted set of circumstances that seem to be speculative rather than fact based?

Tron/79: The allegation, though, is that this is something he does repeatedly. There’s a definite element of deception to obtain consent there if so, which there wouldn’t be if it was genuinely accidental and just a coincidence that it happened twice in quick succession. I’m not saying he’s guilty, I’m saying there appears to be a case to answer.

Incidentally, when it comes to – say – con artists scamming people out of thousands of pounds of money – we have no trouble at all recognising that consent that was apparently freely given on the assumption that the facts were as claimed, was in fact obtained by deception if the con artist was concealing relevant facts [1], and allow people to legally retroactively state that they wouldn’t have given consent (to the transfer of money) had they been in possession of those facts, and arrest the con artist on relevant fraud charges. Applying your argument from this case to those cases, the law should be “if you don’t spot the con at the time it’s your own fault”.

[1] e.g.: “I am not actually from your bank and you don’t need to give me £30 in cash to settle an overdraft charge out of court”

Ben Nutley/89: Kanin? You’re quoting Kanin as a serious reference? Come on, if you’re wanting to pick a methodologically terrible study that analyses certain law enforcement officers’ personal opinions (from the wrong country) on the prevalence of false allegations and claim that it measures false allegations, to prove that most women who report rape are lying liars who lie, why not use Stewart?

Have to agree with Mr S Pill @ 87. Was reflecting on this last night and felt uncomfortable about the whole thing – no-one in this thread is competent to comment (of course I concede I am part of it) and it seems a bit wrong too.

I think the kicker was the sheer number of blind retweets without comment.

Incidentally I think the record of those tweets has slowed down this page.

Geekgirl.

It could only be a leak if he was wearing a condom in the first place .

“Actually lying about rape is extremely common. Eugene Kanin’s study “False Rape Allegations”, published in the peer reviewed Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994) showed that 41% of rape allegations are false.”

…and 512% of statistics are made up on the spot, try Unity’s post on Rape Stats for something which doesn’t cut its own throat with Occam’s Razor.

96. Chaise Guevara

@ 92 CIM

There’s got to be a limit to how far you can define sex obtained via deception as rape, though. Is it rape if a guy tells a girl that he loves her when he doesn’t, or if a wife lies when her husband asks whether she’s been unfaithful, assuming that if either of those statements had been replaced with the truth the people involved would not have gone on to have sex? Doubtless maniacs exist who would call the first of those rape at least, but I doubt you’re one of them.

A contract is one thing, human behaviour another. You could argue that we’re all deceiving one another all the time, even if that means telling someone they look nice when they don’t, or putting a brave face on things when you feel down. And we probably do a lot of that deceiving within relationships or when out on the pull.

Pretending you’re using a condom when you’re not is wrong, irresponsible and should be illegal if it isn’t already, just like it’s illegal to knowingly have unprotected sex when you have an STD without telling the partner. Describing either of those as rape distorts reality and is suggestive of an instinctive desire to find a reason to describe any sexual act as rape (you know, the sort of thing you hear from the “she had a glass of wine so it’s rape” school).

[95] Data on populations does not tell us about the particulars of a single case.
Neither should an individual be penalised (if innocent) because of crimes committed by others.

This has to be the starting point for any legal process.

Could the legal eagles clarify once more?

If a woman makes it a condition of her consent that a man wears a condom on a Monday night…. and they have consensual sex…. is the man still bound by that condition on waking up on Tuesday morning? Or does the woman have to repeat her condition on the Tuesday morning?

‘There’s got to be a limit to how far you can define sex obtained via deception as rape, though. Is it rape if a guy tells a girl that he loves her when he doesn’t, or if a wife lies when her husband asks whether she’s been unfaithful, assuming that if either of those statements had been replaced with the truth the people involved would not have gone on to have sex? Doubtless maniacs exist who would call the first of those rape at least, but I doubt you’re one of them.’

Love’s a subjective feeling impossible to define let alone prove but you’re either wearing a condom or you’re not. There’s no gray area here.

100. Shatterface

Chinatown’s a great movie.

Roman Polanski was a rapist.

You don’t neef to be iin the pay of the CIA to hold both propositions true.

101. Chaise Guevara

99

“Love’s a subjective feeling impossible to define let alone prove but you’re either wearing a condom or you’re not. There’s no gray area here.”

True, although hypothetically you could go a long way to proving he was lying by recording a conversation he had with someone else about it.

Faithfulness, in the sense of “not having sex with someone else”, is objective though, and I wouldn’t call the aforementioned woman lying about cheating on her husband a rapist.

Also: how close to the act of sex does the deception have to be? I used to know a guy who always lied about his job when on the pull, making up something that made him sound ridiculously cool or successful. If this helped him to get a woman into bed, is that rape?

I’m not saying that any of these things are equivalent to pretending to put on a condom. I’m saying that “sex + deception = rape” is a rule that leads you to some unpleasant places.

Flowerpower/98: Certainly on Tuesday morning he is still bound by the condition that sex carried out the previous night must be with a condom to have consent, and is therefore legally forbidden from using a time machine to return to the previous night to retrospectively not use one.

If you mean “under what terms does he have consent to sex on Tuesday morning” the answer is clearly “none, until he asks”. His partner can certainly choose to consent to sex without a condom on Tuesday morning, but he can’t assume that just as he can’t assume consent to sex at all.

(Also applies the other way round, of course: if consent was given to sex without a condom on Monday night, it doesn’t follow that the same consent will be given on Tuesday morning)

Shamit seems to feel it’s not ordinary peoples’ place to “second guess”‘ anything stated by a reputable “Supreme Court”. However, since I don’t believe the right to an opinion should be determined by someone’s place in society, I’m going to.

Frankly, the timing of this is just far too much of a coincidence – and I suspect getting bogged down in the detail of exactly what does and does not constitute rape is a waste of time. Yes, there’s a chance the allegations might be true. But the fact that no-one seems to be able to come up with a consistent summary of what the allegations actually ARE is slightly odd for starters.

Assange has not only made enemies of the Americans but also of the Russians (including the Russian mafia), the Chinese, numerous Arab governments, Italian right-wingers… the list goes on. While the US itself *might* find framing a high-profile political dissident somewhat risky – he now has plenty of other enemies who wouldn’t.

There are numerous ways in which these allegations could have been engineered, ranging from upfront entrapment to issuing threats after the event. So yes, there’s a chance he did it. But it’s a pretty small chance, by my reckoning.

The idea that he should submit himself to the courts and that he would be found innocent and freed if he hadn’t done anything wrong is just staggeringly naive.

Chaise/101: The English legal position is that the deception has to be about the “nature or purpose of the relevant act”. So lying about what sexual acts you’re going to do is rape (or another relevant sexual offence, depending on what you do), but lying about who you are – provided you’re not specifically impersonating another person, of course – remains legal.

(Purpose would cover a doctor claiming that a genital examination was medically necessary when in fact there were no medical grounds for it, for instance)

Can I merely express the hope that Wikileaks is more than just Mr Assange.

106. Chaise Guevara

@ 104 CIM

That’s fair. I still feel “rape” is rather strong for what he is accused of doing (if indeed that is what he is accused of doing), but from a legal perspective I think the important thing is to find a sensible place to draw a line in the sand. So while I disagree that lying about putting on a condom should count as rape, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable position to take. Likewise, if a woman told me she was on the pill when she wasn’t because she wanted to get pregnant, I would be as pissed as hell but would not consider myself to have been raped.

What does “purpose” mean in “nature and purpose”?

107. Chaise Guevara

@ 106

“What does “purpose” mean in “nature and purpose”?”

Sorry, you’ve already answered that!

108. Chaise Guevara

OK, from what I can work out, this is a possible (i.e. I’m not claiming its true) series of events:

1) Assange has consensual sex with two different women on two different occasions. In both case, the condom breaks, leading to them having unprotected sex. Both women are initially happy about the encounter.

2) The women meet, compare notes and conclude (rightly or wrongly) that Assange deliberately broke the condoms because he doesn’t like using them. They understandably feel deceived and used.

3) The women go to the police, who issue a warrant.

4) The case is dropped for some reason (lack of evidence, the belief that the nature of the alleged offence won’t hold up as illegal in court, whatever).

5) Wikileaks scandal.

6) Under international pressure, the government reopens Assange’s file and decides to reopen the case, providing a legal method of bringing him in, at which point he could be extradicted to the US or elsewhere to face trial over the Wikileaks affair.

If true, it’s not so much a conspiracy as a spur-of-the-moment tactic (the two women are not conspirators, for example). And it means that the alleged crimes of Assange are only relevant to Wikileaks because they may be being used as a weapon against him.

“Can I merely express the hope that Wikileaks is more than just Mr Assange”

I think there are a few others involved, the danger is more that others will be deterred from doing things like it because of the personal risks.

110. Flowerpower

Chaise

Assange has consensual sex with two different women on two different occasions. In both case, the condom breaks

This isn’t what is alleged to have happened.

What is alleged, apparently, in the case of Miss W, is something close to the hypothetical cases I have outlined above: i.e. that consensual sex with a condom took place on the Monday night. But no condom was used, allegedly, when sex took place again on the Tuesday morning.

I can imagine one group of lawyers might argue that a man would remain on constructive notice that the woman’s consent was (and would continue to be) conditional upon use of a condom; while another group might argue that the condition has to be restated every time.

111. Chaise Guevara

@ 110

Ah, right. There’s a debate to be had there (personally I can’t imagine how you could innocently assume that someone who so far had insisted on using a condom could be suddenly assumed to be happy not to use one). However, the conclusions reached are the same as far as this relates to Wikileaks.

The flimsiness of the charges has been picked up by this quite influential US site (my favourite finance site).

http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-sex-crimes-2010-12

Assange has consensual sex with two different women on two different occasions. In both case, the condom breaks

No doubt where he got the name from………………

114. Anne Clarke

It does seem to me that it is irresponsible and perhaps criminally so to have unprotected sex with a person without their explicit agreement. I gather that is what happened ( or what the presumed victims are claiming happened) and I think it would be a form of “molestation” as I believe the Swedish authorities were calling it at one time or maybe assault. Basically not using a condom is equivalent to subjecting the partner to the risk of pregnancy (possibly; unless she was using contraception) or of several diseases some of which very serious.
So I would support any woman or authority who would pursue charges on this issue.
The motivation behind this particular case is highly suspect of course and the prosecutor’s office has engaged in an inconsistent course of action that is very prejudicial to the presumed offender; I would call it unfair and venal. The self proclaimed victims seem to have their own agenda but that is not really relevant to the legal responsibility for his actions that Mr Assange bears.
Whether the crimes he is accused of are extraditable is another issue entirely.

Jesus, how long does it take to scroll down to the comment box, bloody retweeters!

Anyway, now my finger’s recovered, a quick point about timing. Many people seem to be saying that the timing of the accusation is too convenient for the authorities. And it may well be so.

But one thing to remember here is that Mr (what is the Sweedish honorific, as Mr is technically incorrect?) Assange has not been a household name for that long. Wikileaks was originally a fairly anonymous organisation, and Mr Assange’s notoriety has only grown slowly. This has two important corrolaries:

1. There is a noticeable tendency for people who are relatively famous to be able to attract more sexual partners, and for there also to be a seemingly increased chance of accusations of sexual misconduct (I am basing this on news stories about footballers primarily, but I think it applies to other fields of celebrity also). I am not sure if this increased chance of accusations reflects simply more encounters or is a further development of fame, but regardless Mr Assange, who has been a well-known name (and to a lesser extent, face) in certain circles at least for most of this year, would seem to me to have a far greater chance than me of being accused of sexual misconduct because of his fame (not to mention the fact that my wife won’t let me go round picking up strangers – something about marriage vows ;) ).

2. If someone has felt uneasy or upset about a sexual encouonter with a famous person, there is much more potential reward in reporting this – the very report is more damaging should some form of anger be motivating the decision; there is also more possibility of financial gain in a high-profile case if we are (overly and unpleasantly) cyncial.

It is therefore less surprising than it might appear that as Mr Assange becomes better known he is accussed of something like this. The good news (for Mr Assange, and perhaps for natural justice, if not for some of our feminists) is that I cannot think of any fame-based accusation that has actually succeeded. For what it is worth, I am uncharacteristically inclined to believe this accusation is politicised, but that has to be a belief with the above considerations taken into account.

“Jesus, how long does it take to scroll down to the comment box, bloody retweeters!”

Press “end” on your key board, wonderful.

@114 – I hope you would also support a man who had been lied to about contraception in similar circumstances

As a Swede who has been following the case in the Swedish media…

Sweden has among the most progressive legislation in the world when it comes to sexual harassment and rape. I’m surprised that anyone other than a far-right Tory would call it ‘deranged’.

Swedish sexual harassment law works in the way that if a woman reports a man for rape, the man is automatically taken in for questioning, even if there is limited evidence. The expectation is that women are unlikely to report someone for rape unless it has happened and that (as we all know) rape is extremely difficult to prove. The law is designed to make it easier for women to report rape.

I have no idea about what evidence is in this case (and I’ve no idea where the condom story comes from – do you have any references?), but what I do know is that Assange HAS NOT come in for questioning in the case. As he hasn’t, the court has issued a warrant for him. It doesn’t mean anything other than that.

The Swedish court has said that it’s seeking Assange to talk about ‘en våldtäkt av mindre allvarlig art’ – ‘a not very serious rape’ (yes that sounds funny in English) and his Swedish lawyer expresses surprise that Interpol has gone out with a red alert. He also says it’s surprising that the prosecutor won’t let Assange testify at a Swedish embassy or via video link.

119. Planeshift

“Press “end” on your key board, wonderful.”

Then you have to scroll up a bit ;-)

Greetings All

I must say that I am very uneasy with broken promises and/or manipulative lies being defined as rape. The word rape is a decidedly loaded and emotive term of law, and I think it best for all if it were reserved exclusively for the kind of violent, brutal and forceful sex act that most of us (I’m sure) associate the word rape with.

Placing conditions on ones consent is fine, but if upon breach of those conditions (i.e. the removal or breakage of a condom) you fail to explicitly withdraw your consent, that does not constitute rape; assault perhaps, but not rape. If on the other hand you do explicitly withdraw consent, your sexual partner has a choice; he/she can force his/her self upon you (that’s rape) or he/she can acquiesce to your demands and stop (no does mean no, after-all).

The accusation as I interpret it is that on two separate occasions Julian Assange
had sex with women who may or may not have made explicit from the outset that their consent was conditional upon him wearing a condom. Accordingly Assange wore a condom from the outset, but at some point mid-coitus he either removed it or it ruptured. At this point his partners protested, and Assange persuaded each to continue having sex. Surely this meant that consent was given, albeit reluctantly, or are we to assume that the earlier conditions of consent take presidents, and in that assumption make tacit an assumption that women cannot change their minds mid-coitus (a dangerous assertion!)?

If the above interpretation of events is accurate, and in the absence of reliable commentary it may very well not be, this doesn’t even constitute assault. The women in question were persuaded to continue having sex, and to the best of my knowledge persuasion does not constitute coercion by any legal definition.

Also the notion that lying or misrepresentation (in the absence of any violence or forceful coercion) can be grounds for a rape charge; that is absolutely ridiculous! At best such despicable behaviour could be grounds for fraud (e.g. sexual fraud in cases where a partner lies about being on the contraceptive pill), assault (e.g. the wilful transmission of a non-terminal STD by a knowing carrier of said STD) or manslaughter/murder (e.g. the wilful transmission of a terminal STD by a knowing carrier of said STD). Now I’m sure nobody here would use the word rape to describe any of the above examples, or would you!?

Regards,

Lee.

Thanks Pontus. So Assange has been accused of våldtäkt (rape).

I see there is now an update to the OP:

Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom, with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time, but who subsequently was cross about the fact that he didn’t use a condom.

[Editor's update: it seems it is more complicated than that. See this blog post too. Either way, it is not an allegation of sex without consent at the time of the act.]

But that blog post is entitled,

Arrest Warrant for “Sex Crimes” Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is for “Sex Without a Condom”, NOT Non-Consensual Rape Using Force

And here is a real gem:

And Assange’s current London attorney – Mark Stephens – told AOL news that he doesn’t even know what the charges against Assange are, but that they are not rape

Doesn’t know what the charges are but he knows what they aren’t?

As I say, I’m a bit uncomfortable with this (yes, Sunny, I know I could read another blog…) particularly the 500+ uncritical retweets of “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape”.

Aside from Pontus, aren’t we all even less competent than normal to talk about this?

ukliberty,

We are only less competent than normal to talk about this if we are discussing it as a trial (and in fact, we are then only as competent as normal when discussing similiar issues). OK, far too many commentators were discussing things in terms of English language and law, which is not ideal, but then threads are often full of the same sort of oversimplistic analysis (I know I tend to be guilty of it).

But if this is, as the original post insinuated, some effort to smear Mr Assange for political purposes then we are competent to discuss it. And commentators like yourself have been probing at the veracity of the charges in this light – is this politically motivated?

The nature of the charges and even their veracity become less important in such a situation, when the actual question is are these charges, or at least their reporting (which John was focussed on in the original post – shows the benefit of rereading something), a political manipulation of the justice system.

“Jesus, how long does it take to scroll down to the comment box, bloody retweeters!”

Press “end” on your key board, wonderful.

The page is 1,801Kb. Without the tweets, it’s 491Kb.

Watchman, I readily admit I’m no stranger to wading out of my depth, but it seems a little unreasonable for people (I include myself in this, I’m not saying I’m holier than thou) who can’t understand Swedish to comment on a Swedish case in terms of criticising the Swedish authorities, Swedish law, etc.

I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the thread developing into discussion of English law and whether consent can be conditional (e.g. predicated on condom use) and therefore is it rape if the condition is broken, and so on. That seems to me separate from the topic of the OP. But then to plaster conclusions from that on to the current case that we don’t understand or can have any competence at all to comment… that seems unreasonable.

At the heart of my uncomfortable feeling (and I may be making too much of it) really is that we don’t actually know what the formal allegations are, yet here is an article making a claim about them and its main point (in the title, which seems contrary to every media report in Sweden and worldwide) has been retweeted without enquiry (except from one or two people including Soho Politico), the Swedish authorities are corrupt, Swedish law is “deranged”, and there appears to be only one source for this: a lawyer who used to work for Assange. And the lawyer is an Australian who used to work in London, so I have to wonder about his competence in terms of the Swedish criminal justice system.

Mr S Pill @87 expresses my point more eloquently than I can (I agree with his whole comment).

ukliberty – there’s no doubt this is a legal grey area, and no doubt that I’m still finding it difficult to find out what both version of events are.

But I think JohnB was right to publish his opinion on the issue. I didn’t read the piece before it was published and added the note today after doing some catch-up on this.

There are two issues here. Feminists categorise a lot of acts as ‘rape’, which might not be legally defined as rape. They have a right to, and some feminists will undoubtedly also classify this as rape.

Others might not agree with them, and clearly johnb doesn’t. On top of that – the OP is referring to this not being rape in the English legal definition of the word rather than the Swedish definition. I should make that clear in the OP too.

ukliberty,

So we’ve both agreed that we both tend to comment first and think later?

Way back when I first commented on this thread (and therefore became the first comment that hundreds of retweeters will read…) I did point out that there was something of a surprise that liberal Sweden would turn out to be so tyrannical. It says a lot about the tweeters and those who see consiparicies everywhere (and I don’t know why, but I can’t help seeing one here dammit…) that they ignored the fact it was such a liberal country, and some people even portrayed it as subservient to the US…

Watchman,

So we’ve both agreed that we both tend to comment first and think later?

I plead the Fifth.

(thanks for the “end” tip whoever mentioned it!)

I think one thing that makes me slightly uncomfortable about this piece is that the title implies that the women involved are liars. Now, I know that the article itself doesn’t say that and goes on to make valid points about Swedish law et cetera, but if you were merely glancing through the re-tweets on twitter for example then you could come to that opinion. Which is a problem in my opinion because whenever a tabloid has a story about a false allegation of rape I always point out that in that case it should have the rest of the paper filled with true accounts (for balance and accurate reporting). It is the reporting of false allegations disproportiontely that leads to attitudes that have been mentioned here and elsewhere – that women routinely make up allegations of rape. Which as anyone who looks at the stats knows is a complete misrepresentation of the truth, but sadly it’s a myth that is out there.
It is up to us to break that myth – as feminists, as socialists, as liberals, as rational evidence-based thinkers, whatever – and (to get back to my point) the title of this piece alone sits uncomfortably with me because it (accidentally, subconsciously) paints the women as liars. Even if it turns out that they made the whole thing up and are in the pay of the CIA it doesn’t change the fact that millions of rapes go unreported all the time and focussing on this one chap who may or may not be being unfairly smeared – and the 400+ RTs – adds to that disproportionism that I deplore in the tabloid press.
I hope that’s clear… and I stand by my earlier comment that this shouldn’t really be discussed until we’re properly clear on what the allegations are (maybe we need an English speaking Swedish lawyer in this thread).

Appendum to my last post:
I think a better title would be “Just what is Julian Assange accused of?”
IMO.

@ Sunny

Feminists categorise a lot of acts as ‘rape’, which might not be legally defined as rape. They have a right to

Well I suppose they have.

They could accuse me of rape if I ate an apple and my teeth penetrated the skin, for that matter, but as that is not how rape is defined in law, I would not expect to be prosecuted.

Assange, apparently, is accused of “sex by surprise”.

Presumably the surprise element is that your partner appears to consent but then has you charged with rape?

@Mr. S Pill (128 & 129)

I have to contest your assertion that the title implies that the alleged victims are lying, in fact it does nothing of the sort. If anything the title “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape” suggests that the mainstream media is at fault in misreporting the allegation as rape, which if true does a great disservice to all involved. Essentially, the title confirms that the accusation was never one of rape in the first place!

Also, isn’t the possessive of Wikileaks, Wikileaks’ and not Wikileaks’s?

As I stated above, use of the term rape, at least in the UK, is highly emotive and the media should be far more careful when using the term. It is inevitable that the average UK newspaper reader will interpret the word rape to mean, well rape (in the context of UK law). The average (wo)man on the street will not be inclined to investigate much further, much less investigate the finer points of Swedish law.

Incidentally, and pre-emptively, my use of the term “alleged victim” is not an attempt to paint these women as liars. It is a common courtesy that I extend to any alleged attacker in recognition of the presumption of innocence. There does appear to be a strange, but entirely understandable, tendency towards protecting all “alleged rape victims” by shouting down any suggestion that they may be lying or that the case may not be so straight forward. Whilst it may be true that the mainstream media, in particular, is disproportionate in its hounding of rape victims, it is incredibly damaging to the credibility of all rape victims to forgo due scrutiny of their allegations as well as the presumption of innocence. That’s why I’ve always thought that the best solution would be to protect the anonymity of both “alleged victim” and “alleged rapist” until the later is convicted; the current system simply advertises the poor conviction rate and leads to media shit-storms which surely hinder the reporting of such events! Anyway, that was extremely off topic, and I do apologise!

Kind Regards,

Lee

132. MartynInEurope

This is quite a problematic piece, that lashes out in some rather extraordinarily awkward ways and directions, and in doing so makes some very bizarre claims, which have been rightfully challenged. IMHO It’s an intemperate and inaccurate piece, which seems to have been penned by someone who was very angry when they did so. Although, I could be wrong.

133. Chaise Guevara

I agree with Lee RE the title (and most of the rest of his post). The title is not “Assange rape allegation are false”; to paint the women as lying you’d have to admit he was accused of rape in the first place.

I also agree with him about the possessive form of Wikileaks, because he’s right :p

@Sunny

Feminists categorise a lot of acts as ‘rape’, which might not be legally defined as rape. They have a right to

Woah. SOME feminists categorise a lot of acts as rape BUT most feminists are sane and can tell the difference between coercion, rape, assault, molestation and consensual sex. Let’s not be tarring all feminists with the same crazy brush please.

Hey!

Gizmodo has an article with a near identical title to this one, except of course they use correct grammar.

Gizmodo – WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Is Not Accused of Rape

The article includes some more information about the charge(s) in question, namely the charge of “sex by surprise” which has a maximum penalty of 5,000 Swedish kronor (approximately £464 at todays exchange rates) and no jail time. Ill things being considered, and judging by the maximum penalty, the issuance of international arrest warrants and the resulting furore does seem a little overkill. So is this the media inflating the issue by focusing intently on Mr. Assange post cablegate, or are there more sinister, politically motivated, forces at work?

@Lee

We’ll have to agree to disagree, mostly because it’s about personal inference of the title. All I’m saying is without reading the article it could seem very different to how you make it out.

Also re:grammar – either is acceptable and is a matter of personal taste. Most style guides prefer Wikileaks’ but Wikileaks’s is not “wrong”.

137. Chaise Guevara

“Also re:grammar – either is acceptable and is a matter of personal taste. Most style guides prefer Wikileaks’ but Wikileaks’s is not “wrong”.”

Nggg…

You can argue personal taste for almost all grammar conventions, but insofar as any rules are set in stone, I think this is one of them. The confusion exists because some people assume the rules for all -s endings are the same, not realising that plurals take an apostophe without an ‘s’ while singular nouns do take an ‘s’. So people assume that if those are the birds’ feathers, this must be James’ hat. So it’s a mistake, like saying “one foul swoop”, rather than a point of preference, like ending sentences with prepositions.

Of course, this only applies to Wikileaks if the ‘leaks’ bit is a plural noun. In the unlikely event that it’s a verb (“the Wiki: it leaks!”) then I guess it takes the ‘s’.

I knew I’d have to disagree with you on something eventually, so it may as well be apolitical!

Although the above Gizmodo article does seem to be a little ambiguous over whether Assange is alleged to have continued on regardless of his partners’ protestations (which would be rape) or whether he persuaded his partner(s) to continue on (which is probably not rape).

Does anyone know of an official press release form the prosecuting authorities, preferably in English?

@Chaise

;) I will consult Lynne Truss. This is a matter of grave importance.

@Mr S. Pill (136)

No I’m afraid I can’t agree with you there. The implications of the title are clear, to infer what you have inferred would require a very clumsy understanding of the English language.

For example one could infer from the statement “Alan did NOT tell me that all swans are black” that Alan is lying when he says “all swans are black”. But since the original statement explicitly states that Alan did NOT say that all swans are black, that would be an incorrect inference and entirely the fault of the reader. Similarly, one could infer from the statement “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape” that those who have accused him of sex by surprise (and NOT rape) are lying when they accuse him of rape, but again, since this statement explicitly states that Julian Assange was NOT accused of rape, such an inference would be a logical absurdity!

In essence, the author of this and any article cannot be held accountable for the linguistic ignorance of his readers. There is a basic level of literacy required to read any article, and any misapprehension arising from low levels of literacy are the responsibility of the reader and not the author.

@Chaise Guevara (137)

Ah, very good Chaise! You’re correct of course, it all hinges on whether the word fragment ‘leaks’ makes Wikileaks plural (a wiki of many leaks) or singular (a wiki that leaks). Given the context either could be acceptable, although ‘Wikileaks’s’ just looks wrong! I guess that’s why apostrophes are so controversial.

Let this be a lesson, grammar fascism just doesn’t pay! ;-)

141. Charlieman

The apostrophe S discussion is about punctuation rather than “serious” grammar. Note how I used quotes around the word serious for clarification/emphasis; the quotes are not necessary for you to be able to understand the sentence but they serve a purpose. Full stop, new paragraph.

The existence of multiple) possessive forms of punctuation for nouns ending with the letter S implies to this writer that the apostrophe S rules do not add clarity to the written word. They only add clarity when all readers understand the rule. Its (sic) a set of rules that were pertinent to the translators of medieval English but its no longer relevant.

@Chaise Guevara (137)

(cont.)…Of course since there is but one Wikileaks, you could also argue that the word Wikileaks IS singular. In which case I am entirely wrong, as is Gizmodo and apologise wholeheartedly to the author. :(

Now, I must purchase myself a copy of “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” which amusingly has no apostrophes in the title!

@140 Lee

Hmm

“There is a basic level of literacy required to read any article, and any misapprehension arising from low levels of literacy are the responsibility of the reader and not the author.”

All well and noble, of course, and one would hope that our populace (and indeed anyone intelligent enough to operate a computer) is intelligent enough to pick up on any nuances, etc. But saying that, the author (or sub-editor – and I’m speaking in general terms here) does have a responsibility to make themselves clear in their meaning – why else do we all hate jargon-filled newspeak-esque documents from various subsections of society? Your analogy with Alan doesn’t quite work because there are more than two variables involved in the title (or were before the edit) – the two women involved in the case. If we are to assume that people reading the media believed that Assange was accused of rape – and we are to assume that otherwise this article wouldn’t've been written – then we also assume that the two women accused him of such. As such, the original title indirectly implicated the women involved by exonerating Assange on those terms. As I said, the article itself makes clear that’s far from the case.

~

Noticing the recent edit to this article I feel somewhat vindicated in my “no comment” stance on the actual particulars of the case (rather than semantics) – seems like this case will get ever muddier before being resolved either way.

(should also point out that the strikethrough in the new title doesn’t work in the title-bar bit up top of the browser…)

145. Chaise Guevara

” According to this report, it is being alleged that Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use”

Um.

That’s not just an update. That’s a blow-the-whole-fucking-premise-of-this-article-wide-open update.

146. Chaise Guevara

“I will consult Lynne Truss. This is a matter of grave importance.”

SHE’LL tell us what to do!

You were horribly right about the “no comment” thing. I was tempted to follow that advice and didn’t, probably because I like the sound of my own voice too much. Now regretting it.

145: no, it isn’t. And I’m annoyed that Sunny has, wrongly, changed the title on this piece (although it’d be petulant to change it back, so I won’t).

The NYT has been pushing the unsourced line about “Assange being asked to stop and refusing” since September; it was bullshit unconfirmed by anyone connected with the case then, and still is now.

It has absolutely no bearing on the Swedish court’s bizarre statement – which, although in English, which is an improvement on previous comments on the case, doesn’t refer to English law, but to the totalitarian nonsense which is Swedish law.

If the Swedish prosecutor were to release a statement in English detailing what (in the sense of “what actions”, rather than “what scaryevil-sounding words”) Assange was accused of, and that were to include “refusing to stop” rather than “being a bit of a prat about condoms”, then it’d be time to retract. At the moment, it isn’t.

Although it’s good that the reporting in Crikey, Gizmodo and here actually forced the bastards in Sweden to put *some* kind of statement out…

@Mr S. Pill (143)

Your analogy with Alan doesn’t quite work because there are more than two variables involved in the title (or were before the edit).

I assume the original title, and the title with which you have issue is “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape”, is that correct?

If we are to assume that people reading the media believed that Assange was accused of rape – and we are to assume that otherwise this article wouldn’t’ve been written – then we also assume that the two women accused him of such.

That’s a lot of co-dependant assumptions! What’s more this article, in its original form, seems to have been framed to discredit that last assumption, and I think the original title did that quite well.

…the original title indirectly implicated the women involved by exonerating Assange on those terms. As I said, the article itself makes clear that’s far from the case.

Again, I must disagree. You previous assumption aside, the title refuted the fact that the accusation occurred in the first place, and on those terms it exonerated the two women involved of having even made the accusations as much as it did Assange of being accused of them. Now if the title of this article had read “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange is not a rapist” or “No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange did not commit rape” you might have a case. However conflating “is not accused of rape” with “is not a rapist” or “did not commit rapid” is the readers problem; the prior is a refutation of there ever having been such an accusation (of rape), whilst the later are definitive statements of Assange’s innocence which would be grounds for a complaint on the terms you defined above.

Noticing the recent edit to this article I feel somewhat vindicated in my “no comment” stance on the actual particulars of the case (rather than semantics) – seems like this case will get ever muddier before being resolved either way.

I tend to agree in that I think the media has an obligation to avoid the use of inflammatory words such as “rape” and “sex crimes” until they have the facts in order. It would have been far better if the mainstream media had reported simply that an Interpol warrant had been issued for Assange’s arrest by Swedish courts, and to not elaborate until they had a (translated) copy of said warrant. That being said, given the timing and the apparent lack of an official press release, its difficult to decry the mainstream media for elaborating; if they had not there would likely be much more FUD about this being a ruse to trap and detain Assange for his links to Wikileaks and cablegate.

I’m also annoyed about the changes made to the apostrophe. Wikileaks is a singular noun, and therefore the possessive form goes like St James’s Park. If we were talking about some Wiki leaks, whatever they might be, then the lack of a trailing S would be fair enough.

Also, what Lee said. The only people to have accused Assange of rape are the Swedish judiciary, not – at least according to anything that’s been traceably sourced – the women who he may have had “not very serious rape” or “sex by surprise” with.

Saying “some women have accused Mr X of rape, and so they must be lying” would be shameful. Saying “no women have accused Mr X of rape, but a prosecutor on a crusade has charged him with it anyway, which wouldn’t be allowed in a civilised jurisdiction” is not shameful, so much as accurate and what any decent human being would believe.

Finally for this round, a massive “fuck you” to Pontus. You don’t have to be a far-right Tory to believe that “making it easier for the government to stick someone in jail without any evidence” is a Bad Thing.

There’s a clash here between the rad-fem viewpoint that no rapist should go unpunished and if that means locking up a fair few non-rapists as well then meh, serves them right for being men; and the liberal viewpoint that everyone who the state wants to lock up should face probable cause, due process, beyond-reasonable-doubt, and so on, irrespective of the charge.

I’m firmly on the ‘liberal’ side of that one, and anyone who thinks that makes me illiberal can absolutely GFTS.

152. Chaise Guevara

@ Charlieman

“The existence of multiple) possessive forms of punctuation for nouns ending with the letter S implies to this writer that the apostrophe S rules do not add clarity to the written word. They only add clarity when all readers understand the rule. Its (sic) a set of rules that were pertinent to the translators of medieval English but its no longer relevant.”

Bloody good point, that. However, written English follows spoken English (or at least it should), so I’ll continue to argue the toss as long as people don’t say “the cats’s eye”, which they currently don’t. Usage is all, bar some extremely annoying mistakes that become standard.

@Lee

To take your last point first, my issue with people talking about this case is more to do with those such as in this comment thread basing their opinions on hearsay or unsourced journalism rather than cold hard facts. But you make a good point about the media’s part in all of this as well.

Back to the title – and I don’t want to go round in circles on this so forgive me if I don’t reply to any response you have – my main point is that with cases of rape one has to be very careful about phrasing things. As I mentioned earlier false allegations are grossly over-represented in the media and it is one of the issues that this blog and others of a similar polititcal leaning have addressed in the past. If someone is going to play-down the sex-crime laws in another country then they have to have a VERY good reason for doing so, and the strident tone of this article doesn’t help matters especially. Like I said I don’t want to go on and on about this but if we are to smash the myth of women lying about rape all the time articles focusing on unjustly accused men don’t help. Even if they are true: as I said even if these women were in the pay of the CIA and purely out to get Assange it wouldn’t change the over-representation. To put things in perspective, let’s say that Assange is wholly innocent – Liberal Conspiracy would need to publish around another 9 articles* about actual cases of raped women to maintain proper balance. Do you see that happening? Because I don’t, and that’s the problem.

Of course it would appear now that – despite what John B says – the case is far from clear which is another problem – if it turns out the serious allegations against Assange are true (that is, he was told to stop when the condom broke but carried on regardless) then this article is defending a rapist. Which is why I am steering clear of any definite opinions on the case.

*Using the highest estimate of false allegations from here.

154. Chaise Guevara

@ 149 john b

“I’m also annoyed about the changes made to the apostrophe. Wikileaks is a singular noun, and therefore the possessive form goes like St James’s Park. If we were talking about some Wiki leaks, whatever they might be, then the lack of a trailing S would be fair enough.”

I massively disagree, but I also have to add that your position has merit. Wikileaks is indeed singular, but it’s based on a plural, which tends to affect the possessive (even though you’d still say “Wikileaks is” rather than “Wikileaks are”; English is inherently weird). St James isn’t a plural, because it’s presumably about a holy bloke called James rather than a load of holy blokes called Jame.

155. Chaise Guevara

“There’s a clash here between the rad-fem viewpoint that no rapist should go unpunished and if that means locking up a fair few non-rapists as well then meh, serves them right for being men; and the liberal viewpoint that everyone who the state wants to lock up should face probable cause, due process, beyond-reasonable-doubt, and so on, irrespective of the charge.

I’m firmly on the ‘liberal’ side of that one, and anyone who thinks that makes me illiberal can absolutely GFTS.”

Very, very, VERY well said.

To put things in perspective, let’s say that Assange is wholly innocent – Liberal Conspiracy would need to publish around another 9 articles* about actual cases of raped women to maintain proper balance. Do you see that happening? Because I don’t, and that’s the problem.

No, this is nonsense. If we were a newspaper that ran sensationalised reporting of every proven-false rape allegation (*cough*Daily Mail*cough*), then you’d be right: we’d need to report on every actual rape as well.

But reporting on a case where the accused is someone who the establishment is known to hate and to want jailed, *and* where the allegations against them are not only weird and flimsy but made by the prosecutor and not by the alleged victims is not the same thing.

This isn’t a case of “aw, poor men, having to actually ask for consent” – I know that kind of opinion piece and they disgust me. It’s a case of “there’s a good chance that a government is telling lies about a dissident in order to smear them as a sex criminal”. If you’re not livid about that, then fuck you.

I won’t comment on the grammar wars (and johnb is welcome to change that back if he wants) but I made the edits for a few reason.

First, with the statement from the Swedish authorities now out, it’s clear that he is being charged with a form of rape, even if the author disagrees with it. So, factually, an amendment had to be made to be clear.

As for the allegation made by NYT and what I’ve added above – that was done in the name of some balance. In such sensitive cases I think there is an added responsibility to be balanced – even if the point of the OP is more about the media coverage than Assange himself.

johnb @ 151,

Well, yes.

I no more want to be ruled by rad-fems than rape apologists.

We are stuck, I think with due process…

In general, I find it bizarre that so many of my fellow liberals (of both genders), who have generally sensible views on crime that avoid the far-right hang’n'flog’em’all narrative and understand that there’s a trade-off between “massive state repression and punishment of the innocent” and “accepting we’ll have a bit of crime every now and then”, take the opposite view whenever a penis is involved.

Well,

For all the sound and the fury that this thread generated, I doubt there are more than a few folk that, after a cocoa and a good nights’ sleep, would assume that mob rule by anyone was a ‘good thing’. Or that due process was a right wrong ‘un.

@john b

If we were a newspaper that ran sensationalised reporting of every proven-false rape allegation (*cough*Daily Mail*cough*), then you’d be right: we’d need to report on every actual rape as well.

Indeed – this is something that I call for everytime the subject is mentioned (in real-life conversations as well as discussions online). I don’t see why Lib Con shouldn’t be held to account in the same way that I’d like to see other news outlets held to account (in fact I kinda expect more from my liberal blogs ;) ) My point is that running a story about a false accusation adds to the greater sum of stories out there.

But reporting on a case where the accused is someone who the establishment is known to hate and to want jailed,

Woah. If Assange is a rapist/sex criminal then it matters not a jot whether the establishment want him jailed or not – he should be put away. Assange may well be a thorn in the side of the establishment but as I said earlier he is not the only person working for Wikileaks. If someone commits a horrible crime like this then even if they have done the liberal-left a service they don’t deserve a defence.

*and* where the allegations against them are not only weird and flimsy but made by the prosecutor and not by the alleged victims is not the same thing.

This is one of my bugbears with this piece and the comments afterwards – there is no first-hand evidence. You quote Assange’s lawyers, someone else quoted the NYT, someone else linked to the Swedish prosecuters but as far as I can tell we have no version of events direct from either the two women or Assange himself. Which is why I feel it unwise to pass judgement on the motives surrounding this furore. Also you say the charges are weird and flimsy, but we have conflicting opinions on that. If Assange didn’t stop when asked – and if that’s the charge – then it’s not weird or flimsy at all.

This isn’t a case of “aw, poor men, having to actually ask for consent” – I know that kind of opinion piece and they disgust me. It’s a case of “there’s a good chance that a government is telling lies about a dissident in order to smear them as a sex criminal”. If you’re not livid about that, then fuck you.

And if they’re not? If the government isn’t telling lies about Assange? If it turns out that “Yep all of this case is bullshit concocted to smear Wikileaks etc” then yes, I would be livid. I will hereby guarantee my future-lividity if needs be. But I’m not going to waste energy getting angry about so many hypothetical situations right now. The facts simply are not there. Assange has been putting out this kind of material – on a smaller scale – for years. Earlier this year he – or his site, I should say – posted evidence of war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq. If the US wanted a grand cunning plan to Get Assange I’m sure they could do something a lot more efficient than this bizarre turn of events.

john b/156: *and* where the allegations against them are not only weird and flimsy but made by the prosecutor and not by the alleged victims

In general, I believe, it’s usual for the prosecutor and other parts of the justice system to be making statements regarding the crimes that a suspect is suspected of, rather than the victims of the crime making those statements directly to the press.

It’s also common for the prosecutors, given their greater knowledge of the legal situation, to decide what charges should apply for particular actions. (To look at English law, a victim of sexual violence might report an attack that meets the colloquial definition of rape as “sex without consent”. Whether it was rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault, or causing sexual activity without consent would depend on the exact facts of the case and it would generally be the prosecutor who determined what charges to make)

So I really don’t see what’s so odd about this.

Sunny/125 & Pagar/130: “Feminists categorise a lot of acts as ‘rape’, which might not be legally defined as rape. They have a right to”

Tell you what, why don’t you have a look at the definition of “assault by penetration” or the more serious form of “causing sexual activity without consent” (sections 2 and 4.4 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003) and try to defend either as “not being rape”.

I’m sure you both agree that marital rape is rape, and that the law in the UK prior to 1991 was wrong on that, too.

john b/151: There’s a clash here between the rad-fem viewpoint that no rapist should go unpunished and if that means locking up a fair few non-rapists as well then meh, serves them right for being men

I am having great difficulty composing a response to this that isn’t just a stream of curses. Thank you for making your attitudes crystal clear, anyway.

That straw-feminist viewpoint is not the one that anyone arguing that “yes, this is plausibly rape based on the available accounts” and “yes, he should face trial for it” has been arguing.

Indeed, it’s you who’s arguing that due process should be bypassed to have Assange declared innocent without trial on the principle that it would be too convenient to governments for him to be guilty and that he’d never get a fair trial because the Swedish justice system has been subverted. (Note: having pre-existing laws that you disagree with and then enforcing them is not subversion)

I don’t know if he’s committed rape or not. I do know that several of the versions of events that have circulated on this thread describe rape (both in English law and in the “sex without consent” colloquial definition), and therefore it seems reasonable to have a criminal investigation to see if that’s what’s happened.

Mr S. Pill

To put things in perspective, let’s say that Assange is wholly innocent – Liberal Conspiracy would need to publish around another 9 articles* about actual cases of raped women to maintain proper balance. Do you see that happening? Because I don’t, and that’s the problem.

I’m afraid you’re asking a little too much, even of the mainstream media. If you extend your own logic, the reporting of so many cases of rape could be said to bias the populace into believing that all (or the majority of) men are rapists. A further extension of your logic would have the mainstream media publish millions of articles (for every one about rape) detailing the many incidences of entirely consensual sex between a men and women which occur every day. All this in an effort to maintain ‘balance’!

Perhaps this is a rather specious analogy, but what I am attempting to illustrate with it is that the way to a ‘balanced’ media is for the articles themselves to be devoid of rhetoric and bias. Anything else risks obscuring perfectly valid and important issues (such as false rape accusations) simple because they are not as frequent, or affect a minority. In the end I think we do have to give the readership some credit, so long as they aren’t already rabid examples of misogyny/misandry in action they’re sure to draw their conclusion a fair way away from the extremes of “all men are rapists” and “all women are lying sex teases”.

While I sympathise with the point you are trying to make I am extremely sceptical of the media’s near puritanical obsession with ‘balance’. Prof. Brian Cox made a similar point in last nights Royal Television Society: Huw Wheldon Lecture.

john b @159

In general, I find it bizarre that so many of my fellow liberals (of both genders), who have generally sensible views on crime that avoid the far-right hang’n’flog’em’all narrative and understand that there’s a trade-off between “massive state repression and punishment of the innocent” and “accepting we’ll have a bit of crime every now and then”, take the opposite view whenever a penis is involved.

I share a similar vexation with this attitude; the presumption of guilt. It seems to be unique to sex crimes (rape and paedophilia in particular). The reality is that it is extremely difficult to prove rape (as it often boils down to “he says; she says”). A sad fact perhaps, but I’d far prefer a system of justice that presumes innocence that one that presumes guilt!

164. Chaise Guevara

@ 162 cim

“I am having great difficulty composing a response to this that isn’t just a stream of curses. Thank you for making your attitudes crystal clear, anyway.”

I feel duty-bound to step in here, mainly because I supported John B when he made the statement you’re objecting to. I think he’s talking about the way that certain (mental) feminists will define any kind of sex as the guy raping the girl given half a chance: “seduction is rape with flowers and chocolates”, that kind of bullshit. That attidute does inevitably turn up in any thread that uses the word ‘rape’, in my experience. It’s a topic that attracts lunatics,

That said, I agree with everything else you said in that post,

Tell you what, why don’t you have a look at the definition of “assault by penetration” or the more serious form of “causing sexual activity without consent” (sections 2 and 4.4 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003) and try to defend either as “not being rape”.

So someone gets so enraged by my outmoded beliefs in the presumption of innocence that they stick a carrot up my arse: that’s an unpleasant assault, but it’s obviously not rape.

(I can’t conceive of a situation where sections 4.4a or 4.4b would apply and section 1 – ie rape – wouldn’t: the wording is *exactly the same* – so that’s a bit of a straw point).

Indeed, it’s you who’s arguing that due process should be bypassed to have Assange declared innocent without trial on the principle that it would be too convenient to governments for him to be guilty and that he’d never get a fair trial because the Swedish justice system has been subverted.

No, I’m saying that if the facts of the case are as his lawyer claims, and as nobody in the Swedish justice system has denied, then due process *means* having him declared innocent without trial, because the things he’s accused of *are not crimes*.

Now, the fact that Sweden is loony enough to say that they are crimes is the Swedes’ business – but there’s certainly no excuse for arresting him in the UK, or for lying that he’s a rapist or that he’s accused of anything we in the UK would consider to be rape.

cim @ 162,

I agreed with much of what you had to say and the start and then you say:

I am having great difficulty composing a response to this that isn’t just a stream of curses. Thank you for making your attitudes crystal clear, anyway.

That straw-feminist viewpoint is not the one that anyone arguing that “yes, this is plausibly rape based on the available accounts” and “yes, he should face trial for it” has been arguing.

Indeed, it’s you who’s arguing that due process should be bypassed to have Assange declared innocent without trial on the principle that it would be too convenient to governments for him to be guilty and that he’d never get a fair trial because the Swedish justice system has been subverted. (Note: having pre-existing laws that you disagree with and then enforcing them is not subversion)

I don’t know if he’s committed rape or not. I do know that several of the versions of events that have circulated on this thread describe rape (both in English law and in the “sex without consent” colloquial definition), and therefore it seems reasonable to have a criminal investigation to see if that’s what’s happened.

And it isn’t kind of convenient, timing wise? Wouldn’t you say?

I sympathise with the idea that lots of rapists probably get off Scott free, but this just seems too convenient for words. And a man that is wrongly accused of being a rapist is probably just as ruined as a man that is accused of being a paedophile.

Whatever the outcome of the case.

Prosecutors should be very very confident before they bring cases of this nature.

Perhaps we should re-address this particular case in a year or so’s time?

Because I think pre-trial publicity, which seems to be the norm now, prejudices a correct outcome. And suits politicians and no-one else.

Mr S. Phil

“And if they’re not? If the government isn’t telling lies about Assange? If it turns out that “Yep all of this case is bullshit concocted to smear Wikileaks etc” then yes, I would be livid. I will hereby guarantee my future-lividity if needs be. But I’m not going to waste energy getting angry about so many hypothetical situations right now. The facts simply are not there. Assange has been putting out this kind of material – on a smaller scale – for years. Earlier this year he – or his site, I should say – posted evidence of war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq. If the US wanted a grand cunning plan to Get Assange I’m sure they could do something a lot more efficient than this bizarre turn of events.”

You are obviously not fully up to speed.

The allegations were made during the run up to the release of the collateral murder video. About two weeks before the video if I recall. The release of the video was a hot topic in the media and then, wham the rape claims were reported just before the video and dropped 24 hours later due to insufficient evidence. The reopening of the case and the media talk discussion about it only recently reopened, coinciding with the release of this next batch of documents (could just be for added effect I suppose). A national right-wing tabloid was directly informed of the rape claims by someone in the police service before Assange was notified. The Swedish prosecution service and the police have repeatedly refused to comment when questioned, repeatedly failed to specify the claims made against Assange, and have repeatedly released information to the press before informing Assange. The prosecutor that both cases are going through currently is also a high-ranking member of the social democratic party (in power I think), which means that there is an added possibility/likelihood of political involvement. It would not be a unique event if the Swedish legal system was distorted by international pressure.

People here, including Sunny, keep talking of ‘charges’. Assange has not been charged with anything whatsoever, he is merely a suspect, and he and his solicitor have requested an interview with the prosecutor and to discuss the case at the Swedish Embassy. They have declined. The issuing of a interpol red notice in such a situation is completely unique, and inexplicable (as what Assange is actually suspected of would not be a crime that could lead to extradition in any other European country). The legal procedure followed by the Swedish prosecution is also highly unusual,as is their refusal to speak with Assange.

Whatever you say the way that this case has been run has been astoundingly unprofessional and incompetent, and a massive indictement upon the Swedish justice system, at best. At worst, it is a possible example of manipulation of the supposedly independent judiciary in order to smear Assange or detain him so he can be whisked away to the USA (or just disappear for good). Such a thing would not be unique in Sweden or any other ‘liberal democracy’ for that matter, and in light of the events it seems worringly likely.

@Shamit

Stop being a fool. You are confusing the judiciary with the prosecution, There is no reason to trust the prosecution any more than the defence based merely on their conflicting roles, yet in this case the available evidence and circumstances seem to favour the defence. Indeed there was once a novel idea in justice called ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Unless Assange is convincted in absentia that still holds true.

Rob,People here, including Sunny, keep talking of ‘charges’. Assange has not been charged with anything whatsoever,

To be fair to Sunny about “charged”, he quoted the Swedish authorities.

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

ah, me blockquote has gone wrong. Sorry.

Rob, in what way do you consider yourself competent to discuss the Swedish criminal justice system? Can you, for example, read Swedish?

Genuine question, I’m not trying to score points.

@john b (165)

I can’t for the life of my find any official reference to “sex by surprise” on the statute books, that being said the most recent English version of the Swedish Penal Code I’ve been able to locate dates back to 1999. I’ve also located officialinformation material detailing some 2005 amendments to Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code (which relates to sex crimes) but even this makes no reference to “sex by surprise”.

Of course it’s possible that the amendments that brought “sex by surprise” into law post-date both of these documents. All I can say with certainty is that everything I have read in these two documents (note: I only read chapter 6 of the penal code) appears perfectly sane to me. I really would welcome a more detailed press release from Swedish authorities. At present the charges/accusations appear to be rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, the latter seems to be the closest to the reported definition of “sex by surprise” but it’s so very vague it could mean anything. That being said there is a curious passage in the information material (detailed above) relating the crime of sexual molestation:


Under the new legislation, a sentence for sexual
molestation shall also be imposed on a person who
exposes himself or herself in such a manner as to
cause discomfort, or who by word or deed molests a
person in such a manner as to violate that person’s
sexual integrity.

I wonder whether the term “sexual integrity” extends to the presumption of protected sex, in which case such could be the (admittedly flimsy) grounds for the molestation charge. One thing seems certain, and that’s that legalese the world over is unnecessary vague and open to interpretation; I suppose they (the lawyers) like it that way, it assures them of their large salaries!

Lee, the source for “sex by surprise” is Assange’s “London attorney”, Mark Stephens.

@ ukliberty (172)

Not that I distrust Mr. Assange’s defence attorney, but I would feel much better if I could locate an official reference to “sex by surprise” in an official document of the Swedish judiciary or translation thereof. All I’ve found thus far are reports in the mainstream media, alternative media and online blogs.

I do wonder, could “sex by surprise” be an informal legalese definition used to differentiate internally the no-doubt myriad situations that fall under such joyous vagaries as “unlawful coercion” and “sexual integrity”.

Lee, what I meant is that it is Assange’s lawyer who said to AOL News that his client is accused of “sex by surprise” and that is where the claim seems to have originated from (and from there been propagated around the world); the Swedish authorities do not appear to have mentioned it.

I think you will struggle to find an offence of “having sex without a condom”, too.

@ukliberty (174)

I think you will struggle to find an offence of “having sex without a condom”, too.

I should hope so too! It may be unwise, but it shouldn’t be illegal in itself!

No matter how hard I try I cannot reconcile the reported charge of “sex by surprise” with the charge of rape. At a stretch I could reconcile it with the charges of unlawful coercion and molestation (purely in terms of sexual integrity) but even that requires that he force himself on his partner(s) at some point (after they protested at the condom malfunction) or that he… bribed them? blackmailed them?

The more I read, the greater the stink. Either something rather substantial is missing from the public record (i.e. a detailed description of the charges in question), someone is lying or the prosecutors are playing a rather nefarious game for either political (i.e. in response to cablegate) or professional (i.e. to achieve extradition by attaching the more serious crime of rape to the charge sheet) gain.

I withhold judgement for the time being, but the shoddy manner in which this has been handled coupled with the convenient timing and the history of this case related by Rob (167) (of which I was mostly aware) raises my suspicions.

164/Chaise: That attidute does inevitably turn up in any thread that uses the word ‘rape’, in my experience.

For what it’s worth, I’ve read far more threads about rape than I care to count on feminist blogs, and can’t actually recall reading anyone stating that we should lock up all men just in case, or similar straw-feminist positions. I’m not saying there aren’t people who hold those views, but there does seem to be a tendency on threads about rape on non-feminist blogs for people to mentally extrapolate from “the justice system needs to take rape more seriously” to that sort of position.

165/john b: that’s an unpleasant assault, but it’s obviously not rape.

Suit yourself – you can define things that happen to you however you like – but it is a quirk of English law and you can presumably understand why other people might prefer to have a colloquial definition more in line with the Australian law, for instance (link to description of rape case, which would be ABP in English law)

(I can’t conceive of a situation where sections 4.4a or 4.4b would apply and section 1 – ie rape – wouldn’t: the wording is *exactly the same* – so that’s a bit of a straw point).

4.4c and 4.4d might well apply, though. A penetrates/is forced to penetrate B; rape by A under section 1 if A consents and B doesn’t, forcing sexual activity under 4.4c by B if A doesn’t consent but B does. Seems odd to only call one of those cases rape.

Incidentally, forcing sexual activity under 4.4a or b by C if C is holding a knife and forces A to penetrate B, and neither A nor B consent to this, so it has legal uses beyond a repetition of section 1.

166/Douglas Clark :And a man that is wrongly accused of being a rapist is probably just as ruined as a man that is accused of being a paedophile.

Both Tyson (rapist) and Polanski (paedophilic rapist) are doing just fine right now. There are plenty more cases of famous people who have been convicted of rape who after either serving or evading their sentence continued to have successful careers, so I don’t think it’ll harm Assange’s even if he’s convicted. If he’s not then I expect he’ll do just fine (he already has enough people defending him, after all)

I think a lot of the apparent convenience probably comes from it being a case in Swedish courts, where most of the information comes from bad translations into English via the press and via a lawyer. “sex by surprise” is quite clearly at best an extremely bad translation from Swedish, if not a colloquialism by a lawyer trying to minimise the perceived severity of the charges, for instance. (Actually, it reminds me of those horrible T-shirts you can get that say “rape is just surprise sex” or “it’s not rape if you say ‘surprise’”, more than anything that might actually occur in a legal document)

I don’t think that the Swedish courts are under any obligation to provide English translations of any documents, and certainly not as a matter of course, which means that most of the information in the press is at least second-hand and possibly mistranslated too.

Incidentally, forcing sexual activity under 4.4a or b by C if C is holding a knife and forces A to penetrate B, and neither A nor B consent to this, so it has legal uses beyond a repetition of section 1.

Thanks, that’s what I missed.

If he’s not [convicted] then I expect he’ll do just fine (he already has enough people defending him, after all)

In other words, Swedish politicians get to smear him, but that’s OK because articles like this one and the Crikey piece are coming to his defence? Well, it’s good to know I’m doing something useful…

I don’t think that the Swedish courts are under any obligation to provide English translations of any documents, and certainly not as a matter of course, which means that most of the information in the press is at least second-hand and possibly mistranslated too.

They’re not under any legal obligation. However, if they choose not to clarify the situation by publishing a clear and coherent account in English of exactly what Assange is accused of, I’m going to – and more to the point, I’m *right* to – rely primarily on the clear and coherent account in English of exactly what Assange is accused of published by Assange’s lawyer.

@cim (176)

I don’t think that the Swedish courts are under any obligation to provide English translations of any documents, and certainly not as a matter of course, which means that most of the information in the press is at least second-hand and possibly mistranslated too.

I have to disagree, the Swedish courts are most definitely obligated to provide English translations any warrant issued or charges filed (etc…) against a native English speaker. In fact every judiciary the world over, whether it recognises it or not, has an obligation to communicate its demands and accusations in the native tongue(s) of both the complainant(s) and the accused!

The inability of the accused and the complainant(s) to comprehend fully the grounds for any warrant, or the exact nature of any charges, necessarily disadvantages both parties!

Both Tyson (rapist) and Polanski (paedophilic rapist) are doing just fine right now. There are plenty more cases of famous people who have been convicted of rape who after either serving or evading their sentence continued to have successful careers

The key word there being famous. I’ve read several accounts, of lowly mortals whose lives have been utterly ruined by false and/or unproven rape allegations. To dismiss these cases on the grounds of a few well known cases, involving celebrities, is a little specious if you ask me. It is certainly plausible to suggest that their vast accrued wealth, celebrity and professional esteem provided them opportunities to rebound which simply aren’t available to mere mortals.

…so I don’t think it’ll harm Assange’s even if he’s convicted. If he’s not then I expect he’ll do just fine (he already has enough people defending him, after all)

To be honest, and I can’t speak for anybody else here, I’m not so much commenting in defence of Mr. Assange as I am in offence to the rather ham-fisted and suspicious legal process that appears to be happening. At this late stage in the game, and given the circumstances (i.e. increased media attention due to cablegate), I would have expected a more detailed account of the charges in question IN ENGLISH. This whole thing has been badly handled from start to finish, and if the Swedes wanted to avoid accusations of political impropriety they should have handled this better.

@ john b “Well, it’s good to know I’m doing something useful…”

Absolutely. Provided, of course, that you believe that writing:

a. “He’s sought on made-up-weird-charges that aren’t a crime in the UK, or anywhere else sensible. ”

and

b. “Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom, with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time, but who subsequently was cross about the fact that he didn’t use a condom. ”

where neither a.) nor b.) are remotely accurate constitutes “doing something useful.”

Also

“They’re not under any legal obligation. However, if they choose not to clarify the situation by publishing a clear and coherent account in English of exactly what Assange is accused of, I’m going to”

Oh, don’t be ridiculous, you’re not going to do that, at all. You haven’t so far. Anyway, why should the Swedish authorities publish any kind of account (clear/unclear) in English or any language other than Swedish. Why should they publish any kind of account, at all. He may, or may not, have committed crimes in Sweden. It’s for the Swedes to investigate and, if necessary, for a Swedish court to decide. Requests for extradition, arrest warrants etc don’t and shouldn’t have to be approved by the media or public opinion.

I’m *right* to – rely primarily on the clear and coherent account in English of exactly what Assange is accused of published by Assange’s lawyer.”

Yeah, ok. Which clear and coherent account would that be, then? The one that clearly and coherently states:

“The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.”

Or the one that clearly and coherently rambles on about “sex by surprise.” These accounts may be “clear and coherent”, that’s a matter of opinion. Unfortunately they are also total bollocks.

@Lee

“To be honest, and I can’t speak for anybody else here, I’m not so much commenting in defence of Mr. Assange as I am in offence to the rather ham-fisted and suspicious legal process that appears to be happening.”

I can help with a couple of corrections. I think what you mean was:

“To be honest, and I can’t speak with any knowledge of the actual facts of the case, Swedish Law, Swedish Police procedures or even the Swedish language other than what I’ve gleaned from a brief reading of this and other unreliable internet sites and watching a couple of episodes of Wallander …..”

and

“…. the legal process which I have decided looks suspicious, based on my reading of this and other unreliable internet sites and watching a couple of episodes of Wallander.”

Hope that helps.

@Apathy (179)

Why should they publish any kind of account, at all. He may, or may not, have committed crimes in Sweden. It’s for the Swedes to investigate and, if necessary, for a Swedish court to decide.

The prosecuting authority should, at the very minimum, be obligated to provide a detailed account if it is seeking extradition. I really wouldn’t like to think that any nation, much less the UK, is in the business of extraditing people on the bases of vague charges!

That being said it’s likely that such a detailed account would typically be reserved for the extradition hearing itself and not for a public press release. Although this is not a typical case given the political sensitivities involved, and as I said above, if the Swedes wanted to avoid claims of impropriety they should be more forthcoming with the details.

Requests for extradition, arrest warrants etc don’t and shouldn’t have to be approved by the media or public opinion.

I quite agree, but they should be communicated coherently to the accused, his defence council and the extraditing authority (UK), and it would appear that the prosecution has consistently failed to do so (if the apparent confusion of Assange’s London attorney is taken at face value).

Anyway, why should the Swedish authorities publish any kind of account (clear/unclear) in English or any language other than Swedish.

They have an obligation to provide clear and communications in English precisely because the accused is an native English speaker AND the extraditing authority is English speaking. It would be utterly unethical to expect an extraditing authority to extradite someone on the basis of poorly translated documentation, and just as unethical to exclude the accused from truly comprehend what exactly he is being accused of!

These accounts may be “clear and coherent”, that’s a matter of opinion. Unfortunately they are also total bollocks.

This is precisely the opinion of Assange’s London attorney:


“We don’t even know what ‘sex by surprise’ even means, and they haven’t told us”

— Mark Stephens, London attorney for Julian Assange

Now if the prosecutors have failed to communicate the nature of the charges to the defence, and place of clear and coherent communication have chosen instead to seek the issuance of an Interpol arrest warrant (or rather a ‘red notice’ if memory serves), that is frankly shocking behaviour!

Great to see that the title of the piece has been changed as Assange is accused of Våldtäkt – Rape.

@johnb

Finally for this round, a massive “fuck you” to Pontus.

I really think you need to change your attitude. You’re obviously the kind of person who finds it har to be criticised, but please be nice.

It has absolutely no bearing on the Swedish court’s bizarre statement – which, although in English, which is an improvement on previous comments on the case, doesn’t refer to English law, but to the totalitarian nonsense which is Swedish law.

You clearly have no understanding of Swedish law.

This is what the prosecutor has said, by the way:

2010-12-02
Julian Assange är häktad i sin frånvaro för våldtäkt, sexuellt ofredande och olaga tvång. Assange har överklagat Svea hovrätts häktningsbeslut.

Högsta domstolen har i dag beslutat att inte bevilja Julian Assange prövningstillstånd. För att HD ska pröva ett överklagande krävs prövningstillstånd. Det kan beviljas om ärendet bedöms ha stor betydelse för rättstillämpningen eller om det finns andra synnerliga skäl.

“Julian Assange is charged in his absence for rape, sexual assault and illegal coercion. Assange has appealed the Svea royal court’s decision to charge.

The supreme court has today decided to not give Julian Assange ‘prövningstillstånd’. ‘Prövningstillstånd’ is needed for the supreme court to allow an appeal. It can only be given if the case is seen to have a big impact application of legislation or if there are other special reasons”.

I don’t know what Assange was up to in Sweden. But judging from what you’re saying you have no idea either.

@Apathy (180)

…Hope that helps.

No, I’m afraid it doesn’t help. Your tone is decidedly aggressive and ‘trollish’ and the assumptions you have made are frankly rather offensive.

What I have been able to glean from my reading of the The Swedish Penal Code (1999) and an official document detailing amendments to Chapter 6 thereof is that as of 2005 the laws regarding sex crimes in Sweden appear perfectly reasonable. Baring, of course any wild interpretations of the phrases “unlawful coercion” and “sexual integrity”, which may or may not exist inside the minds of the prosecutors in this case. I’ve also gleaned that the term “sex by surprise” has, as of 2005, not been formalised in Swedish law, or at least was not defined within the Swedish Penal Code as of 1999.

I’ve further gleaned from a rather brief statement on the prosecutors website, that Julian Assange is charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. However the prosecutor has chosen not to elaborate further (e.g. whether violence or threat of violence was involved) and if statements made by Assange’s attorney Mark Stephens are to be believed (and I see no reason why they shouldn’t) the prosecutors office has consistently failed to communicate the charges to the defence attorney in a coherent fashion, causing bafflement over the ‘fairy-tale’ charge of “sex by surprise”.

As the prosecuting authority it is the responsibility of the Swedish prosecutors office to communicate in a coherent manor the exact (i.e. detailed) nature of the charges brought before Mr. Assange. However, as of December 2nd 2010 they seem to have failed in that duty and chosen instead to pursue the heavy handed tactic of issuing an Interpol arrest warrant for Mr. Assange and demanding his extradition from the UK. That is a failure on their part, especially in light of the political sensitivities involved at the present time! It’s a PR nightmare for them!

184. Chiase Guevara

@ 176. cim

Meh. Your experience, my experience. I’ve heard plenty of ridiculous propositions that, if enacted, would mean labelling over 90% of non-virgin males as rapists (I think I mentioned before the philosophy that says sleeping with a woman who’s had a glass of wine is rape, regardless of how much you’ve drunk yourself). I’ve heard quite a lot from the sex = rape crowd. On the other hand, if people straw man other people by falsly claiming they hold that view, that’s out of order as well.

john b,

However, if they choose not to clarify the situation by publishing a clear and coherent account in English of exactly what Assange is accused of, I’m going to – and more to the point, I’m *right* to – rely primarily on the clear and coherent account in English of exactly what Assange is accused of published by Assange’s lawyer.

No, you’re not right to rely on it, particularly if you’re going to (as you did) base on it your accusations about “deranged” Swedish law and the subversion of the legal system. You’d be on firmer ground if you said something along the lines of:

“according to his lawyer he is sought on made-up-weird-charges that aren’t a crime in the UK, or anywhere else sensible.”

“according to his lawyer, Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom”

@ukliberty

I confess I don’t know Swedish. But really that is irrelevant. Even if I was really discussing Swedish law ( and I was not, I was merely pointing out why this case seems fishy) as long as I can access translations or accounts of other stitch ups, as long as I am correct (in other words) then there is no reason for me to ‘have’ to know Swedish to speak about this… otherwise your complaint is merely an ad hominem.

But I was not pronouncing on the validity of Swedish law as a whole, but merely the facts of the case as they stand. Assange was pursued a very short time before the very first leaks were to be released, and the police informed a right-wing Swedish Tabloid Expressen before informing Assange himself! The case was closed by a more high ranking prosecutor within 24 hours and the charge of rape has only been reinstated coincidentally before this release. If his defence attourney is anything to go by, and it is all we have to go by since the prosecutor’s office refuses to speak with either Assange’s lawyer or anyone else, Swedish or English about the case (despite this not being obligatory in any way… and despite the fact that they have regularly contacted the press vis anything negative before Assange’s lawyer)… then Assange has both agreed to meet with the prosecutor (whilst in Sweden) and now talk to her from a Swedish Embassy. She has refused to meet with him when he has volunteered to do so, despite issuing an arrest warrant so she can meet with him!!!

The fact alone that the Swedish police/original prosecutor saw fit to inform the press before Assange about the case… and the fact that the charges were originally dropped after 24 hours due to being ‘trivial’ but have only recently been reopened, whilst Assange was out of the country. Shows at the very least that this case has been an incompetent shambles… and I don’t need to know Swedish to know that.

@cim

Some of what you say is valid, some is unrealistic and a little bit ridiculous.

By suggesting that a man has committed rape if he initiates sex without a condom the morning after the night before, when the woman had previously consented to sex without a condom is ludacris. At any point during that second initiation a woman is perfectly free to rebuff his advances physically or verbally. It is perfectly ordinary in the absence of this to assume that nothing has changed from the pleasant night before and one would have to demand that the man in question either read the woman’s mind or begin every advance with,

‘Do you mind if I attempt to have sex with you again, under the same terms and conditions as yesterday?’ (very off-putting for me personally).

I’ve also surprised myself by reaching a similar conclusion even had the woman stipulated the use of a condom the night before. Of course it is not acceptable to suddenly penetrate the woman, ungloved and without warning, and it is even quite cheeky and bad-mannered to start the attempt from a clean slate and see if you can get away without protection (but not criminal to try one’s luck). However it is at least equally the woman’s responsibility to ensure safe sex to her desired standards. Assuming, of course, that there is no intimidation factor from her partner, I cannot see how the woman can abdicate responsibility for her sexual health (that she clearly found easy enough to consider the night before) and decide that, come the morning, it’s all the other person’s responsibility. All other things being equal, we are talking about two adults with equal rights AND obligations.

It irks me a little when admirable consideration of how to make life easier for traumatised rape victims start ignoring the rights of the accused. It irks me even more when (particularly) women are downright encouraged to search for ways in which they might, perhaps, potentially, in hindsight, have been wronged. If you were ok with it at the time and were not grossly deceived as to the person you slept with, you probably weren’t raped. Naive, forgetful, irresponsible – maybe – but not raped.

Not that it should matter, but I am female, if that helps you take my points any more seriously.

john b/177: Swedish politicians get to smear him, but that’s OK because articles like this one and the Crikey piece are coming to his defence?

You see, you’re starting from the assumption that he can’t possibly be guilty of rape and so the accusations are clearly part of a conspiracy.

I don’t think this makes a lot of sense, and therefore I’m treating him as the same as I would any other accused rapist: investigate, charge if warranted, give a trial, and punish according to the law if convicted. In that context deciding that he’s so self-evidently innocent they don’t even need to investigate seems strange.

The reason I don’t think it makes much sense is this: it is a matter of record that two women went to the Swedish police regarding Assange’s sexual behaviour with them, and no-one is denying this. Regardless of how absurd you personally believe the charges to be – and I think that the allegations as described could legally amount to rape even under English law, and may well be being lost in translation somewhat – the theorised conspiracy can’t even get started without those allegations being made.

So the conspiracy requires that sufficient of the Swedish justice system has been subverted by the conspirators that should anyone report Assange to the police while he’s there, there’s a good chance that the initial investigators will decide to press charges despite the allegations not supporting them, and that their superiors will likely back them up on this. Just on the off-chance he happens to do something illegal while he’s there. In a country widely regarded as one of the least corrupt in the world. It just seems way too complicated given that “kidnapping people and packing them off to be tortured” and “poisoning people” has been done far more often, and with more apparent success, by various government intelligence agencies.

(Or it requires that the women making the accusations are in on the conspiracy. If you believe that could you state it explicitly for avoidance of doubt, please. It makes the conspiracy more internally consistent but also rather changes the tone of the article)

Lee/178: Okay, yes. What I mean is that they’re under no obligation to provide those documents to the press rather than to the accused’s lawyer. Obviously if the accused wants the communications with his lawyer to be public he could send them into Wikileaks, or something.

SG/187: Well, yes, if you caricature the conversation like that, it doesn’t sound very good. It’s entirely possible to have conversations about consent that aren’t so caricatured, though. It’s the assumption that consent somehow carries over from the night before, or from consent to a different act, that I’m objecting to. Asking that the initiating party makes it clear to the other before they start what they want to do and giving time for a reply – which in practice, unless what the initiator wants to do is excessively complicated, is only going to take a few seconds – hardly seems unreasonable. (and might well stop them from raping someone who wasn’t as awake as they thought, for instance)

On the grammar point. As has been noted, plurals that end in “s” always take an apostrophe at the end without an extra “s”. I can’t think of any exceptions to that. (Plurals that don’t end in “s” continue to add both apostrophe and “s”, obviously: e.g. “children’s”.) Meanwhile, the traditional rule is that singular nouns that end in “s” take apostrophe followed by “s” (the same as other singular nouns): “circus’s”, etc. Exceptions are made for a few nouns (mostly proper nouns), notably classical names and the name “Jesus”. But in recent decades it has been popular to add just an apostrophe without an “s” (e.g. James’), and this is generally considered OK.

In the case of “Wikileaks”, it is undoubtedly a singular noun. I suspect it derives from a combination of “Wiki” plus the plural noun “leaks”. That doesn’t change the fact that “Wikileaks” is singular. That is, none of us would find anything odd in saying “Wikileaks is” (which is singular concord). We could in some cases also say “Wikileaks are”, but not because the noun is plural; rather, because singular nouns that represent collective entities can sometimes have plural concord (e.g. “Microsoft are”, “the government are”). Views on whether it is acceptable to treat collective singulars this way vary; but it is generally considered correct in British English, though less desirable in some cases and more desirable in others.

Given that it is a singular (albeit etymologically plural), “Wikileaks’s” is correct, but “Wikileaks’” can be considered equally correct – and personally I prefer the latter.

While there are some people who write an “s” on the end of such forms without pronouncing it, and others who like to pronounce an extra “s” even in cases where they don’t write it, I prefer to spell in the same way as I write – but that is a matter of taste.

Sorry, I meant, obviously, to spell in the same way that I speak.

What an amazing thread. All this effort wasted on a red herring. This is precisely why rape was the chosen allegation. It has the power to smear. I’m surprised they didn’t get really crass and plant something incriminating on his laptop and call him a pedo.

The argument appears to have descended to the level of farce – punctuation discussions, the ins and outs of Swedish law and the romantic permutations of anodyne PC sexual behaviour – all this wasted energy sucking the life out of everyone… just as the authorities wanted.

Any citizen who believes that Wikileaks is of value should take the time to stand back and see this for what it is and then stand up for Assange. If they can get to Assange they can and will get to anyone who chooses to expose the incumbents in the power structures that control the world and serfs like us within it.

Cim/188
OK, you’ve raised two (and a half) points there:

1) “It’s the assumption that consent somehow carries over from the night before, or from consent to a different act, that I’m objecting to”

Well, quite right. Consent certainly shouldn’t be carried over from any previous time that one has sex and nor is it. It is a similar principle that means that it is possible for a husband to rape his wife; she is not his property and the wedding contract does not in some mysterious way (contrary to all other law about contracts and sexual acts) grant infinite consent to her spouse. By the same token however, the woman can and may change her mind about the conditions of sex each time. Just because she said no to sex without a condom last night does not mean she might not consent (for whatever reason) the next morning. Both partners are under all the same obligations as the first time to make their intentions and conditions clear.

2) “Asking that the initiating party makes it clear to the other before they start what they want to do and giving time for a reply [...] hardly seems unreasonable.”

This is a pretty tricksy sentence here. By ‘makes it clear’ I assume, referring to your previous comments, that you mean verbally. That being the case, I would argue that actually that it is pretty unreasonable to expect there to have been specific *verbal* consent every single time one initiates sex. It is downright ridiculous to suggest that the lack of it is good (or heaven forbid, conclusive) evidence that a rape took place. Suggesting that consent can ONLY be expressed verbally ignores the realities of human communication and makes a nonsense of the law. It also creates a double standard given that we certainly don’t limit non-consent to verbal expression; pushing someone away from you when they make advances is a perfectly good demonstration of non-consent, thus pulling someone, let’s say,/into you should act as a perfectly good demonstration of consent.

‘Giving time for a reply’ is a slightly different issue and taking in to account my belief in non-verbal consent I would rephrase this ‘giving time for a response’. Of course their certainly should be time for one’s partner to react (as I actually covered in my previous post) and make their assent or dissent clear, but this is not the same as requiring a verbal agreement and I think your sentence risks conflating the two. Simply suddenly penetrating a partner may well be grounds for a rape charge but (thankfully) there is such a thing a foreplay and if this is employed, and both partners take an active part in the sexual act all the way through to the end, nary a word need be spoke for any reasonable person to conclude that it was not rape.

Demanding verbal consent does leave the court system very open to abuse as silence, regardless of all other circumstances, would be considered to constitute non-consensual sex. For revenge against an ex all I have to do is recall an incident in which neither of us spoke and point the finger. It may not be a massively common situation but it is patently a ridiculous circumstance to be possible.

As an aside: if my boyfriend has expressed a desire to be woken up with sex any time that I might feel like it and I do so a week later, I must surely be guilty of rape because:

a) I began sex while he was unconscious
b) I am acting on the basis that I have infinite consent (legally impossible, I’m sure..?) based on a statement made long before the act.

I think lots of men would be pretty upset with our legal system if their girlfriends started refusing to do this for fear of prosecution :-)

SG/192: Certainly I don’t think consent has to be verbal (but, on the other hand, if there’s any doubt about whether there’s consent, I think one has to explicitly ask and verbally is usually the most convenient and clearest way to do so)

SG/193: Consent can be given in advance provided that you are free to withdraw it later if you change your mind. I don’t see a problem with that scenario, and I don’t think the law would either. (Not that, if he did consent, the law would be getting involved anyway, of course)

Further details of the charges against Assange were published today. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

More from TPA:

‘Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on August 18 “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”. The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.’

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLBCkkC5l0NVV0gEYkAA04x83Wrg?docId=B32488671291733403A00

So the Swedish authorities presented four charges of total gibberish (“using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner”) and no clear claims that consent was withdrawn, and the English court still remanded him in custody?

Definitely no conspiracy here.

@john b

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.’

(Emphasis added)

I dunno about you, but I’d say having sex with someone when they’re asleep is classed as rape in any country/language, no? Pretty hard to give consent when not awake.

(please note, again, that I am not saying Assange is guilty – I have no idea. But if he is guilty of those charges against him then yes he is a rapist).

198: misleading reporting. It’s clear from the evidence (the prosecutor produced nothing new – the charges are all based on the evidence listed on this post) that Assange had stayed in her bed following consensual sex earlier that night, and that she was a fully consenting partner once she was awake. If you’re going to count that as rape, then I think everyone I’ve been out with has raped me at one point or another.

I’ve written a follow-up piece here.

@200 john b

Hmmm… well once again I return to perch on my fence until more facts are known. The way this has been reported has been shockingly bad but I imagine that the language barrier has had a lot to do with that.

@Everybody

The news agency Reuters has recently published a rather illuminating account of the events leading to the charges made against Julian Assange.

Special Report: STD fears sparked case against WikiLeaks boss

Based on this account, the charges do not appear to be politically motivated. Although only time will tell whether a)this account is accurate and b) there is any truth to these charges being politically motivated. I’m also a little confused as to how the prosecutors office managed to arrange the issue of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) when, according to the article, formal charges have yet to be made.

FYI, everyone: Crikey’s Guy Rundle, who was in court yesterday, is the first journalist to ctually explain what was meant by count 1 of the four accusations levied against Assange: it is unequivocally an accusation of rape against Miss A, alleged to have taken place on an occasion that hadn’t previously been mentioned by either side.

I’ve updated my post from yesterday to include Rundle’s reporting.

I’m impressed that it’s taken an Australian (London-based) reporter for their equivalent of Private Eye to explain what accusations the charges laid yesterday *actually involve*, with the entire UK and US press failing to do so.

But I unequivocally retract everything I’ve said in the last ten hours about the Assange case – the English court had no choice but to uphold the charges, because what he is accused of *does* correspond to what is described as rape under English law. And, unless the Swedish prosecutors are doing something *unspeakably* dodgy, we have an accusation from an actual person that Assange raped her, which we all have to take seriously. Not to presume guilt, but not to presume innocence based on the stupid laws and global powerpolitics surrounding the case either.

(I don’t retract what I said before the hearing: the other three counts, which were the only things either side of the case had mentioned before the hearing, are still just poor bedroom etiquette, not rape, and would not be criminalised anywhere sensible.)

Assange should be tried for crimes against the citizens of a number of countries http://wp.me/p1A0Zc-1Tc

Your understanding of consent is very incorrect. Most western jurisdictions consider a person unable to give consent if they are unconscious or have been subject for coercion and/or unlawful detainment.
See UK Sexual Offences Act 2003
If the defendant knew that any of the following circumstances existed
(2)The circumstances are that—
(a)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
(b)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;
(c)the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;
(d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
(f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  2. Lee Hyde

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  3. Brian Moylan

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  4. ZA

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  5. Susan Croft

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  6. Chris Patmore

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  7. Adam Dunkley

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  8. James Anthony

    Why do the non-Swedish press keep lying that Julian Assange is accused of rape? He isn't: http://bit.ly/i0Pomb #wikileaks

  9. Mark Koszler

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  10. Bathtubgin

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Ajj16FT via @libcon

  11. jameskennell

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  12. Lee Hyde

    Assange being prosecuted for having sex without a condom, with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time (http://is.gd/i6bct)

  13. J

    Other than generous comments on Anglophone laws, good: RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  14. netribution

    RT @krisht RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape – http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  15. Wesley Rykalski

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  16. Jeremy Gooch

    Just a smear campaign then? RT @libcon No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  17. Andy Shaw

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  18. robertsharp59

    Interesting. RT @libcon: No, #Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  19. Thomas Ash

    Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape, but of having sex without a condom: http://t.co/0ZSEiNo via @libcon

  20. Paul Crowley

    Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  21. Stew Wilson

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  22. Jade Alexander

    RT @krisht: RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  23. Luka Milic

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  24. Chris Boyle

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  25. John Band

    I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey_news

  26. Gareth Winchester

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  27. dr julie

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/w54YjXs

  28. lotuspad

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/4xlF83m via @libcon

  29. David Williams

    Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  30. Nick Watts

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  31. Dave Harris

    This really is a poisonous charge, and dangerous to rape prosecutions: Wikileaks' founder isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 @libcon

  32. Bill Hayes

    RT @syn: Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  33. Bill Hayes

    RT @syn: Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  34. Larry Aydlette

    RT @jimboeth: Why do the non-Swedish press keep lying that Julian Assange is accused of rape? He isn't: http://bit.ly/i0Pomb #wikileaks

  35. Larry Aydlette

    RT @jimboeth: Why do the non-Swedish press keep lying that Julian Assange is accused of rape? He isn't: http://bit.ly/i0Pomb #wikileaks

  36. Yvan Seth

    RT @ciphergoth Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 <interesting

  37. quixoticgeek

    RT @syn Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  38. Sari De

    Just to be clear: Julian Assange isn't accused of rape but sex w/o a condom by a woman who was fine with it at the time http://bit.ly/eOVKEu

  39. Alicia

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/P7BYeAv via @libcon

  40. Soho Politico

    This piece, on @libcon, strikes me as utterly bizarre and irresponsible. How did it get past @sunny_hundal? http://t.co/h5yTUcn

  41. choco

    RT @syn: Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  42. Jacob Appelbaum

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  43. Gary

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  44. Nick Hardsouth

    Read this http://bit.ly/hb2Aag THEN decide on morality of Wikileaks' founder…

  45. Geoff

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  46. Sam Bowne

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  47. Chris Huang-Leaver

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XUgfplA via @libcon

  48. Miriam Ruiz

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  49. FireFox

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  50. Rich

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  51. Sonya Winterberg

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  52. Paul Brodeur

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  53. jonathanstray

    File under Important If True: "The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors." http://is.gd/i6mFW

  54. Oz Mills

    RT @syn: Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  55. Tobias Raff

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  56. SSP Campsie

    RT @NickHS: Read this http://bit.ly/hb2Aag THEN decide on morality of Wikileaks' founder…

  57. magnus

    "The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors." — http://is.gd/i6nJB #sweden #fail #assange

  58. Caspar 01

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SD34DSf via @libcon

  59. Jan Muenther

    If this is true, that's really fucked up http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  60. Herm Baskerville

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  61. o????loo?

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  62. Dejan (??)

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  63. Ant Miller

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  64. Nadim Kobeissi

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  65. You Choose

    RT @ciphergoth: Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 #braindead

  66. Gerald Bäck

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  67. dave bl..

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  68. Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN]

    [...] Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN] liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-ass…  por inniyah hace 2 segundos [...]

  69. ???

    Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom, with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time http://j.mp/dZ6sPq

  70. Stefan

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  71. Michael Foukarakis

    Assange wanted by Interpol for having sex without a condom. Continue pretending the authorities are protecting you. http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  72. Dan Therriault

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  73. results & relations

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  74. Stefan ?

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  75. Miriam Ruiz

    A Assange NO se le busca internacionalmente x violación,sino x tener relaciones sin condón: http://is.gd/i6pQF http://is.gd/i6pSG #Wikileaks

  76. Simon Phipps

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  77. Cae Vye

    WTF?! RT @ciphergoth Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  78. Rainer JELLINEK

    Wikileaks's Assange angeblich NICHT WIRKLICH wegen Vergewaltigung angeklagt! http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 (via @ciphergoth) #ist_das_moeglich?

  79. Rainer JELLINEK

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  80. .dh

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  81. zooko

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  82. Roger Lancefield

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  83. meznak

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  84. nickbloke

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  85. Gonzalo Aller

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  86. donkey

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  87. Jamie Dowling

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  88. mcantelon

    Not only is Julian Assange not charged with anything, but what he's wanted for questioning for is bizarre: http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  89. mrjuj

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  90. doddyuk

    RT @syn: Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  91. Nicole Aptekar

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  92. Stephen Bove

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  93. Rainer JELLINEK

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  94. tattooed_mummy

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  95. David Naughton

    "Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom, with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom" http://j.mp/fXFiyu #fb

  96. Haris Alisic

    Är detta sant någon: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  97. Chris Slater

    Not only is Assange not charged with anything, but what he's wanted for questioning for is bizarre: http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (via @mcantelon)

  98. David Naughton

    Thanks to @bangpound for the link to the article explaining that Assange of @Wikileaks has NOT been charged with rape: http://j.mp/fXFiyu

  99. MindYourBusiness

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  100. Daniel Spector

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  101. Simon Godefroy

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/kdZNEHf via @libcon

  102. Shannon Grow-Garrett

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  103. MindYourBusiness

    RT @sggomg: RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  104. MindYourBusiness

    RT @madmutt: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/kdZNEHf via @libcon

  105. Simon Williams

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  106. Al Jigen Billings

    Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 (via @ciphergoth)

  107. Democracia Nacional

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://t.co/it7GHFy via @libcon

  108. Ichsmael Mahmut

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  109. ElGatsby

    Comooooorrr???? Julian Assange está acusado de NO utilizar CONDON???? A la trena to dios!!! 8-/ http://t.co/y7nKIxY

  110. el_aLEXIS

    Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 [inglés]

  111. bassdread

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  112. John Holley

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  113. Tom Hudson

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  114. Henry Story

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  115. Joaquin Gustavo

    @25pesos Assage NO esta acusado de violación, está acusado de tener sexo sin condón #cablegate #wtf http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  116. Joaquin Gustavo

    @25pesos Julian Assange NO esta acusado de violación, está acusado de tener sexo sin condón #cablegate #wtf http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  117. Brett Roberts

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  118. Richard Mitchell

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  119. Doug Winter

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  120. pancake

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  121. patowc

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  122. Erica Marfell

    Is this true? RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a weird crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  123. nathan

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  124. Ian Davis

    #Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape… but of having sex without condom http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 /via @ciphergoth /ht @bblfish

  125. Moonbootica

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ePmh6DY via @libcon

  126. Moonbootica

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ePmh6DY via @libcon

  127. Moonbootica

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ePmh6DY via @libcon

  128. Paul Jakma

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape (LibCon): http://bit.ly/gUVyUR

  129. Paul Jakma

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape (LibCon): http://bit.ly/gUVyUR

  130. Paul Jakma

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape (LibCon): http://bit.ly/gUVyUR

  131. Ryan Eby

    RT @iand: #Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape… but of having sex without condom http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 /via @ciphergoth /ht @bb …

  132. Ryan Eby

    RT @iand: #Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape… but of having sex without condom http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 /via @ciphergoth /ht @bb …

  133. Ryan Eby

    RT @iand: #Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape… but of having sex without condom http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 /via @ciphergoth /ht @bb …

  134. Wesley Mason

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  135. Wesley Mason

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  136. Wesley Mason

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  137. Alexander Limi

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  138. Alexander Limi

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  139. Alexander Limi

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  140. Paul Jakma

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  141. Paul Jakma

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  142. Paul Jakma

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  143. Neko Shuffle

    RT @NickHS: Read this http://bit.ly/hb2Aag THEN decide on morality of Wikileaks' founder…

  144. Neko Shuffle

    RT @NickHS: Read this http://bit.ly/hb2Aag THEN decide on morality of Wikileaks' founder…

  145. Neko Shuffle

    RT @NickHS: Read this http://bit.ly/hb2Aag THEN decide on morality of Wikileaks' founder…

  146. Rajiv Bakulesh Shah

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  147. Rajiv Bakulesh Shah

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  148. Howey Long

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  149. Howey Long

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  150. Seantron™ McCracken

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  151. Frank Ho

    Liberal Conspiracy – No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #WikiLeaks #Rape #meme

  152. d

    RT @W911: Liberal Conspiracy – No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #WikiLeaks #Rape #meme

  153. aNorthernSoul

    :-/ RT @ciphergoth Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  154. Dario Gieselaar

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  155. Richie

    RT @W911: Liberal Conspiracy – No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #WikiLeaks #Rape #meme

  156. herr bee

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  157. javiers

    Julián Assange NO esta acusado de violación: http://j.mp/dZ6sPq
    Que maravilla de medios de prensa tenemos todos. Apenas manipulables. Ja.

  158. linuzifer

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  159. airric89

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  160. d is

    RT @W911: Liberal Conspiracy – No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #WikiLeaks #Rape #meme

  161. randzonen

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  162. babulski

    BTW RT @ciphergoth Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  163. parsley72

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  164. Patrick Aljord

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  165. Laura Gharazeddine

    RT @W911: Liberal Conspiracy – No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #WikiLeaks #Rape #meme

  166. Tom Lazar

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  167. Neil Lee

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  168. Paul Eschenhagen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU (via @babulski)

  169. Paul Eschenhagen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU (via @babulski)

  170. iGrrr

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  171. iGrrr

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  172. Proxy Palinstrike

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  173. Proxy Palinstrike

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  174. Nico

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  175. Nico

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  176. sa7yr

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  177. sa7yr

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  178. Jan Oelze

    Julian Assange wird keine Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen. — http://bit.ly/f7LAAU (via @babulski/ @holgi)

  179. Jan Oelze

    Julian Assange wird keine Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen. — http://bit.ly/f7LAAU (via @babulski/ @holgi)

  180. eins11

    WTF??? RT @holgi: J. #Assange wird KEINE Vergew. vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @babulski)

  181. eins11

    WTF??? RT @holgi: J. #Assange wird KEINE Vergew. vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @babulski)

  182. datenritter

    #WTF? ? @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha!

  183. S.

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  184. do-panic

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  185. Robert Barat

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  186. der_Karl

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  187. Niels Kobschätzki

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  188. the_peppermint

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  189. Bob

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  190. Shaun Wilde

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  191. Michel Reimon

    zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein mega-#kobuk

  192. Juul Joosten

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  193. Achim Friedland

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  194. xiantiel xiloszient

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  195. Charlie Drummond

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  196. Thomas Kriechbaumer

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  197. Sven Scholz

    WTF? Stimmt das? RT @holgi: J #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU

  198. Jan Dörrenhaus

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  199. Andreas Christian

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  200. Hans-Petter Fjeld

    Wikileaks talsmann Assange er IKKE etterlyst for voldtekt, det er en smule særere enn som så. http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 Bruk kondom i Sverige!

  201. Nils B.

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  202. Simon

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  203. tong

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  204. Boston Review

    RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  205. Michael

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  206. sa7yr

    .@zeitonline Warum schreiben Sie eigentlich ständig, Assange werde Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen? http://j.mp/hThc0Y

  207. Sabine Engelhardt

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  208. hrosenhagen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  209. Nicolau Leal Werneck

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  210. Len Sassaman

    "The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors." | http://bit.ly/eUiw2N < okay, wtf? This is bizarre.

  211. Oliver Eichhorn

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  212. Ben O'Steen

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  213. chriszim

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha!

  214. Daniel Wagener

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  215. Nathon Raine

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  216. Mitch Roedoe

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  217. M Mkay

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  218. Jörg

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  219. Lahmachun

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  220. Brandon Downey

    RT @headhntr: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape – http://t.co/9BqUIZO via @libcon

  221. Maik Babenhauserh.

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  222. Sebastian Jabbusch

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  223. Mark Matienzo

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  224. Tom Quick

    Interesting re Assange charges: RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  225. Ralf (RPW)

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  226. Andreas Karsten

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  227. andrew j. lundgren

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  228. marcos.quesada

    Assange buscado por la interpol por: or mantener relaciones sexuales sin condón … violación?? es un #MEME y gordo http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  229. Christian Stauffer

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #wikileaks

  230. Christauff

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #wikileaks

  231. Jean Pierre Kin

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  232. No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape | Liberal … | The Daily Conservative

    [...] the original post: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape | Liberal … Share and [...]

  233. Thomas Heinen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  234. Digital Maverick

    Correct link – If this is true about JUlian Assange then its incredible – http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  235. Erp Trafassel

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  236. Philippe Wampfler

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  237. Peter Dahlberg

    ? @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha!(via @babulski)

  238. Jochen Schäfer

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  239. Kevin Read

    Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @babulski) // :(

  240. travis lupick

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (via @_Somnambulant_, @mcantelon)

  241. sascha242

    “@ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8” #fb

  242. Chris Keene

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  243. Nick Lawrence

    Assange will be a medusa >RT @digitalmaverick Correct link – If this is true about JUlian Assange then its incredible – http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  244. Chris Keene

    Right, so is liberalconspiracy really suggest Larssen was killed because he wrote fiction about 'ward of state' http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  245. Mike Pfaff

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  246. Bernd

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  247. zadak

    RT @renacuaja: A Assange NO se le busca internacionalmente x violación,sino x tener relaciones sin condón: http://is.gd/i6pQF http://is. …

  248. Annie Schueler

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  249. porneL

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  250. 7h3linguist

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  251. Enzo Pepe

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  252. Christopher Roussel

    FYI, Assange from @wikileaks isn't accused of rape (or anything considered illegal outside of Sweden): http://goo.gl/2oOwX

  253. delphatic

    RT @digitalmaverick: Correct link – If this is true about JUlian Assange then its incredible – http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  254. Alan N.

    I could say something about hackers, trojans, viruses and breaking laws, but I'll stop… http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 via @gohsuket @ciphergoth

  255. Rainer JELLINEK

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  256. Joshva

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/eEaoYc

  257. Luiz Pimenta

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  258. Peter van der Zee

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  259. Audrey Huntley

    RT @tlupick: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (via @_Somnambulant_, @mcantelon)

  260. Stuntman Bob

    ..aber 'Vergewaltigung' verkauft sich halt besser, gell Qualitätsjournalisten http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  261. Stuntman Bob

    ..aber 'Vergewaltigung' verkauft sich halt besser, gell Qualitätsjournalisten http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  262. Stuntman Bob

    ..aber 'Vergewaltigung' verkauft sich halt besser, gell Qualitätsjournalisten http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  263. Stuntman Bob

    ..aber 'Vergewaltigung' verkauft sich halt besser, gell Qualitätsjournalisten http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  264. Mike Pfaff

    Don't have sex in Sweden! http://bit.ly/ep9QVn http://bit.ly/fs9ZKQ http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/ck1pCm http://bit.ly/abcZkO #assange

  265. Mike Pfaff

    Don't have sex in Sweden! http://bit.ly/ep9QVn http://bit.ly/fs9ZKQ http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/ck1pCm http://bit.ly/abcZkO #assange

  266. Mike Pfaff

    Don't have sex in Sweden! http://bit.ly/ep9QVn http://bit.ly/fs9ZKQ http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/ck1pCm http://bit.ly/abcZkO #assange

  267. Mike Pfaff

    Don't have sex in Sweden! http://bit.ly/ep9QVn http://bit.ly/fs9ZKQ http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/ck1pCm http://bit.ly/abcZkO #assange

  268. Gary Katsevman

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/COTq0ra via @libcon

  269. Gary Katsevman

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/COTq0ra via @libcon

  270. Gary Katsevman

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/COTq0ra via @libcon

  271. Gary Katsevman

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/COTq0ra via @libcon

  272. Shawn Wilsher

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  273. Shawn Wilsher

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  274. Shawn Wilsher

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  275. Shawn Wilsher

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  276. Friedemann Karig

    RT @rivva: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape – Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/?p=20031 http://rivva. …

  277. Friedemann Karig

    RT @rivva: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape – Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/?p=20031 http://rivva. …

  278. Friedemann Karig

    RT @rivva: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape – Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/?p=20031 http://rivva. …

  279. Friedemann Karig

    RT @rivva: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape – Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/?p=20031 http://rivva. …

  280. Dirk Wingenter

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU (via @babulski)

  281. Dirk Wingenter

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU (via @babulski)

  282. fibandavid19831

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange Isn’t Accused of Rape http://ping.fm/MqxuY

  283. L3viathan

    Assange wird nicht Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  284. diego!

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  285. idunnar bleevit

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  286. mbo in real life

    RT @sascha_p RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  287. ludens76

    ¿Alguien puede explicar en qué consiste el delito por el que Suecia persigue a Julian Assange? http://t.co/COTq0ra #cablegate #wikileaks

  288. Gwilym Johnston

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  289. Conspiracy2Riot

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/ #Wikileaks CONDOM GATE continues

  290. Jen Mackie

    RT @tlupick: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (via @_Somnambulant_, @mcantelon)

  291. Heinz Holler

    No, #Wikileaks's Julian #Assange is NOT accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  292. Dilettanto

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  293. bryn rk

    RT @tlupick: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (via @_Somnambulant_, @mcantelon)

  294. Atul Chitnis

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  295. Bill Boyd

    RT @digitalmaverick: Correct link – If this is true about JUlian Assange then its incredible – http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  296. Mark Jones

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  297. jose antonio

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  298. fidepus

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  299. Digital Maverick

    @mdpkeenan the link works fine for me http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  300. Luca Lizzeri

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  301. giuseppe cavaleri

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  302. Shiv Deepak

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  303. Peter J Barnes

    RT @iand: #Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape… but of having sex without condom http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 /via @ciphergoth /ht @bb …

  304. Martin Böhm

    No, Julian Assange isn't accused of rape: http://is.gd/i6Kfm (but that lie is so damn convenient, right…?)

  305. rolf tschochohei

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy – http://goo.gl/2oOwX

  306. Cathal Garvey

    RT @lensassaman: "The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors." | http://bit.ly/eUiw2N < okay, w …

  307. JOGWebmaster

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange Isn’t Accused of Rape http://ow.ly/1ah1HN

  308. Harald Havas

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  309. Cathal Garvey

    Dear people distracting from #cablegate and #wikileaks with rape allegations: http://bit.ly/eUiw2N

  310. Julian Weber

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  311. Julian Weber

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  312. Julian Weber

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  313. Oliver Kohl

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  314. Oliver Kohl

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  315. Land des Lispelns

    Julian #Assagne apparently not wanted for rape but for #consensual #sex without a #condom – jeez! http://digs.by/eLgdOr #Wikileaks

  316. Tim Pizey

    Poor bedroom etiquette != rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 (via @benosteen)

  317. DVC

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  318. Martin

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  319. Simon Pamies

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  320. Simon Pamies

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  321. Gaurav Jha

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  322. Gaurav Jha

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  323. Mark

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  324. Mark

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  325. A.Fritz-Pinggera

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  326. A.Fritz-Pinggera

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  327. David

    No, Julian Assange no está acusado de violación [eng] http://bit.ly/hCK23Y

  328. David

    No, Julian Assange no está acusado de violación [eng] http://bit.ly/hCK23Y

  329. Gerald Brozek

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  330. Gerald Brozek

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  331. Gerald Brozek

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  332. Daniel Nix

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy – http://goo.gl/2oOwX

  333. Daniel Nix

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy – http://goo.gl/2oOwX

  334. Daniel Nix

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy – http://goo.gl/2oOwX

  335. Andreas Ziethen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  336. Andreas Ziethen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  337. Andreas Ziethen

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  338. Yashraj Akashi (YSA)

    THIS IS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT ? WHATTTT >> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  339. Yashraj Akashi (YSA)

    THIS IS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT ? WHATTTT >> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  340. Yashraj Akashi (YSA)

    #wikileaks THIS IS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT ? #crap >> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  341. Yashraj Akashi (YSA)

    #wikileaks THIS IS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT ? #crap >> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  342. letaledosis100

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  343. letaledosis100

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  344. axeolotl

    ??? ?: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU – via @kuchiwaza

  345. axeolotl

    ??? ?: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU – via @kuchiwaza

  346. axeolotl

    ??? ?: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU – via @kuchiwaza

  347. axeolotl

    ??? ?: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU – via @kuchiwaza

  348. Backnang

    22:45 #ARD "Lügen vom Dienst – #BND und der #Irakkrieg" http://bit.ly/fnX9ZU | #Assange / #Wikileaks & Vergewaltigung? http://bit.ly/f7LAAU

  349. Backnang

    22:45 #ARD "Lügen vom Dienst – #BND und der #Irakkrieg" http://bit.ly/fnX9ZU | #Assange / #Wikileaks & Vergewaltigung? http://bit.ly/f7LAAU

  350. Backnang

    22:45 #ARD "Lügen vom Dienst – #BND und der #Irakkrieg" http://bit.ly/fnX9ZU | #Assange / #Wikileaks & Vergewaltigung? http://bit.ly/f7LAAU

  351. Backnang

    22:45 #ARD "Lügen vom Dienst – #BND und der #Irakkrieg" http://bit.ly/fnX9ZU | #Assange / #Wikileaks & Vergewaltigung? http://bit.ly/f7LAAU

  352. grelbar

    I won't comment on the source but an interesting read none the less: http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  353. grelbar

    I won't comment on the source but an interesting read none the less: http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  354. grelbar

    I won't comment on the source but an interesting read none the less: http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  355. Will Roe

    Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 (via @ciphergoth)

  356. Will Roe

    Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 (via @ciphergoth)

  357. Will Roe

    Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 (via @ciphergoth)

  358. Speedy

    RT @axeolotl: ??? ?: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU – via …

  359. Timo Stollenwerk

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  360. Sandro Ducceschi

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  361. Reddit for Flipboard

    Assange not actually accused of Rape. Dude just didn't use a Condom and is being busted by some random Exclusive… http://bit.ly/eZVpEI

  362. Stefan

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  363. A. Babenhauserheide

    Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU via @babulski @holgi #politik

  364. surveyor k

    Assange isn’t accused of rape: The consent of both women to sex with Assange was confirmed by prosecutors. http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #cablegate

  365. Benjamin Thiel

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  366. Quemandoacromo

    Vía @libcon : No,Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape > http://t.co/aGwbkU8

  367. Bill Carlisle

    Julian Assange is not actually accused of rape, but of a "crime" that isn't a crime anywhere else in the world. . . http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  368. Salvador Gozzo

    Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación http://ow.ly/3j4Ec

  369. leftongreen

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://goo.gl/2oOwX

  370. Falk

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  371. Siju

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  372. Nick Kocharhook

    So @wikileaks head Julian Assange is wanted in .se on charges of "rape," yes? No. The sex was consensual and still is. http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  373. Rob Vincent

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  374. Rob Vincent

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  375. Pallab De

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  376. Pallab De

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  377. Cable Flame

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  378. cruiseback

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  379. Wikileaks Aux

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  380. Ella

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  381. niels bom

    Wikileaks-founder Julian Assange is accused of _Swedish_ rape, which isn't rape in the rest of the world. http://goo.gl/rSvRO (via @reddit)

  382. Enno W.

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  383. walther

    "Geplatztes Kondom" heißt in Schweden "Vergewaltigung": http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/abcZkO #assange #wikileaks

  384. Dylan Jay

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  385. Ivo F. Wolf

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  386. Ivo F. Wolf

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  387. Juan Pablo

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iBxKxyO via @libcon

  388. Juan Pablo

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iBxKxyO via @libcon

  389. Juan Pablo

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iBxKxyO via @libcon

  390. Juan Pablo

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iBxKxyO via @libcon

  391. Juan Pablo

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iBxKxyO via @libcon

  392. Reality Dysfunction

    RT @t44r3k: RT @ciphergoth: Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 #br …

  393. Thomas Hils

    Stop spreading misinformation! Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape. http://is.gd/i70kq

  394. javier Mesonero

    Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN] http://ow.ly/3j6DK

  395. Hagen

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/4HOZQfW

  396. Thomas Hils

    Stop spreading misinformation! Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape. http://is.gd/i70kq #wikileaks #julianassange #sweden

  397. Gohsuke Takama

    ??????????2??????????????????????? RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  398. Vero

    RT @javierM: Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN] http://ow.ly/3j6DK

  399. Luis

    RT @javierM: Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN] http://ow.ly/3j6DK

  400. Aitor Mercero

    RT @javierM: Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN] http://ow.ly/3j6DK

  401. Sheedy Jaye

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  402. Ben Huser

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/E6AuKgZ via @libcon

  403. Dag

    Assange is accused of consensual sex without a condom – NOT rape or any other kind of sexual misconduct http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  404. Ben Huser

    ? PRT @libcon No, Wikileaks' Julian Assange isn't accused of rape I Lberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  405. Aitor Urresti

    RT @javierM: Julian Assange NO está acusado de violación [EN] http://ow.ly/3j6DK

  406. Ben Huser

    ? PRT @libcon – Wikileaks' Julian Assange isn't accused of rape I Lberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  407. Andreas

    RT @restafari: Don't have sex in Sweden! http://bit.ly/ep9QVn http://bit.ly/fs9ZKQ http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/ck1pCm http://bit. …

  408. Andreas

    RT @restafari: Don't have sex in Sweden! http://bit.ly/ep9QVn http://bit.ly/fs9ZKQ http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/ck1pCm http://bit. …

  409. Eichman Goldstein

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  410. Eichman Goldstein

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  411. Daioptych

    ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? http://bit.ly/dI4JeU ??????? ???????? ?? ? ?????????????, ? ? ????? ??? ???????????? ??? ???????? ????????.

  412. Daioptych

    ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? http://bit.ly/dI4JeU ??????? ???????? ?? ? ?????????????, ? ? ????? ??? ???????????? ??? ???????? ????????.

  413. Rich Pav

    Leftist blog claims Assange accused not of rape, but of not using a condom. Take it with a grain of salt. http://is.gd/i748m

  414. Jeremy

    Turns out that Assange's rape charges are bogus: http://j.mp/dGoX08. #justbecauseyoureparanoiddoesntmeantheyarentouttogetyou #waronwikileaks

  415. Jeremy

    Turns out that Assange's rape charges are bogus: http://j.mp/dGoX08. #justbecauseyoureparanoiddoesntmeantheyarentouttogetyou #waronwikileaks

  416. The Mind Feed

    No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isnt accused of rape http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  417. Andy Campbell Smith

    RT @syn: Interesting – the accusations against Assange are *not* of rape. They're of not using a condom. No, really. http://bit.ly/dZ6sPq

  418. Natillaycanela

    RT @tjhils: Stop spreading misinformation! Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape. http://is.gd/i70kq #wikileaks #julianassang …

  419. GermanG

    RT @Pixis5: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iBxKxyO via @libcon

  420. Roger G

    Ok, so Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – he's been accused of not using a condom (strange swedish law) http://j.mp/hO5jqg

  421. MovingToMontana

    By the way, Julian Assange isn't actually accused of rape: http://is.gd/i7byo #bbc #itn #skynews #cablegate #wikileaks

  422. Jon Sandys

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://t.co/PKUGDEi via @libcon

  423. nicola bruno

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  424. hritchie

    The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors. http://trunc.it/d0868

  425. hritchie

    The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors. http://trunc.it/d0868

  426. hritchie

    The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors. http://trunc.it/d0868

  427. Mortimer Vanunu

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  428. Mortimer Vanunu

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  429. hritchie

    "The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors." http://trunc.it/d0868

  430. Ray Baskerville

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  431. John Ito

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  432. John Ito

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  433. Jack Webster

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GTn5GEu via @libcon

  434. Jack Webster

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GTn5GEu via @libcon

  435. Nicholas Stewart

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://j.mp/f66nQH

  436. Doug Bastien

    You know, like Wikileaks' Julian Assange, even Barack Obama could be accused of Rape in Sweden. And maybe you too. http://ow.ly/3j8cz

  437. Douglas Lucas

    RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  438. Douglas Lucas

    RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  439. Robert Watts

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YwyLysC vía @libcon

  440. Robert Watts

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YwyLysC vía @libcon

  441. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @citizensmitt: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://j.mp/f66nQH

  442. Paul L. Russell

    Assange wanted on not using Condom, not rape: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  443. Paul L. Russell

    Assange wanted on not using Condom, not rape: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  444. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @robertensevilla: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YwyLysC vía @libcon

  445. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @robertensevilla: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YwyLysC vía @libcon

  446. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @toastpaint: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GTn5GEu via @libcon

  447. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  448. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  449. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  450. Conspiracy2Riot

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  451. takterlukiskata

    Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  452. takterlukiskata

    pendiri wikileak Assange tidak dituduh memperkosa tapi melakukan seks tanpa kondom http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  453. Barb Ann Snow

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/MxXrc3G via @libcon

  454. citizen k

    http://is.gd/i7ugI Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – that's a lie western media loves spreading. Don't fall for it. #cablegate

  455. Demian

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ABZ1XUA via @libcon

  456. Will

    RT @brynrk: RT @tlupick: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (via @_Somnambulant_, @mcantelon)

  457. Tal Rotbart

    Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape. He is actually accused of not wearing a condom, I'm serious! http://goo.gl/fTXv7

  458. Tal Rotbart

    Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape. He is actually accused of not wearing a condom, I'm serious! http://goo.gl/fTXv7

  459. geekgirl

    Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape. He is accused of not wearing a condom, seriously! http://goo.gl/fTXv7 (via rotbart) [is this a leak?]

  460. geekgirl

    Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape. He is accused of not wearing a condom, seriously! http://goo.gl/fTXv7 (via rotbart) [is this a leak?]

  461. Matthew Kirton

    Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape, just accused of…. Wait for it… Not using a condom. http://is.gd/i7FG7

  462. Mark Hulme-Jones

    RT @rotbart: Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape. He is actually accused of not wearing a condom, I'm serious! http://goo.gl/fTXv7

  463. Zachary Alex Stern

    Julian Assange of wikileaks is not accused of rape. He is accused of breaking an obscure Swedish law on sex: http://j.mp/hO5jqg

  464. Amit Arora

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lN6Txb3 via @libcon

  465. i8 wamu

    CYBER-LYNCHING Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  466. duncan robertson

    Prosecutor confirms Assange's honeytraps consented to sex http://bit.ly/hxqtx6 and boasted about it http://bit.ly/hYsXPJ @prudentinvestor

  467. gpshead

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  468. ashwin jk

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KJlQvGg via @libcon

  469. Yuan Xue

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://goo.gl/fb/51lvO

  470. Lars Wessman

    This is interesting on a number of levels: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/hWbOLg

  471. Liza Paudel

    RT @cfarivar: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://me.lt/7gjl

  472. pebcak

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  473. Kushan Mitra

    Julian Assange is not guilty of rape, he had consensual sex, he just didn't use a condom – http://bit.ly/hbBOUy An Interpol warrant for this

  474. Rob Hunt

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  475. Martin

    So ist das, wenn man den großen auf die Füße tritt? Assange angeklagt wegen einvernehmlichem Sex ohne Kondom http://bit.ly/gosIKf #wikileaks

  476. Der Philipp

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  477. Robert Wiblin

    No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  478. Robert Wiblin

    No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  479. Reini Urban

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Nsq8mlX via @libcon

  480. Rohit Raj

    RT @kushanmitra: Julian Assange is not guilty of rape, he had consensual sex, he just didn't use a condom – http://bit.ly/hbBOUy An Inte …

  481. Celuloide

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/ Vaya, pues esto si que me sorprende

  482. Inso n Roll

    Assange accused by 2 women of not using condom despite their consent being predicated on him using a condom. It's rape? http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  483. Hinnerk Haardt

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  484. kraven2000

    ME PARTO!!! Assange no está perseguido por violación… sino por hacerlo sin condón sin avisar. http://bit.ly/hyOFnA

  485. kraven2000

    ME PARTO!!! Assange no está perseguido por violación… sino por hacerlo sin condón sin avisar. http://bit.ly/hyOFnA

  486. Tom Keetch

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  487. Ivar Zantinge

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  488. Socrates

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  489. Camilla

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  490. Sim-O

    "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  491. istyostyistyosty

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  492. Tim Ireland

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  493. Felix Faassen

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  494. Andy Bold

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  495. Derek Bryant

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  496. Mark Hooper

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  497. Greg Eden

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  498. Rob Wright

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  499. Ura-Akashiya Moka

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  500. Adnan Hussain

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  501. Tom Scott

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  502. Rachel

    RT @gregeden: RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  503. Milton Keynes

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  504. m@rco

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  505. Lewes Skeptic

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  506. Eylul D.

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  507. Tane Piper

    Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  508. La (inútil) resistencia de los Estados Unidos ante Wikileaks » El Blog de Enrique Dans

    [...] tristemente evidente que un presunto delito que ha sido desestimado ya en dos ocasiones y en el que las acusaciones no son por violación, sino por algo mucho más sutil y sometido a interpretaciones de todo tipo, representa una [...]

  509. Arend Lammertink

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  510. Amazon stops hosting WikiLeaks: I stop buying at Amazon. Boycott them now! WikiLeaks links. « indiworks

    [...] lawyer speaks for more about those “rape charches”… (www.crikey.com.au) and No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape “Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom…” (!!!) [...]

  511. James Robertson

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  512. Rangeeni

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  513. Adam Davies

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  514. NicolasGV

    Orwelliana: Julian Assange de Wikileaks no está acusado por violación, sino por tener sexo sin preseervativo. http://tinyurl.com/2wae7vj

  515. NicolasGV

    Orwelliana: Julian Assange de Wikileaks no está acusado por violación, sino por tener sexo sin preservativo. http://tinyurl.com/2wae7vj

  516. macybea

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  517. Hidde Jansen

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  518. psvensson

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  519. psvensson

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  520. psvensson

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  521. Gareth Jones

    http://tinyurl.com/3xur4c7 Wikileaks’s J Assange isnt accused of rape- both women's consent CONFIRMED by the prosecution

  522. Gareth Jones

    http://tinyurl.com/3xur4c7 Wikileaks’s J Assange isnt accused of rape- both women's consent CONFIRMED by the prosecution

  523. Gareth Jones

    http://tinyurl.com/3xur4c7 Wikileaks’s J Assange isnt accused of rape- both women's consent CONFIRMED by the prosecution

  524. nobby-Lobby

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  525. nobby-Lobby

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  526. nobby-Lobby

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  527. Eylul D.

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  528. PK Leaks

    Ha. "No, Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom" http://bit.ly/f7LAAU

  529. Edgardo Balduccio

    Acusación a Julian Assange: "No es perseguido por violación sino por tener sexo sin preservativo" http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (via @niklasgv)

  530. MindYourBusiness

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  531. Luis A. Cuevas

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/3paNBas via @libcon

  532. Mumma@Don't panic!

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  533. Ashok Argent-Katwala

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  534. Javier de la Dehesa

    #wikileaks (monotema, lo sé) vaya, la acusación de Assange no es por violación, si no por practicar sexo sin condón #¬¬ http://is.gd/i8xdN

  535. Gary M

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  536. AdamRamsay

    RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  537. Victor G.

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  538. Dave Mellows

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/flHRlN via @addthis

  539. Martin Hoffmann

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  540. Faaz

    @kuitenbrouwer maakt het juist nog vreemder, er is helemaal geen zaak: http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #assagne #wikileaks

  541. Nina

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  542. Barry Smit

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange is NOT accused of rape http://is.gd/i8Hng (via @faaz71)

  543. Max Colson

    "The consent of both women to have sex with Julian Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors". Oooops http://ht.ly/3jmKq

  544. Paddy Eden

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  545. Oliver Franklin

    RT @Padbrit: RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  546. Allister Hayman

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  547. Lorraine Janectic

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KBXjVpY via @libcon

  548. Daniel Selwood

    RT @johnb78 No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/etRIbV

  549. Igor Christodoulou

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  550. Sean McHale

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  551. mikedeboer

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  552. Richard Hering

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  553. Lee Hyde

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  554. Me Myself and I

    RT @johnb78: I wrote a thing on #wikileaks, rape, and the insanity of the Swedish legal system: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 – facts c/o @crikey …

  555. Eddy Bruel

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  556. Rooftop Jaxx

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/FGAsQAm via @libcon

  557. Sophielle

    RT @RooftopJaxx: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/FGAsQAm via @libcon

  558. jongoodbun

    RT @AdamRamsay: RT @libcon: No, Wikileaks's Julian Assange isn't accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  559. yaiza

    Bueno, y que Assange en realidad no esté acusado de violación, ¿qué os parece? http://alturl.com/c5pd2 Astonished estoy hoy.

  560. Jordie Bodlay

    #fd18jv3 http://bit.ly/h9X8WC SMH: Please stop calling it a 'rape' case. It is not a rape case at all. http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  561. Brandon Steili

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  562. Andrea Bedini

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  563. Lorraine Janectic

    @chucktodd No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KBXjVpY via @libcon

  564. Weekly Round Up « Not the Life I Planned

    [...] No, Wikileak’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape [...]

  565. Juan M.

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/5GZqP2W vía @libcon

  566. Walter Gröbchen

    RT @michelreimon: zu den vergewaltigungsvorwürfen gegen #assange: kann das hier jemand bestätigen?? http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 wäre ja ein meg …

  567. sunny hundal

    If you haven't read the v popular blogpost by @johnb78 yet: No, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  568. steve sharra

    Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape; he's accused of sex without a condom, not a crime anywhere but Sweden http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  569. i8 wamu

    CYBER-LYNCHING –> Wikileaks’s Julian Assange IS NOT accused of rape http://bit.ly/dKsnpx Bring on the bank files please

  570. i8 wamu

    CYBER-LYNCHING –> Wikileaks’s Julian Assange IS NOT accused of rape http://bit.ly/dKsnpx Bring on the bank files please

  571. Permbledhje: Beteja e pare e Informacionit ne Web. Zgjidhni anen tuaj!

    [...] Cështja si për çudi pas daljes së lajmit për dokumentat e reja është rihapur dhe akuza nga Gjykata Suedeze dhe në mandatin e Interpolit është për “abuzim seksual”/”përdhunim”. Këtu lind një problem jo i vogël pasi dhe vetë Suedezet kanë të vështirë të interpretojnë ligjin në fjalë, duhet futur më thellë dhe shikuar se çfarë Suedia konsideron “abuzim seksual”/”përdhunim”. [...]

  572. Rajiv Varma

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  573. Iain McGregor

    Assange is being prosecuted for having sex without a condom with someone who didn’t mind the lack of condom at the time http://bit.ly/dKsnpx

  574. Lerryn

    RT @therealsim_o: "No, Wikileaks Julian Assange isn't accused of rape" http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  575. Paul Annett

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  576. Tom Binns

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  577. Sophie B-Clarke

    RT @tombinns: RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikilea …

  578. Jim Cornelius

    @CathElliott Julian Assange apparently isn't being accused of rape http://bit.ly/dKsnpx (by @libcon)

  579. Danny van Read

    @davidallengreen Have you seen this, David ? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  580. CathElliott

    @JonathanHaynes Here (and behave!) http://bit.ly/essWl9

  581. allo

    @ferkl http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  582. David Meek

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  583. Dirk Weber

    It seems Asange is not being sought up as rapist but for not wearing a condom: http://is.gd/i9pRC

  584. Garen J. Torikian

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  585. No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy « The LP 72980/The LP 999 Blog

    [...] No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy. [...]

  586. Cat Elliott

    It doesn't. http://bit.ly/f7LAAU RT @ramrod_newell: Since when does a broken condom count as rape? When it suits, I guess…

  587. dsjkvf

    #Assange isn’t accused of rape but for not using a condom: http://bit.ly/hzZvC6 / It's not so simple, however. Why every law has a loophole?

  588. Eleanor Campion

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/a0xs8km via @libcon

  589. Ian Robinson

    RT @cat_elliott: It doesn't. http://bit.ly/f7LAAU RT @ramrod_newell: Since when does a broken condom count as rape? When it suits, I gue …

  590. Vegard A. Larsen

    RT @tanepiper: Julian Assange isn't being accused of rape – but rather for not using a condom: http://ow.ly/3jjBn #wikileaks #cablegate

  591. Ben Statton

    RT @Elefonzo: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/a0xs8km via @libcon

  592. Isi Roca

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape ? http://ow.ly/3jlNm

  593. Ho Geiger

    @corinnamilborn Vergewaltigung? Wohl eher nicht, wenn das hier stimmt: http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 #wikileaks

  594. Helge Fahrnberger

    @corinnamilborn Meines Wissens ist das durchaus üblich (wenn man von solchen Zweifeln jetzt mal absieht: http://bit.ly/fVlM3q )

  595. andreas habicher

    Sehr interessanter Lesestoff, danke @Helge: http://bit.ly/fVlM3q #wikileaks #rapecharge #background

  596. Wikileaks: Honi soit … « nachgetragen!

    [...] 2.12.2010: Auf der Seite „Liberal Conspiracy“ wird behauptet, dass der Vorwurf der schwedischen Behörden gegen Assange gar nicht auf [...]

  597. Dave Manchester

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  598. kanu_356ducts15-16

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t is now accused of rape – updated | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/aVjI2F6 via @libcon

  599. What a difference a bit of transparency makes « How good is that?

    [...] What have we learned this week? Well, the Russians are more corrupt than FIFA, politicians lie and Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape, he’s accused of instigating sex without a condom—which in the wacky world of the [...]

  600. Wikileaks

    [...] ingelesak eta InterPol-ek Julian Assange-en kontrako atxilotze agindu bat bota du, sexu-delitu bat [...]

  601. Georgie BC

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  602. Kay Deutsch

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  603. patris eliadis

    RT @ciphergoth: Wikileaks's Assange is NOT accused of rape, but a far weirder crime no sane country would have: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8

  604. Christopher Ulrich

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t is now accused of rape – updated | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/L3XmTmE #Wikileaks #Cablegate #Truth

  605. Cablegate / Wikileaks / Assange « hep-cat.de

    [...] der Lektüre dieser enthüllenden Seifenoper im “Daily Mail” nicht so richtig. Auch Kommentare und Versuche der Aufklärung über das schwedische Rechtsverständnis, erhellen die Szenerie um den [...]

  606. Florian Helling

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  607. wane kerr

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t is now accused of rape| Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/flHRlN he did shag the yanks with out lube

  608. Why it’s wrong to casually dismiss the allegations against Julian Assange | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] my issue with John Band’s piece on this site the other day is not that I think Assange is a man and all men are rapists therefore Julian Assange [...]

  609. El Blog de Enrique Dans – La (inútil) resistencia de los Estados Unidos ante Wikileaks & Senado, futuro y red neutral | Camp. Pendleton

    [...] tristemente evidente que un presunto delito que ha sido desestimado ya en dos ocasiones y en el que las acusaciones no son por violación, sino por algo mucho más sutil y sometido a interpretaciones de todo tipo, representa una [...]

  610. Clint David Samuel

    I think this is aimed at Wikileaks’ servers not Julian Assange, who isn’t is now accused of rape in absentia http://t.co/xJxLFx2 via @libcon

  611. esyr

    RT @daioptych: ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? http://bit.ly/dI4JeU ??????? ???????? ?? ? ?????????????, ? ? ????? ??? ???????????? ??? ?? …

  612. Tom Scott

    Orig LibCon article made that obv: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 RT @smileandsubvert 'accusations' less clear cut .. @sunny_hundal
    @KerryMP

  613. Tom Scott

    Orig LibCon article made that obv: http://bit.ly/fqcpI8 RT @smileandsubvert 'accusations' less clear cut .. @sunny_hundal @KerryMP

  614. Stefan P.

    Assange wird mit Haftbefehl gesucht, weil er ohne Gummi einvernehmliche Schäferstündchen hatte. http://bit.ly/f7LAAU #onlyinsweden #fb

  615. Tal Rotbart

    @jamesladd Oh he's definitely a fan of leaking in the conjugal dept. http://goo.gl/fTXv7

  616. Do left wing men always sell out women in the end? | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...]   December 6, 2010 at 5:06 pm The discussion following Cath Elliott’s response to John B’s piece on Julian Assange has mostly been about the rape allegations themselves. But I think there are [...]

  617. Bradford Ploen

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape | Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/hWx7df

  618. Julian Assange | Conspiracy Culture

    [...] more than a man being prosecuted for pissing off world governments. The full article can be found here. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← TSA = governmental [...]

  619. Putting things in context | Too Much To Say For Myself

    [...] to about Julian Assange and the sex crimes charges he’s facing in Sweden – ‘Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape’ (the title has since been [...]

  620. Stupratori colpevoli fino a provata… innocenza! « Milocca – Milena Libera

    [...] Che cosa e’ successo in quella fatidica estate 2010, nella fresca Stoccolma? Questa la killer line che ci fornisce Liberal Conspiracy per cercare di capire di cosa e’ stato accusato [...]

  621. The sovereign state of humanity « Feed U

    [...] ist..). Sowie die Hetze gegen Assange selbst, wegen einem angeblichen Vergewaltigungsvorwurf der nicht ganz eindeutig zu sein scheint. Das er nun untergetaucht ist, ist auch nicht unbedingt allzu günstig, da dies die [...]

  622. Kunja Chatterton

    RT @DirkWeber: It seems Asange is not being sought up as rapist but for not wearing a condom: http://is.gd/i9pRC

  623. Javier Martín

    Estaría bueno que se informe bien por qué detuvieron a Assange: por NO usar preservativo en una relación sexual http://1ul.com.ar/1506

  624. Daniel Zarzuelo

    Creo que el asunto de Suecia no se sostiene, no hay acusación http://bit.ly/f1mTd1 (eng)

  625. Javier Martín

    @juliarga http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  626. HahaHonk

    RT @holgi: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU Haha! (via @bab …

  627. Free Julian Assange! » El Blog de Enrique Dans

    [...] mala novela de misterio: los presuntos delitos cometidos por Julian Assange en Suecia se refieren a temas completamente interpretables, a sexo consentido entre adultos que se conocían previamente, y fueron desestimados en varias [...]

  628. Jesús Rodríguez

    Aunque lo dicen, Assange no está acusado de violación http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/gKJnz7 #wikileaks #freeassange #assange #censorship

  629. travis lupick

    No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  630. Beatriz Miau

    RT @JesusRodrc: Aunque lo dicen, Assange no está acusado de violación http://bit.ly/dKsnpx http://bit.ly/gKJnz7 #wikileaks #freeassange …

  631. Assange and “Rape-rape” | F For Philistine

    [...] figures have felt to examine the charges and exonerate Assange of any guilt. I’ve read countless blog posts, and tweets, predominantly by men, explaining that the Assange faces aren’t rape but “sex by [...]

  632. Álvaro Pintos Pena

    @emilio_diez se trata de desacreditar a Assenge por parte de los medios occidentales. NO está acusado de violación http://is.gd/ilFTn

  633. Dan Udey

    RT @tlupick: No, Wikileaks’s Julian Assange isn’t accused of rape http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  634. » Wikileaks en el fondo está mostrando lo obsoleto de nuestro modelo político » intercambia.net trucos para ahorrar, cosas gratis, trueques, consumo y salud

    [...] Adhominem: Al responsable de wikileaks muy probablemente se le ha construido una serie de crímenes falsos para [...]

  635. Jake Anders

    @whatkatie_did @mental_nigella Two articles from Liberal Conspiracy on why it's rather complex… http://bit.ly/dZFByW http://bit.ly/eOtGlz

  636. Please stop trivialising rape! « No comment

    [...] article published on lefty website Liberal Conspiracy defined Sarah’s reaction as ‘cross’ when she allegedly discovered [...]

  637. Liberen A Julian Assange « El blog sobre Seguridad Nacional en México

    [...] mala novela de misterio: los presuntos delitos cometidos por Julian Assange en Suecia se refieren a temas completamente interpretables, a sexo consentido entre adultos que se conocían previamente, y fueron desestimados en varias [...]

  638. Free Julian Assange!

    [...] mala novela de misterio: los presuntos delitos cometidos por Julian Assange en Suecia se refieren a temas completamente interpretables, a sexo consentido entre adultos que se conocían previamente, y fueron desestimados en varias [...]

  639. Oliver Jahnel

    RT @ArneBab: Julian #Assange wird KEINE Vergewaltigung vorgeworfen, sondern was komplett Hirnrissiges http://bit.ly/f7LAAU via @babulski …

  640. Banditry » There’s still no case against Julian Assange

    [...] other words, there is no rape case under English law, because nobody was raped. My original piece was substantially correct on the facts, and nothing was said in court to back up the allegation [...]

  641. El Blog de Enrique Dans – entre otros. | Camp. Pendleton

    [...] mala novela de misterio: los presuntos delitos cometidos por Julian Assange en Suecia se refieren a temas completamente interpretables, a sexo consentido entre adultos que se conocían previamente, y fueron desestimados en varias [...]

  642. Innocent until proven guilty – Assange deserves our (conditional) support | Left Futures

    [...] a good account of the UK web discussion). When dismissive comments were finally made, such as at Liberal Conspiracy, it was on the basis of considerable uncertainty about the accusations: Assange’s lawyer, [...]

  643. Edward Andersson

    Only just read this #Assange case. Writer lacks both brains & knowledge of subject matter. http://bit.ly/f1mTd1

  644. Time for Wikileaks to sack Julian Assange « Shiraz Socialist

    [...] Assange the potential rapist. Cath Elliott makes some good points in response to John Band’s nasty, dismissive piece about the Assange rape allegations. Of course we know that leftwing males will indulge misogyny [...]

  645. Free Julian Assange!

    [...] novela de misterio: los presuntos delitos cometidos por Julian Assange en Suecia se refieren a temas completamente interpretables, a sexo consentido entre adultos que se conocían previamente, y fueron desestimados en varias [...]

  646. Time for Wikileaks to sack Julian Assange « Max Dunbar

    [...] Assange the potential rapist. Cath Elliott makes some good points in response to John Band’s nasty, dismissive piece about the Assange rape allegations. Of course we know that leftwing males will indulge misogyny [...]

  647. lotuspad

    If u were wondering what Assange is accused of: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

  648. Pontus Westerberg

    @oxkev This is the kind of stuff I mean: http://bit.ly/dKsnpx @garydunion

  649. A year of campaigns and statistics – How 2010 shaped up for us | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] top 20 blog-posts by number of readers 1. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange isn’t is now accused of rape – John B 2. WTF? Sun paints Cameron as Obama for front page 3. Have [...]

  650. Erling Hellenäs

    "Mr Assange is a threat to the order of international comfy lying" http://bit.ly/dYjyDW

  651. WikiLeaks Updates

    #Wikileaks' Julian Assange isn't is now accused of rape – updated … http://j.mp/mHkHHl #blog

  652. Masato Shiotsu - co2

    RT @wikicables: #Wikileaks' Julian Assange isn't is now accused of rape – updated … http://j.mp/mHkHHl #blog

  653. David Coburn UKIP

    @braingarbage @swedenvsassange this what what #Assange is accused of which would never be considered a crime in UK
    http://t.co/l4CfsPPg

  654. David Coburn UKIP

    @madsvid In the UK the accusation is not considered to be a crime – there needs to reciprocity
    http://t.co/l4CfsPPg

  655. David Coburn UKIP

    @BenMcCombe @madsvid That is just some blogger's view – here is an opposing blogger's view http://t.co/l4CfsPPg #Assange

  656. WireNews+Co

    Wikileaks’ Julian Assange accused of rape – updated | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hS4lJ5Pd – read worthy post

  657. Anonymous

    @DavidAllenGreen @georgegalloway Is everything in this article untrue? http://t.co/6iP2svdG





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.