Julian Assange Faces Rape Investigation In Sweden — Updated 1017
mpawlo was one of many readers who have sent news that a warrant has been issued in Stockholm, Sweden for WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange. The investigation apparently involves "one report of rape and one report of harassment." The story was broken by Swedish tabloid Expressen (original in Swedish), and later picked up by more reputable sources like CNN and the BBC, who say the warrant has been confirmed by Swedish authorities. The WikiLeaks Twitter feed has commented three times about the charges so far, first saying they were warned of 'dirty tricks,' then that they hadn't been contacted by Swedish police, and then a statement from Assange saying the charges are without basis.
Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn. Aftonbladet has coverage in Swedish. Chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
Update: 08/21 15:58 GMT by S : Multiple sources are now reporting that the warrant for Assange's arrest has been withdrawn. Aftonbladet has coverage in Swedish. Chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Government plays dirty when you expose their secrets
If you play with matches... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmph (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Julian is crazy, but he is not stupid.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, any charges against Assange are going to look that way, real or fabricated. Remember the old joke about conspiracy theories: if there's evidence to support them, then the truth has been uncovered, and if there's no evidence to support them, that just proves the conspirators are doing a good job of covering up.
My prediction is that this whole affair will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's a chance Assage committed a horrible crime. Does that really change anything about his work with WikiLeaks, questionable though it's been at times. HIs actions may contextualize prior or future events, but they cannot solely define them.
Re:Timing,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it's ever resolved, or how it is. If you want to don your tin foil hat, then you can say that his character assassination has been successfully completed at this point. The fact that there is not one, but two claims both does a better job of character assassination, and makes it stick that much better. From this point forward, even if he's been cleared at a later point, there will forever be that stigma in whispered tones at the edge of conversation, "Julian Assange? I heard two girls accused him of rape".
In some ways the damage is done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is a false accusation, and I believe it is, I would also suspect that agents would be assigned to astroturf media sites with posts supporting the accusations and charges.
Every newscast from now on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, they wouldn't leave it to chance: If they found him, they'd likely just plant a gun on him (if he isn't carrying one) and claim they had to shoot him because he was resisting arrest for rape.
Or to put it another way: If they put the same effort into doing something about Osama bin Laden as they're putting into doing something about Julian Assange, I suspect bin Laden would be either in Gitmo or 6 feet under by now. But the again, maybe that's because Assange committed the cardinal sin of questioning the US military, whereas all Osama's done is blow up a few buildings and since then acted as a convenient Emmanuel Goldstein.
Re:This just in (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't change the past leaks, no. But it does question the leadership of Wikileaks and its future. If he's convicted, there'll be a need for a new figurehead; if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.
No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing some (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that then, as now, a large number of posters have decided that there is just no way he could have done it. With Reiser when the guilty verdict was handed down there were still plenty of people who decried how stupid the jury was, how there clearly wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty and so on... Until he confessed and gave the location of the body.
Same deal here, people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him. I don't mean given him the benefit of the doubt and said "Well let's see what evidence comes up," I mean saying that this is clearly an evil government plot, even though there is, of course, no evidence of that at this point.
It is just how it goes here. Geek heroes can do no wrong in the eyes of some and they'll come up with any number of reasons as to why something they did clearly must be a frame job by someone else.
As for this particular case, I'll have to see what, if anything, comes out. It could be a deliberate smear campaign against him, though I'm a bit doubtful of that as the risk of backfire would be pretty large. Could just be someone making shit up, this happens even to people who aren't well known never mind people who are. Could be he actually did it, the guy has a massive ego and questionable morals and may not have even thought he did anything wrong. We'll just have to see if anything comes of this.
Of course, the utter lack of information at this point won't stop a massive number of conspiracy theories from being posted here about how this is clearly a government frame job.
I thought Child Porn (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were the judge on this one I would accept no evidence short of a witness such as Nelson Mandela. I hope they solidly investigate his accusers to check what they have been up to for the last while and see if they have any relations to US interests or large payoffs.
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Timing,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
Well what it could do, at least for some people, is call motives in to question. Right now you see two major theories at to why he does what he does and in particular why he chose to leak a bunch of classified data which appears to have little to no public value:
1) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. What he does is not at all about him, it is about the greater good, about making the world a better place. He believes that what he does is necessary.
2) He's an egomaniac with questionable morals who likes puff himself up be getting the better of people and exposing them. He leaks indiscriminately, including documents of no real value (like sorority secrets) because it gets him attention, power, and gives him a thrill. All the "public good" stuff is just bullshit, he doesn't really care, it is all about him and his ego.
Well, if he actually committed a rape, it would indicate that #2 is more likely. You obviously have to have some twisted morals to want to rape someone and ego and power are a big part of it. It is as much about exerting your will on another as the sexual gratification. So it would be an indicator that indeed his work on Wikileaks was for self centered reasons.
Now even if he did it all for selfish reasons that doesn't mean that you are required to find it worthless. You could certainly say "I don't care why he did it *I* believe it is valuable and necessary, and a good thing for society." The value needs to be evaluated independent of anything he says or does and nay reasons he has.
Tell That To His Dick (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just sayin'
Folks here seem to believe that rape is some item on a to-do list, waiting to be ticked off.
Not saying that whole thing is not part of a Dirty Trick, just that if there IS some truth to it, rational thought has nothing to do with it.
Re:If you play with matches... (Score:3, Insightful)
truth speaks for itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not limited to Geek heroes. Just look at Roman Polanski and the support got from his peers.
Re:I thought Child Porn (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't count on that. We have a thoroughly politicized police and court system run by psychopaths, cowards and opportunists. Once the powers that be have decided to get you, you have no chance whatsoever.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.
This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.
By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless he's a raging alcoholic, I don't think Assange is so stupid to rape twice in a week, while the US government is looking for him and he has the attention of the world. Of course, there is a slight chance the allegations are real, but I find it very peculiar that no such charges has been made earlier. I'm with the conspiracy theorists on this one. I was fairly trusting in the 90's, but after the 00's I don't trust the industrial-military complex nor the US Government to play by the rules.
I agree about how people are usually more complex than hero/villain, though. Assange may very well have other skeletons in his closet, but - well - I think "they" picked the crime to be rape simply because it's a "he said, she said" kind of crime unless there was a huge scuffle. As such, it's perfect for character assassination - charges of rape sows the seeds of doubt in the heads of those who are not firmly behind Assange (and don't think this through).
Re:Funny aspect of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Timing,,, (Score:1, Insightful)
Even more so is the fact that there are two girls that have been raped. I see two possibilities:
1. The guy went on a raping tour of Sweden. That happens sometimes. Who knows.
2. The girls were given an offer they couldn't refuse by assets of the western intelligence community. That also happens, unfortunately.
Another Hans Reiser? (Score:1, Insightful)
JA seems really attracted to standing in the limelight. He may well have a narcissistic tendency. Just my impression from seeing him in video's and pictures. It's unusual for such people to commit rape or violence when facing rejection.
OTOH, this has to be proven first. I find it highly unlikely that these accusations have been fabricated to damage wikileaks. That would be much too obvious in such a case.
It's not the first time someone from the free software/free information movement has been accused of something like this
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Next you'll be arguing that it's possible that Roman Polanski is both a child-abusing rapist and a great filmmaker, that Bill Clinton is both a skilled chief executive and diplomat and a horn-dog, that Oscar Wilde was both a pederast and a great playwright, that D.W. Griffiths was both an innovative director and a racist. And we all know that's simply not possible!
Re:This just in (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't care about actually convicting him, nor about actually killing him.
Character assassination is the only goal here.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:2, Insightful)
In regard to rape, it is typically a crime based on power, not sex, and so the accessibility of an alternative willing partner has nothing to do with it.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it states that rape does occur here in Sweden and that it is possible for even a "celebrity" to commit such a crime.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Say the US secret services wanted to get the WikiLeaks founder locked. Why not do something much simpler like planting child pornography on one of his computers?
I think you may over-estimate the capabilities of the US intelligence agencies here. For one, we can assume that someone like Julian Assange takes precautions when it comes to having their home computers hacked. When I say precautions, I mean they're going to have their computers locked down. Most hacking that happens is either mass scanning to find vulnerable systems or, if specifically targeted as this case would need to be, dependent on a target that doesn't keep a rigorously up to date and secure system. So a remote hack to put child porn (or other incriminating evidence on there) may not be possible. Particularly in a country where the telecomms wont casually hand over information to the US Intelligence Agencies.
So then you have to go for physical access. And whilst it's very hard to prevent people from breaking into your home if they're determined, it's a great deal easier to make it hard to do so undetected. Intelligence agencies will have access to locksmiths who can open up a door without force, and they'll have security people who can disable some burglar alarms using manufacturer codes, etc. But this works against the casual home-owner. If someone wants to take a couple of hours setting up more secure systems, 24/7 camera feeds or spending a bit of money on more serious alarms, locks, etc. then it's going to get really difficult. Particularly in anything other than a secluded countryside home where the owner is away all day. And we haven't even got started on the actual tampering with the computer yet. Stick a sick picture on someone's NTFS partition? Easy. Mount someone's encrypted home partition and add something in, make sure it's also added to their last few weeks backups (because you don't want it to provably have appeared whilst the owner was known to be away for the weekend. Oh, I could go on. Basically, if you know what you're doing and you take the time to prepare, and I assume both for this guy, then you can make things really fucking difficult for the intelligence agencies. Particularly if they're from a foreign country that your government wont fall over for.
Mud-slinging is actually, imo, the US governments easiest response and to be honest, expected. There are always those who will say "no smoke without fire".
These rape and harassment charges are trickier to fabricate. Remember, this is not the 19th century, there is plenty of forensic muscle in existence that can prove or disprove rape.
That I don't believe. Either way, in fact. You can check bruises in likely places that can suggest force, but some people like forceful sex and this can be consensual and bruises can be fabricated if your intent is to frame. As regards disprove rape, that's even worse. Far worse, in fact. If someone submits out of fear, it is still rape even if there are no bruises. And if you're thinking of the state of the vagina afterwards, that you can see evidence that they weren't very wet or relaxed during sex, again, this disproves nothing. It is actually quite possible for the body to be responsive to sexual stimulation during rape, even to the extent that a person reaches climax. Forced orgasm, or simply a lot of wetness, can be very confusing for a victim who questions whether it meant they were willing or not, what it says about them. It can make people feel very ashamed even though it's simply their body doing what seems natural to it. But it's still rape so long as one party was made to have sex through force or the threat of force, and forensic science can't "prove or disprove rape".
Re:Timing,,, (Score:2, Insightful)
The value needs to be evaluated independent of anything he says or does...
Correct, and it nullifies everything you said previously to it in your post.
You illustrated perfectly the ad hominem the poster you're replying to warned of -- "motive" is just another way to say "circumstantial ad hominem."
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't change the past leaks, no. But it does question the leadership of Wikileaks and its future. If he's convicted, there'll be a need for a new figurehead; if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.
Actually.. If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated. Or are you trying to fulfil your own prophesy?
Rape is a brutal and despicable crime. And is unusual in that the accused is tried and convicted before they set foot in court in some people's minds purely because they have been accused...
What such people fail to accept though, is that accusations are easy. The accusation can be made long after any hope of any kind of forensic evidence is gone. Think of the last non related woman you had any interaction with.. They are perfectly capable of making an accusation. Does that make you guilty?
How about the last person who saw you naked. Can they describe a distinctive mark anywhere on your body? Is that proof or a reasonable thing for someone who engaged in consensual sex to be aware of?
Proving the crime either way is hard.
But just out of curiosity.
Suppose the two women in question withdraw the accusation in a few weeks? Will he still be probably guilty?
Suppose it is found that the two women in question each had a substantial amount of money deposited in their bank accounts the day they filed the charges?
Suppose someone drops off a document detailing this very strategy as CIA operating procedure?
Or suppose these two women are just trying to get some hush money from a publicly known figure?
You must surely admit that the timing of the incident is very convenient. Suspiciously well timed. I acknowledge the possibility. I don't assume it. Not a conspiracy nut. Just someone who is aware of how eager an embarrassed government can be to cover up the facts if they can.
Not the first time such things have been done by various governments. And I'm sure it would not be the last.
Or he may be unarguably and completely guilty. We have no idea. You believe what you want. I'll wait for the case to be heard before I make any judgement either way.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
And when someone is forced out by rumour and accusation, why do you think their successor will fare any better? All you've achieved is (a) shown that using such tactics is a great way to get rid of people who cause you problems and (b) fucked up someone's life when they're the person that admitted guilt by leaving their job because of rape accusations.
Re:This just in (Score:2, Insightful)
Any enemy of the US is our friend.
I'll bet you'll shut up the next time something bad happens to your country and the U.S. parks a giant hospital ship off your shores and starts dispensing free medical care. Hopefully that won't happen, but if it does, you probably won't turn to Russia, or China, or North Korea, or any of the countries truly deserving of your ire. Nope, the world always expects the U.S. to do all the heavy lifting, and when we do, you still complain. Well you know what? For our part, we're tired of all the losers who have screwed their own societies into the ground and expect us to do something about it.
Hypocrite. You know, generally speaking posters from other countries are one of this site's assets. You, on the other hand, appear to have nothing to contribute.
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe because it's what civilised societies do - innocent until proven otherwise.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
By your argument Mike Tyson would have been innocent of rape purely on his celebrity status granting him a plethora of women willing to sleep with him.
Re:In some ways the damage is done (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't mouthpieces like Rush already use every slur they can think of to refer to Assange?
However, whilst IANAL an acquittal would AFAIK give Assange better chances of successfully suing anyone making such allegations for libel or slander or alternatively force Rush et al. to watch their mouths more. The reason being that in any libel or slander case one criterion is the likelihood that someone believes the (false) allegations and if there indeed were to first be media coverage of a trial and afterwards false statements made despite an acquittal, people that only follow "sources" like Rush would be more likely to believe the allegations as true unless they're clearly preceeded by "I still think he did it" or something similar making clear that the statement is not a fact. Consequently Assange would be more able to claim that there has indeed been damage done - unlike if Rush just stated that "Assange eats babies for breakfast", which no reasonable person would believe. Any libel or slander suit by Assange is of course entirely hypothetical since he - for obvious reasons - isn't able to undertake any legal action in the US.
Not Rape? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, swedish law classifies a lot of things as "rape" that wouldn't be rape in other countries (this can be seen by looking at swedish rape statistics before and after the relevant changes to the law).
So are you pulling a Whoopi Goldberg and saying that this isn't "rape rape"?
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:5, Insightful)
people have presupposed Assange's innocence because they like him. I don't mean given him the benefit of the doubt and said "Well let's see what evidence comes up," I mean saying that this is clearly an evil government plot, even though there is, of course, no evidence of that at this point.
Yeah, well, quite possibly that is because the majority of /. readers are from the USA. You know, where you are PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
So until there is sufficient proof offered, Julian, in the eyes of most Americans, is completely innocent and the charges are completely bogus.
Likewise, until sufficient proof is offered, the US government is not performing a conspiracy. But /. does tend to draw out the conspiracy theories ;)
-Rick
Re:Not Rape? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, swedish law classifies a lot of things as "rape" that wouldn't be rape in other countries (this can be seen by looking at swedish rape statistics before and after the relevant changes to the law).
So are you pulling a Whoopi Goldberg and saying that this isn't "rape rape"?
It'd be okay if a 13 year old girl was the victim.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rape is felt by the victim as an act of dominance and control. We have no reason to believe the motivation of the perpetrator and the feeling of the victim are correlated.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Rape? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the grandparent was just explaining why the number of reported rapes was so high in Sweden.
As yet, there is no evidence Assange even had sex with those women.
Re:This just in (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'll bet you'll shut up the next time something bad happens to your country (oil is found) and the U.S. parks a giant hospital ship (USS Enterprise) off your shores and starts dispensing free medical care ('cause a JDAM a day keeps the doctors away).
Sorry, that was just "truly deserving" ; ).
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making the completely incorrect assumption that the US wants him dead. (Well, the US government. As an American, what I want and what the US government wants are two different things.) The US government doesn't. Dead men become martyrs for their cause.
The US policy has always been to discredit Wikileaks, by discrediting Assange himself, by placing false information on the site, and by generally doing everything they can to smear anything related to it as unreliable.
A rape charge is perfectly within the realms of what the US's policy on Wikileaks. Remember, their plans were leaked onto Wikileaks, and the plan wasn't to destroy Wikileaks outright, but rather to convince everyone that they're not trustworthy.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course GP was trolling, but your view is too one-sided too. The goodwill that the US gets for helping out other countries is for a large part negated by them screwing up other countries when that suits their political purposes. But they screw up their own country too, and whatever happens to the US has an impact that's felt all around the world.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot the bit about guaranteeing security, for free, for the better part of the last century. That cost a few bucks for sure, but none of that matters. Notice how the Time magazine cover sporting the nose-less girl went virtually unnoticed on the left? Being reminded that the taliban really are the bad guys doesn't fit with the world view these idiots like to project. The US could stand on it's head trying to avoid civilian casualties while the taliban murders entire villages and the left would still scream the first time somebody turned up with a hangnail. They've already made up their minds and nothing is going to change them.
Anyway the strange thing (to me) about these charges isn't that they surfaced, it's that they were issued in Sweden, one of the biggest liberals of the European liberal democracies and perhaps the least likely to gin up bogus charges - all with a sitting US president who is politically the farthest to the left ever. Worse yet, Assange clearly has a gigantic ego - you'd have to to think you could start a website exposing the secrets of nations without trouble. What if it's true? What if Assange is a John Edwards/Al Gore league sanctimonious gasbag who just can't keep his zipper up or his hands to himself? It's not like this sort of thing is uncommon - there are news stories every day about the high and mighty falling at the word of the bimbo of the week. HP just lost their high flying CEO two weeks ago - this kind of behavior comes with the territory.
Additionally, the whole issue of rape charges is probably moot anyway. Assange can just buy a chalet next door to Roman Polanski and call it a day.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't US government bashing. If he was releasing English documents or French documents at this moment I would swap out US for France or England. He just so happens to be releasing a few thousand US military classified documents making the US kind of high on the suspect list these days. I would expect pretty much any government in the world would be more than happy to do far worse to protect military secrets.
As for the "but he is still alive!"... seriously, Assange dying wouldn't be a LITTLE suspicious? Assange himself isn't the problem. It isn't like if he dies it all goes away. Turning him into a martyr, which is exactly what will happen if he ends up dead, won't solve anything. If anything, it will make it a thousand times worse. Wikileaks would just release everything, the US (or whatever nation he has pissed off recently) would look like shit, and everyone would agree Wikileaks is justified if governments are resorting to murdering disgruntle open government advocates.
Pinning him with a couple of rape charges which don't even need to stick to be effective is exactly the most ideal move you could make. You don't turn him into a martyr, but you do damage the public face of Wikileaks. Further, like I said, it is a pretty damn easy charge to hit him with. It is certainly easier than martyring the guy. Just get a woman to make the accusation. Bonus points if she seduces him and then after (or before) the fact goes to town on her va-ja-ja with a dildo to give it some physical evidence of rape. Trivial, nearly impossible to disprove, and well within the capability of pretty much any spy agency.
I am generally pretty much not into conspiracy theories, but in this case, extreme skepticism is called for. More than one government has the incentive to do it, it is brain dead easy to pull off, and it is the single most damaging thing you could possibly do to wiki leaks. As an added bonus, it doesn't even have to stick to do damage. Sweden could drop the charges tomorrow saying there isn't enough evidence and the damage would already be done.
I'm not saying he couldn't be a rapist, but some hardcore skepticism is needed when someone who has pissed off every spy agency in the world is suddenly having his reputation trashed.
Re:This just in (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree - far too early to speculate on whether or not he's guilty, but I expect this will follow much the same pattern here on /. as other cases historically where someone with a bit of notoriety & "folk hero" status in the geek world is accused of something. Don't forget, there was "NO WAY" that Hans Reiser could be guilty; Same way Terry Childs "was just doing his job".
We don't want to believe that, perhaps, some of the people like us are capable of doing rotten things, too - think of it as "Say it ain't so, Joe!" for the geek set. Maybe it isn't so, and maybe it is, we'll have to wait and see what information is released.
Re:I thought Child Porn (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't even NEED large payoffs, you just need to intimidate someone and THAT is much easier done than some may think.
Have you or your relatives ever under-reported your income for any of the previous years?
Have you ever been involved in any even slightly illegal activity?
Also would you be scared if you or your relatives or friends were threatened by a government agency if you didn't do what they told you to do?
Just saying, you don't even need money. It's even better if there is no money involved, only some threats that are not perceived as idle.
Re:Character assasination in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
He's too high-profile to be killed off without it being obvious. Terrorists don't tend to care about PR all that much, or would even be glad to take credit for an attack. The US government, on the other hand, has an image and moral high ground to protect. Particularly in this case, where the leak greatly damages their credibility, killing the leaker would make it much worse. Hence the character assassination.
(However, Assange should worry about pissing off Mossad. From what they pulled off in Dubai, they don't seem to care about image issues or international opinion much either.)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway the strange thing (to me) about these charges isn't that they surfaced, it's that they were issued in Sweden, one of the biggest liberals of the European liberal democracies and perhaps the least likely to gin up bogus charges...
... Swedish authorities ginning up charges at the behest of US interests??? ask the pirate bay...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_raid [wikipedia.org]
Re:Timing,,, (Score:3, Insightful)
Well what it could do, at least for some people, is call motives in to question
- OK, so let's say Assange is found guilty of some crime and in fact let's even say that his motives ARE questionable.
Here is the answer to all of that: his motives don't matter, we must still get all the information that wikileaks provides, it's our information, it needs to be opened.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Timing,,, (Score:0, Insightful)
2) He's an egomaniac with questionable morals who likes puff himself up be getting the better of people and exposing them. He leaks indiscriminately, including documents of no real value (like sorority secrets) because it gets him attention, power, and gives him a thrill. All the "public good" stuff is just bullshit, he doesn't really care, it is all about him and his ego.
So what? Motivation doesn't matter, result does. Historically, actions have always been evaluated on the result it had, rather than the motivation of the actor. Actions are considered good if it led to the betterment of society or bad if it has an adverse effect
Well, if he actually committed a rape, it would indicate that #2 is more likely. You obviously have to have some twisted morals to want to rape someone and ego and power are a big part of it. It is as much about exerting your will on another as the sexual gratification. So it would be an indicator that indeed his work on Wikileaks was for self centered reasons.
I don't subscribe to the logic suggested here. By this line of logic one single action is enough to elevate a person to heights of purity or to the depths of depravity. It is very much our failing as a society to color a person in either black or white and all their past and future actions in the same light. We are neither purity personified nor evil incarnate, if ever there are such things. No, we are merely human, and which particular shade of grey we are, is a choice every single one of us have to make every conscious moment of our life. Maybe this choice is what defines us as human and all our failures and all our achievements.
Now even if he did it all for selfish reasons that doesn't mean that you are required to find it worthless. You could certainly say "I don't care why he did it *I* believe it is valuable and necessary, and a good thing for society." The value needs to be evaluated independent of anything he says or does and nay reasons he has.
Bingo
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but in Assange's case, he wields power by publishing secret documents. Not quite the profile of a rapist.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe"
Highlighted the reason why. Let me make up som example numbers;
Sweden - actual rapes 1,000 - reported 50% = 500 rapes.
Exampleistan - actual rapes 20,000 - reported 1% = 200 rapes.
Which country has the most rapes?
See the problem?
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet you'll shut up the next time something bad happens to your country and the U.S. parks a giant hospital ship off your shores and starts dispensing free medical care.
While I don't deny that the US sometimes does good, invading a country and then offering hospital services to some of the victims is not a recipe for popularity. The people of Iraq didn't ask USA to dispose their dictator by force.
I agree that the grandparent was out of line, though. Bashing USA in every conceivable way is not a solution.
Hopefully that won't happen, but if it does, you probably won't turn to Russia, or China, or North Korea, or any of the countries truly deserving of your ire.
I'd turn to Germany, England, Norway and Denmark.
Nope, the world always expects the U.S. to do all the heavy lifting, and when we do, you still complain.
As critical as I am of US foreign policy, this is unfortunately true. If the USA didn't take care of many of the hotbeds and warzones of the world, some other country would have to assume the responsibility. A friend of mine expressed it roughly like this: "Most people don't want to find out what could make them miss George Bush."
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr...no, no it isn't. Being in possession of a penis and attracted to women does not make anyone a potential rapist or provide motivation for being one. I simply don't understand this strange correlation you seem to be making here.
--bornagainpenguin
Shame on you (Score:1, Insightful)
America, you should be ashamed of the way your country wages war. Using the accusation of rape as a weapon....
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
The threat of punishment does not deter most criminals, who believe they will not be caught, or who are committing a crime of passion.
The act of punishment, which in the modern world means incarceration in most cases, leads to further crime.
Perhaps we should be trying to help people instead of locking them in a box, or in countries like the USA, a rape factory.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, activity performed for the purpose of reproduction and "power" have no mutual causation links whatsoever.
In a "field" that is nearly entirely composed of "feminists" and "social studies" types...
The result of which is constant goal-post shifting of definitions such as "rape" which 100 years ago meant a forceful, violent sexual assault and these days "I, kinda, felt like yes, but in the back of my mind I was like no, but it was like I let him, but then, like, I changed my mind, I am a victim, you see, I always am!" followed by the "social worker" going "You pooooor thing! You deserve millions from that asshole rapist!!!" ... which is what the litmus test is now in Sweden (and getting weaker every day with the predictable result of Swedish "rape" statistics skyrocketing - surpassing most of Africa now, which prompts the screeching "feminists" do demand more broad definitions - lather, rinse, repeat).
Because its "rape", you know... all about power!
Come to think about it, it does seem that it is all about "power" but of the "feminist" kind...
In short there is no coincidence that "rape" is the weapon of choice here. Smart tactics calls for using the most appropriate tool for the job and in modern day Sweden "rape" is most definitely the most likely to succeed.
Re:This just in (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The girls are attention whores or pissed-off at Assange for some reason and made it all up themselves. They picked Assange because he was in the news and an acquaintance they had recently been alone with.
2. The US Govt masterminded the entire drama and the girls are going along with it because they were convincingly threatened or paid-off by "men-in-black" or had some other incentive (they are actually CIA spies following orders?? fanatically patriotic towards the US? Hate Assange's guts for some reason and were recruited by CIA? Other?).
3. Assange *HIMSELF* masterminded the entire drama with the willing cooperation of the girls (becasue they love him, or he's paying them, or they love a good gag, or whatever) which will later evolve into the girls recanting everything and claiming they were coerced by unidentified secret agents of the CIA who only contacted them in person when no other witnesses were around. US govt can't prove anything and can only deny it's involvement. In fact neither side can prove anything, but Assange doesn't *have* to prove anything -- no-one would expect him to be able to prove secret CIA agents were involved. Assange and the girls claim they are all victims of the CIA (rogue or otherwise) and they milk it for all the publicity and the public sympathy it's worth. The US Intelligence agencies look more bumbling and inept than they already do, even though they didn't do squat. Assange comes away with a more credible foundation to deny any actual frame-ups later attempted by the US.
4. The girls are blowing the situation out of proportion (either intentionally or unintentionally).
5. Assange is a creep and is guilty as charged.
Occam's Razor, anyone?
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the feminist/social sciences dogma. See Palmer & Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape [wikipedia.org] for a different dogmatic response.
There, fixed that for you. The movement in evolutionary psychology is no less unexamined in its belief that psychology results from evolution than are the feminists and social scientists. Palmer and Thornhill miss a lot in their analysis. What drives male/male rapes? Incest with young children? Rape with objects? In other ports? The science is pretty poor and the solution-- chicks should dress more modestly and try to seem "unavailable."
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, that was just "truly deserving" ; ).
Why? Can you dispute the original comment, rather than making another stupid anti-America rant? Haiti certainly benefited from our parking a giant hospital ship off of its shores, and while we were doing all that, other countries were complaining that we had created "too large" a presence there (meanwhile sending no aid of their own) as if thousands of dead or dying people could give a damn about that. In fact, they wanted more of our help.
I might add that the nations who we buy oil from make a pretty damn good piece of change from it, so your implication that the U.S. just attacks any country with oil reserves and takes it from them is just, well, utterly full of shit. Unbelievably so, in fact. You might ask the good people who were once subjects of the Soviet Union how they would feel about your comment. They know what it's like to have something taken from them at tankpoint.
Sorry, that was just truly deserving and I don't need to put quotes around it.
Re:Warrant CANCELED (Score:5, Insightful)
I was expecting something like this might happen. If this was targeted character assassination that's mission accomplished. Assange's name dragged through the dirt and his as well as Wikileaks' name associated successfully with rape. Now everyone can start using the following in any new press releases on a next wikileaks release: "Julian Assange, who was recently accused of rape in Sweden, has released...."
I am really curious if anyone is going to try to get to the bottom of this and find out what the hell just happened. Where did the accusations come from, why was it decided an arrest warrant should be issued and why has that same arrest warrant been withdrawn not even 24 hours later. This just stinks to high heaven. My guess? Some vague statements will be issued by the Swedish prosecutors office and that's all we'll ever find out.
Re:This just in (Score:2, Insightful)
The US could stand on it's head trying to avoid civilian casualties
If Wikileaks has shown us one thing - it's that they don't.
Re:No but that didn't stop geeks from inventing so (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a classic "character assassination" campaign. After the charges have been trumpeted all over the world, the widely-publicized arrest warrant has been withdrawn and a few hours later the Swedish Public Prosecutor announced that "he is no longer even under suspicion"... and yet from now on every time his name is mentioned, the easily impressed by the authority types with limited attention span will go "isn't that the rapist/traitor/terrorist/child-molester guy?"
It also served its job as a final "warning" from the power elite to this guy: "See what we can do? We can destroy you and make you a villain and no one will help you! You are defenseless against our power!"
So congratulations are in order. Now you can proudly consider yourself a honorary member of the dirty-tricks arm of the Pax Americana, unlike the rest of us, "tin foil hat" "conspiracy nuts" who smelled a rat from the get-go ...
Re:This just in (Score:1, Insightful)
"no sane person outside US likes US"
Wow. And you accuse him of believing idiotic propaganda?
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the US they've coined a term for the PC way of going about sex: Enthusiastic Consent. [suite101.com] It is an outgrowth of the PC version of "No means No!" from the 1980's. In the 80's in the US they counseled college kids that they had get permission at each step of the way. They actually had role-playing seminars where you'd ask "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You really got the feeling that these people had never had a real sexual encounter in their lives, and wanted to make sure that nobody else did either.
From the women's rights site on Enthusiastic Consent:
Under this model, the person initiating contact is required to take account of and not exploit a relationship, the other person's intoxicated state, or the power of peer pressure or social conditioning.
So this has morphed into an "anything can be considered rape" model, where even getting an affirmative "yes" to each of these questions is not enough. The "yes" has to be truly enthusiastic to count. So telling a girl that you love her and want to have sex with her is rape - because you are exploiting your relationship. Have a couple of drinks together? Rape. Tell her "it's Ok, everybody does it?" Rape. Know somebody who lives in a society that is OK with casual sexual encounters? Ooops, that might be social conditioning - better not try to hook up. 'Cause that's rape.
As anyone who frequents /. knows, the power of PC thinking is pervasive. It is like fight club - you cannot discuss PC, because discussing PC means that you are not PC - and therefore are evil. So even linking to source material that written by PC people and espouses their PC beliefs requires an AC posting - lest ye be branded un-PC and evil! So yeah, I agree with you: rape does seem to be all about power - of the feminist kind.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the guy whose biggest legislative initiative could have been titled the Insurance Company Revitalization Act is to the left of Jimmy-the-Peacenik Carter? Left of Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson? Franklin "New Deal" Roosevelt? Sounds like someone here slept through history class.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
They had the option to behave themselves and refused.
This (actually) begs the question, did they have the option to behave themselves? To be followed by the (highly editorial) subtext, were they deliberately or at the least negligently led in another direction by those who promised to lead them to success? Many, including myself, believe that the boogeyman known as "the system" (represented first and foremost by the the "education" and "corrections" systems) are designed to produce soldiers and criminals for profit at the cost of actual education. I give to you as examples private prisons and the privatization of existing prisons; I submit also the decreasing quality of school lunch when it is known that proper nutrition is a requirement for proper brain development. I think we can all identify numerous design problems with public education in the USA. Need I go into the racial breakdown of the prison problem, and ingrained racism in our society which can be trivially identified within the court system and in our police departments?
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so it's the US's fault that the taliban is cutting off woman's noses? OOOOOOOOOOk. Next.
No, it's not entirely the US government's fault; it's mainly the fault of the people who did it. But if the US government helps put a gang of people in power, and members of that gang commit atrocities, you'd sorta expect that people would pin part of the blame on the US government (and anyone else who has supported the bad guys). Every legal system recognizes concepts such as "accessory" to a crime, and puts part of the blame on people who support and assist the actual criminals.
BTW do any of you idiots hail from former soviet bloc counties? Thought not.
The fact that there are other evil people in the world isn't justification for being evil yourself. No legal system anywhere accepts "Other people are committing crimes" as exoneration for a crime that you committed or were an accessory to.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
no sane person outside US likes US
Huh?
and everyone in ex-USSR hates you.
Funny ... I know a number of Russians and people from other places that were once members of the USSR. They tell me you're full of shit, and if they do "hate" the U.S., they emigrated here because they hate their own governments more. You may consider watching less State-sponsored television, and use your Internet connection to get news from a more unbiased source. Personally, I can recommend the BBC: their journalistic standards are much higher than you'll find in most U.S.-based news organizations, or any totalitarian country for that matter.
And, after educating yourself, you still see nothing wrong with the original poster's comment, well, it just means you're a willfully-ignorant bigot. I can't help you with that, although ignorance is a curable condition.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all I would like to state that I am NOT a racist.
Any time anyone feels compelled to lead with a statement like that, you can pretty much bet that racist bilge is going to follow.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
The statement from the public prosecutor is closer to the second. She did not merely say the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, she said there was no reason to suspect that any crime had happened.
Re:In some ways the damage is done (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering /. is heavy on leftists of various flavors. Making shit up works very well most of the time.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, how about this: The girls are members of a political group in Sweden that would like to discredit Assange and hatched the idea of accusing him themselves.
Your attempt to use Occam's Razor in this case could easily apply to anybody accused of any crime ever. Somehow I don't think this is a reasonable tool to use to discern fact from fiction in this case.
Meanwhile, out in dozens war-zones... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Timing,,, (Score:2, Insightful)
Holy Shit Batman! Those are your two options. All good or all evil? How about this as option number 3:
3) He really believes in this "freedom and openness at all costs," thing. He is a zealot perhaps, but an idealistic one. He really thinks that the best thing for the world is to have no secrets that all information from any source should be public for all to see. His personal life however, is a total fucking mess. He is a sex addict who likes BDSM "games" and degrading sex with as many partners as possible. He sleeps with any female that moves whether it is free or paid sex, but his partners are not always (or rarely) prepared for his level of aggressiveness. The only redeeming value in his otherwise pathetic attention whore sex addict life is his idealistic zealotry for freedom and openness from governments at all costs.
You know someone who is flawed but has a redeeming quality somewhere. This is not a Disney fairytale where the choices are Prince Charming, Wicked Witch, or background scenery.
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if anyone noticed what type of photographs of Assange the different media organizations chose to accompany this story. I am a photographer and it was the first thing I noticed. In a majority of cases they are ones in which he is not looking into the camera (that is, not looking at the reader) which makes him look shifty, ones in which he is shot from strange angles (above or below, signifying either looming over the reader in a threatening fashion or being on a lower level than the reader) and photos in which he has non symmetrical (long associated with unattractiveness in psychological research) or negative expressions on his face. That's media spin for you. Most people don't realize how they are influenced by such visual clues and don't even register them consciously.
On a side note much of the reporting on wikileaks contains similar subtle cues. You will read: Controversial whisleblower website wikileaks releases Afghan war documents.... but not Whisleblower website wikileaks releases documents about controversial war in Afghanistan.
No End to Deceit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:3, Insightful)
The decision not to rape comes from the desire not to hurt others or, as a fallback, the worry that you might get caught. That is all.
It is not all. It also comes from the desire for sex being one of mutual involvement. Even if your partner wasn't forced to have sex, but was doing it for some other reason such as to repay a favour, pity or apathy... would you really want to have sex with someone who wasn't interested / enjoying it? I wouldn't.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does prostitution exist?
That doesn't refute my point. You said the only two reasons why one wouldn't commit rape are a desire not to hurt another and a fear of being caught. I offered a third which is that many of us would get no joy out of intercourse where our partner got no satisfaction. That the third doesn't apply to everyone no more makes it a non-existent reason than that your two reasons don't apply to everyone.
Secondly, I imagine a lot of men want a prostitute they go with to act like they're enjoying it. Even if that is partly or wholely faked, it's still something you're not going to get with rape.
Re:This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Occam's Razor in the way it is typically brought up, is that the reader can be lead to a predetermined conclusion by simply oversimplifying the "righteous" answer and rendering other possibilities in a needlessly complex format. People that are unable or unwilling to see through the words to the point will not be able to render a sound judgment based on the razor. The razor also just highlights a tendency, not an absolute, rendering much of it's popular usage an appeal to probability fallacy (it's possible, so it must be true) reinforced with an appeal to authority (Occam, the scientific community, other social/political groups via association, etc...)
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
#3 doesn't make any sense if you live in the real world. Assange is a human being just like you or me. No one likes to be accused of rape. It is one of those guilty until proven innocent things like molesting children. No sane person would intentionally scheme to have themselves falsely accused of it. It is exactly what you would use to frame someone though. Only the timing is suspicious to people. Very suspicious. Coincidences like this simply don't happen in the real world. The CIA are obviously counting on the general public being stupid and gullible. I wonder if the Swedish attorney general is as well. I suspect what really happened is when these women were cross examined their stories were just not convincing. And when the women realized that they weren't being believed they withdrew, secure in the knowledge that they would still get some amount of CIA funds just for the accusations. It is funny that the US Government agency considered it necessary to recruit 2 accusers. I guess they thought that would be more convincing. They neglected to consider that it makes the whole thing even more unlikely. Assange may be somewhat suicidal with how he has crossed the US Military (they will get their revenge), but he would not be so stupid as to rape, not just one, but two women while being actively hunted by the CIA etc. I have little doubt that very soon Assange is going to be in an unfortunate accident. His plane will crash or he will be in a fatal car accident with a blood alcohol level off the charts and lots of illicit drugs in his system. Maybe there will also be a kilo of heroin in his glove compartment and a stack of kiddie porn and bomb making equipment in his trunk.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:2, Insightful)
The above post is mistaking some sort of heavyhanded PC attempt at social behaviour modification designed to get inside a distracted football players skull with reality.
Re:disinformation 'win' - Swedish Govt 'fail' (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. This was in itself a punishment. Discrediting him. Destroying his reputation. But it was also a warning: "We can get to you. If we can do this think of what else we can do." But they haven't done it yet. But if they ever do (and they will be a lot less obvious about an actual assassination), he will be lacking in public symptathy for being an alleged serial rapist and a hater of women. People who suspect the US of being responsible for the suicide or random traffic accident will just not care as much either way. They have shown some restraint so far. They could have accused him of being a child rapist and a pedophile and then killed him a couple of months later, leaving a long detailed suicide note with his signature. I don't know what I would do if I were Assange. I suspect that at this point he will suffer an accidental death or suicide within the next 6 months no matter what he does. I think that the CIA and NSA is going to work on the issue of the insurance file for a while first.
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. You remind me of the former Canadian Public Safety Minister who while trying to justify a massive expansion of prisons in Canada (and their completely coincidental privatization) when faced with inconvenient statistics about crime rates went on whining about a "dramatic rise in unreported crime"...
Likewise, you (and a chorus of deranged femi-nazis) bray about a "very large number of cases" ("some people say!") where damning DNA samples are supposedly summarily ejected out the windows of the police stations to the accompaniment of giggles, whistles, cat-calls and exclamations of "whore!", a claim which you make based entirely on your anecdotal, unverifiable "evidence". And so in effect you insist that we should keep reducing the safeguards and the levels of proof required for prosecuting rape until a mere off-hand remark and a dismissive flick of a finger by any annoyed female will lock any male up for 20 years, transfer of all his assets to her and put him on an sex-offender list for life.
Re:Please don't pretend it doesn't exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, and the supposedly abundant DNA evidence is of no use because? Next you will claim that all these rapes are committed by a globe-spanning gang of hooded, masked men dwelling in really dark alleys, no doubt.
Oh quit with the bullshit. A "depressingly small number", as in "we are depressed by our inability to fabricate credible statistics". I can't help but notice that you keep failing to point to any sort of independent analysis of these supposedly staggering waves of rapist activity but that does not stop you from using phrases like "depressingly small" and "very large number" in an effort to give an impression of some indefinable looming vastness being squeezed via an ear of a needle...
Nonsense. You were talking, at best, of self-interested parties claiming to witness some astounding numbers of supposed crimes which somehow fail to make it to court but which, naturally, demand increased funding for these poor overworked "therapists", "pathologists" and other "medical practitioners".
For your information: a "rape" with no actual police claim and associated investigation "crime" does not make for the simple reason that anyone can claim anything without credible verification by an unbiased third party and in case of "rape" one can do so even with semen present in the uterus, since it is quite possible for a female to use intercourse as a tactical weapon. Even reported and investigated "rapes" that go to trial turn out bogus (although it is a miracle that a male manages to defend himself given current conditions).
You can "suggest" whatever you want but your clear insistence on using nebulous and unquantifiable phrases while trying to assign some great value to unverifiable and one-sided "reports" can only lead to the conclusion I already made in the previous post.
I'm talking about reality and not PC weirdness (Score:3, Insightful)
You are writing about theoretical borderline cases that might exploit loopholes in lax laws that might not even exist as if they are the norm. I'm writing about women in morgues, hospitals or undergoing medical treatment that have without question suffered from something considered a crime everywhere and it would have still been considered a crime where you are with laws a century or two old. Spare me the bullshit of pretending it's all connected to PC weirdness. Crime happens and not everyone that commits it gets caught. One of the problems with rape cases is that victims are reluctant to testify - I did not make that up and you know it.
Consider that it would be very silly to pretend the murder rate is lower just because you can't find or convict all the murderers. All I really said a couple of posts above is that the conviction rate is a lot lower than the rate of reported crimes, and then I gave one of the reasons (if the victim won't testify it becomes as hard to prove as a murder with no witnesses).
Re:Rape? In Sweden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Errr...no, no it isn't. Being in possession of a penis and attracted to women does not make anyone a potential rapist or provide motivation for being one
Large swathes of the population would disagree with you. Male sexuality is the growing target of a moral panic that sees all males as potential sexual predators.
Re:Not Rape? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, even the feminists agreed that this was demeaning to women (not being deemed capable of saying yes and no is pretty demeaning).
So innocent men were being sent to jail, yet the law was changed because it was "demeaning" to women?