WikiLeaks Calls For Assange To Step Down 565
Stoobalou writes "A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organizer for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's spokesman, Julian Assange, urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations."
And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
When somebody is doing something that is not wrong, but offends, they attack him, till everybody turns against him. Or possibly her. Just ask the lady from Georgia.
Now I can recognize how terrible it is to pretend that the king can do no wrong, or to let the king get away with all sorts of crap, but it is equally wrong from the other way, to take even the slightest, flimsiest excuse and use it to tear down a person in authority.
Tough choice.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
'rape' in sweden is what what most of us would consider rape.
from TFA:
"And he's a classic Aussie in the sense that he's a bit of a male chauvinist."
from my reading of what happened, he pissed off 1 or 2 women by 'not being exclusive' with them.
BIG FUCKING DEAL! so to speak..
this is far from rape!
it seems to be a case of women who thought they had a 'lock' on julian; and they were upset to learn he had no real plans to date either one exclusively.
this is what its about.
to ask the man to step down because of this is actually pretty insulting.
Re:Price (Score:0, Insightful)
And for most of those living in the Leftardia planet, yes, all anti-US terrorists are automatically innocent. Their credo is: the victims are the criminals, the criminals are the victims.
Re:Regarding conspiracy theories. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is it more of a revenge thing?
There are many who think it's an "in Assange's head" thing.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me. He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.
Its not blind faith, it just shows how little we all seem to trust the US when so many of us are quick to assume that a rape allegation against an individual the US would clearly like to silence is an attempt to smear their reputation.
Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Price (Score:2, Insightful)
[quote]
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me. He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.
[/quote]
1. He 'should' be innocent until proven guilty. But we all know this is just BS.
2. As someone here pointed out before, it doesn't make sense to 'try to rape' someone or molest, if you do what Assange does. It doesn't mean he's innocent ofc, but rule 1. should especially apply in this case, because it can easily be smear campaign. That is... the probability of this being smear campaign by US Gov is high.
And probabilities is the only thing you can count on, until you get objective facts. Well... at least it is from my perspective, since I'm not American, and I tasted the injustice of US Gov on my own skin many times.
Re:As long as WikiLeaks stays afloat post Assange (Score:2, Insightful)
If Assange steps down and is found not guilty in the end,
He's already "not guilty". It's not like he's even had a trial or anything is it?
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
I know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law. For all we know, this woman is behind manufacturing accusations against Assange so that she can step in.
I'm not accusing her of doing so. I'm simply saying that she could just as well be using it as a tool for manipulation. The guy could be a complete jack-ass for all I know. I also know that it has no impact on the value of the service he started and the information that he has revealed through it.Dismantling him doesn't invalidate that knowledge.
It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.
Considering the stories we hear all the time these days about how such accusations are often entirely fictional -- such as "I ditched a night out with my friends for drinks with this guy I met, so to deal with their scrutiny over me ditching them, I invented a story of rape and got a man jailed for a crime he was innocent of", I am not willing to ever assume guilt whatsoever.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206325/Woman-rape-allegation-faces-jail.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://gothamist.com/2010/02/24/woman_who_lied_about_rape_sentenced.php [gothamist.com]
Just because you may hate anyone who questions the United States of Amuricah, because they're freedom-hating assholes who want our heroic baby-rescuing, never-in-the-wrong troops to die . . . doesn't mean they're also guilty of rape or any crime.
Re:As long as WikiLeaks stays afloat post Assange (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed.
Whether he is guilty or innocent, Wikileaks should not be about him.
If it is ever about individuals, it is about the whistle-blowers. The wikileaks website is just a tool that helps them blow the whistle anonymously.
He should turn it over to a foundation where he can be one of the board members.
Re:And so it begins (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how people with an inflated sense of self worth think they can do whatever they please with no consequences.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.
It has been mentioned that he has been dragging wikileaks into this personal situation, for example using the wikileaks twitter feed to promote the idea that he is innocent and the US is running a smear campaign. I do not think he would be asked to step down, especially so publicly, if he had kept his personal life and wikileaks separate.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right, where the hell is my pitchfork? I mean, this is RAPE we are talking about, you don't need a trial for that!
And the timing of these allegations, no coincidence there, I agree! The CIA would never run a smear campaign!
mhm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
"... urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site ..."
Seems to have been a pretty effective smear campaign, if you ask me. I want evidence, and for someone besides a human rights activist who would have an immediate bias against an accused rapist to be the one asking for him to step down.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the fact that "wikileaks founder Assange accused of rape" made headline news across the bloody planet...did he really have a choice?
Re:the man has boundary issues (Score:2, Insightful)
"respect a woman's wishes in the bedroom? nah"
She may well have disrespected his wish precisely as much as he disrespected hers.
If she says 'I want you to use a condom', and he says 'No, I refuse to use a condom, what I want is to have sex without a condom', and she says 'OK then', then A) neither party is showing the other either any more or any less respect, B) it is not and can never in any way, shape or form be 'rape'.
In fact, how is disrespecting a woman's wishes something by default negative? Can I require of women that they respect my wishes?
No, wishes are subject to negotiation at all times, for both men and women. Any other attitude is sexist. You smell disgustingly misandrist.
Now, if he said "No, I don't want to use a condom, and moreover, I will now have sex with you whether you wish or not, here I come!", then he would have raped her. Fortunately no evidence of that has been presented and found valid in court, hence he is not guilty of this act. He is as respectable as he ever was and those who treat him badly are committing the morally objectionable act of treating an innocent man badly.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)
As as someone who is an American I agree 100%.
In my lifetime I've yet to see a government in this country I'd trust as far as I could throw the Lincoln Memorial (with Glenn Beck's fat, stupid ass crying on the steps to weigh it down even more). Most of our elected officials seem to be concerned with nothing more than protecting their own images, enriching the people who they're getting bri... 'campaign donations' from and passing a bunch of useless bullshit to keep the ignorant masses behind them.
That's not to say Assange didn't do something, just that there it's entirely within reason that this is a smear campaign.
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone on the Internet claiming to be only 15 told me a story last night to the effect that Birgitta Jonsdottir raped him. If this is true, it could be said that Birgitta Jonsdottir is a child rapist. I'm not sure that a potential child rapist like Birgitta Jonsdottir has the authority to speak on allegations of molestation. Indeed, Birgitta Jonsdottir may be trying to deflect attention from the child rape she could have engaged in. Child rapists, as Birgitta Jonsdottir may be, should step down from any position of responsibility or trust.
Anyone else here on /. heard of anyone else she may have raped, especially someone under 18? If we have two accusations of child rape, then it seems appropriate to investigate Birgitta Jonsdottir for child rape, and to drown out all relevant news about her or her organisation in the media while the question of whether Birgitta Jonsdottir is a child rapist is carefully considered.
Re:Way to out yourself, spook. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Swedish government retracted the charges. Now his own organization isn't backing him up? How much do you want to bet Jonsdottir isn't a CIA plant?
The Swedish government then brought new charges. Now a prominent member of his organization, who is also a member of Parliament in Iceland, is calling for him to step down so that the charges against him stop reflecting poorly on Wikileaks.
In all seriousness, if you're going to attempt to argue that the charges against him are unsupported by facts, wouldn't it be good to provide a few facts for your unsupported assertions?
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately this very idea was the core modus operandi of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both.
It was also supposed to be the differentiating factor between them and the so-called "principled democracies", USA chief amongst them.
So much for all the propaganda and bullshit, eh?
wikileak thyself! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the man has boundary issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything Ive read said the charge is because the woman claimed he broke the condom on purpose.
That is not rape.. that is her being too dry, an expired condom, or a non latex condom.
Ive used many condoms in my day, I'm not even sure how one would "break" the condom on purpose while its in use. I suppose its possible that the condom was tampered with prior to being used but that kinda implies that he intended to break before hand.
I think the women found out about each other.. found they wern't exclusive, and decided to muck things up as best as possible.
Re:Let me round it up for ya (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that 'everybody' thinks the wikileaks case *IS* some kind of CIA attack, just that the CIA has done a LOT, LOT worse to people who the government have decided are enemies of the US state and its interests. Such acts by the CIA are credible. The idea that the US state is above smearing its enemies is ludicrous. That means it is *POSSIBLE* that this is a case of character assasination and black propaganda - not that it's PROBABLE - just POSSIBLE.
It's also *possible* that the women are behaving for any number of ignorant, deluded, malicious or screwed up reasons, as it is that Mr. Assange did the things he's said to have done. But then, if this were a smear, that's exactly what they'd like you to think! ;)
Re:As long as WikiLeaks stays afloat post Assange (Score:1, Insightful)
No, because it means that if this is a US campaign against him or similar then Wikileak's leadership can be disrupted just by mere accusations.
The worst thing they can do is make Assange step down whilst he's innocent to make a point that if it is an intelligence operation or similar, that they can't be bullied.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.
It has been mentioned that he has been dragging wikileaks into this personal situation, for example using the wikileaks twitter feed to promote the idea that he is innocent and the US is running a smear campaign. I do not think he would be asked to step down, especially so publicly, if he had kept his personal life and wikileaks separate.
Yes, HE has mixed wikileaks with this rape charge. Not the newspaper that published the story in the less-than-24h time period during which the charges stood. The guy who hadn't even been told there were charges against him before the article was published. It's all his fault. He was clearly asking for it... the way he dresses...
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on what, the fact that the media said he MIGHT be? Why are you so quick to deny this guy a trial? Do you have evidence that we don't?
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.
Seriously, you just came out and said it out loud? You don't even bother to hedge or attribute the statement to "in times of war" or something. Well, I will admit your bluntness is refreshing, and in turn I will be just as blunt. I disagree with you 100%. National security is not our one and only core value. Many, many other values must come first. This is especially true when you are only talking about a _potential_ threat to national security not even a fully realized one. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't deserve the freedom and benifits of a modern society because they have a barbaric mindset.
Re:Price (Score:1, Insightful)
Because if you don't believe in the conspiracy you must be part of it.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an amazing statement. It sounds a lot like something you'd hear some crooked cop say when stopping a black driver in a nice car.
"He's most likely guilty of something".
Considering the enormous motivation of people in power to make sure Assange is put out of business, I'm surprised that this clown show with the rape charges today, no raped charges tomorrow, new rape charges the day after that is being done in such an amateurish manner.
Whatever happens to Assange, I'm sure that the people who will take over operations of wikileaks soon are getting the message loud and clear: Do not mess with those of us in power, or there will be a committed campaign coming at you from all sides, from the police, to press releases, to your personal life.
Yes, the message of how fragile a person's life is comes through loud and clear when you make life uncomfortable for the powerful.
Re:Price (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between presumed innocent and proven innocent; Assange should be considered the first, not the second. Because he annoyed the US does not automatically mean he MUST be innocent.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:1, Insightful)
What a deliciously ironic argument for wikileaks and its supporters to make. I would think that they'd demand the full release of all police records immediately, because transparency is ftw, always, without exception!
USA 2 Assange 0 (Score:1, Insightful)
Mission Accomplished indeed
Re:There should be consequences to crying rape (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is generally you only know an accusation is blatantly false if the woman recants; which they are a lot less likely to do if they know it will mean years and years of jail time.
Re:Price (Score:2, Insightful)
Guilty of what? Show me some evidence, instead of "guilty when the Pentagon's sockpuppets say".
There's no "sentence", because the complaints were so worthless that the prosecutor threw them out and complained. Yet the story doesn't die in the media, because of people like you who will repeat it without knowing anything - which gives poser politicians the audience they need to amplify them.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, there is no law preventing Icelandic politicians from commenting on Swedish police investigations. They're different countries.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:5, Insightful)
These personal matters shoudl have nothing to do with WikiLeaks. I have strongly urged him to focus on the legalities that he's dealing with and let some other people carry the torch.
I don't think that's an unfair request given the allegations he's facing at the moment.
Re:wikileak thyself! (Score:3, Insightful)
Julian Assange, the person, is not of public interest, it's private interest.
Re:Price (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As long as WikiLeaks stays afloat post Assange (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not uncommon for people in a leadership role to take a "leave of absence" or "administrative leave" when there is an allegation of some sort of impropriety like this. It is usually publicized as "taking time to review the situation with lawyers & mount a defense," by the person taking the leave, and it also sends a clear signal that the "organization" is not embroiled in some sort of tawdry legal battle.
When the case finishes up, if the defendant is declared not guilty, they can step back into their previous role; if they're declared guilty, the organization is not tarred with the "we support and employ rapists/molesters/etc" brush.
If Wikileaks is about more than Mr. Assange's fragile ego, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that he should take an administrative leave from his duties to mount a defense. If this were just an "intelligence operation" to smear Mr. Assange, I think it would be a lot more convincing than the keystone kops operation we've seen so far with charges being levelled and then withdrawn.
Re:Price (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious, do you also stop watching baseball games after the first inning? Because your knowledge of the circumstances here is incomplete.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:1, Insightful)
All I know is that if there is any possible mention of wikileaks on slashdot, the tinfoil hat crowd will be out in force for Assenage.
I honestly don't understand this mentality, as wikileaks can still partake its mission without such a ego-driven leader; in fact, I'd imagine that they could be an even better organization. Maybe he's not the face an important organization like wikileaks should have at its head.
Slashdot may now mod me into oblivion and assume that I made some connection to covering up US military secrets in making this post.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right in that your civics education is complete shit. We don't presume innocence. If we did, then bail would not be necessary. After all, why would you hold someone in jail when you presume them to be innocent? You'd not arrest them, as you wouldn't arrest someone who is innocent. But, as you said, your civics is shit.
The presumption of innocence is a guideline for how to treat the accused while in the presence of the jury so as not to bias the findings. No more. There is no "civic duty" to presume someone innocent. OJ is a murderer. I can believe that before he's arrested. I can believe that during the trial. I can believe that after he's found not guilty. I have no duty to presume him innocent. The court is supposed to do so during the trial, but has no duty to do so before or after the trial.
Add that to the fact that "innocent" has no legal meaning. You don't find someone innocent, and the courts never make any ruling whatsoever on the "innocence" of anyone. But if your civics education wasn't shit, you might know this. If you'd like, I'd be glad to give you a civics education so you can learn the difference between being innocent, being presumed innocent, being guilty and being found guilty.
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Too true.
IIRC, it was Rumsfeld that initially bluntly put the phrase "paradigm of prevention" out there into the open- of course, this deceptive model of targeting whoever they wanted was nothing new- but it was time to introduce a new platitude into public that few people would notice, and even fewer would care.
The 'shift' that the paradigm of prevention brings to our countries practices in dealing with such potential risks is this philosophy-
'Not having proof that we are going to be attacked is not sufficient reason for not taking action against the potential assailants.'
It is, in a very real way, guilty before proven innocent.
In the past year or two I have felt a glimmer of hope, though... 7-10 years ago when I talked about this sort of stuff in public, people freaked out and thought I was either insane, mentally handicapped, emotionally distraught, or trolling irl... but in the last 2 years I have seen somewhat of an awakening amongst all classes of people- from teachers to law enforcement to businessmen to blue collar workers to local government, people are starting to wake up and realize that this problem will not be solved by appealing to the political self proclaimed clerisy. The question is, will it turn into a full fledged witch (terrorist) hunt between citizens or will the citizens realize their enemy is more than a person, or a group of people, or a country, or even a political/religious ideology.
When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.
If that is your take on it, the 'terrorists' have already beat you. If nothing is sacred, then, not only has national security has failed, but so has the dream that filled our founding fathers with such zeal. Death is nothing new. People have been dying for a long time now. What is important is that people die for something that they believe in, something that betters mankind, something that leaves a legacy to be commended and honored by posterity. If our "national security" is just making sure that we put bullets in people trying to get across our land without protecting us from the dangers already in our government then our problem is far greater than can be solved, which is what I am suggesting.
Don't be so quick to resort to action. Never write anyone, or any party, a blank check of support for spouting off a few obvious statements that anyone can agree on without digging deep into the details of the "solution". Case in point:
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Slashdot crowd just don't want the slightest risk of someone being fooled by a hypothetical smear campaign.
Re:wikileak thyself! (Score:3, Insightful)
The treatment of Julian Assange, the person, but as conducted by the government in question, is without a shadow of a doubt a subject of public interest. There may be other interests, such as his right to privacy, but the public interest is certainly there, on several levels.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did an Islandic member of parliament get access to the Swedish police records in the first place? This is the part that the OP refers to saying "In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police".
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case
Yes! The nerve of those people, getting their grubby little hands on documents that should be secret! Someone ought to put a stop to that!
Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)
It shows how little you trust Sweden too if you think that the state prosecutors in one of the least corrupt countries in the world are on the CIA payroll and that Sweden would surrender its own sovereignty in such a blatant way in order to please the US.
Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)
Her Price (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess her price is the undisputed leadership of the WikiLeaks organization.
Re:wikileak thyself! (Score:3, Insightful)
So get your hands on them and submit them then.
Their thing is to publish leaked ionformation supplied to them, not to dig up that information themselves.
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
"And he's a classic Aussie in the sense that he's a bit of a male chauvinist."
You (ok, they) speak of a country where my state member is female, my federal state member is female, the premier of my state is female, the Prime Minster is female (currently), the state governor is female, the governor general is female, and we report to the Queen.
Odd position for a country of male chauvinists to be in, wouldn't you say?
Re:Price (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they're not automatically baseless. However, it's the timing of these charges that strongly suggests the US government is behind it. When you piss off a powerful and corrupt government and then only a matter of days later get charged with a serious crime, it's almost always because you're being set up.
I know nothing about Assange, but I do know about governments. The track record of every government in history strongly supports the theory that this is a set up.
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Price (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As long as WikiLeaks stays afloat post Assange (Score:3, Insightful)
No, if he steps down, even temporarily, he would be sending a clear signal that he believes the mission & purpose of Wikileaks is much more important than his own reputation and ego.
And he would give himself time and energy to devote to defending himself against the allegations, wouldn't it be great if he exposed the US government in COURT with evidence they're behind this "character assassination"?
So wrong in so many ways (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.
There are times when it can be proven a woman has made up a rape allegation. It does not always involve the woman confessing. Those women should be prosecuted harshly as they are attempting to do serious harm to the man they accuse.
As for women being less willing to retract the claim, that may be true in some circumstances. Perhaps that's why until guilt is proven we shouldn't be making the name of the accused public. If there really is sufficient evidence, he should be named and go to jail. If there isn't his life should not be ruined as a result of an unproven accusation.
Re:Price (Score:2, Insightful)
It's worth noting that the corporate media hates Assange and has reason to fear wikileaks, almost as much as the powerful elite.
I'll twist the bromide inside out:
"Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong."
Re:As long as WikiLeaks stays afloat post Assange (Score:3, Insightful)
Be honest - no matter what happens, you're going to ascribe it to a conspiracy. Even if he's eventually found guilty and there's solid evidence to support the conviction, you'll simply change your tune to "Yeah, well, the US obviously fabricated that evidence and made the Swedish government dance to its tune."
Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but only the "profoundly ignorant" think that free speech is absolute.
Free speech takes a back seat when it directly causes harm, calling "fire" is the most famous example.
First of all, do you have any idea how ironic that is, using that argument in this situation? One could say the exact same thing about Assange.
Secondly, according to TFA, the person referenced wasn't saying that Assange is guilty of the sexual assault charges.
Birgitta Jonsdottir told Internet news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations.
What she doesn't believe is that the allegations were being made because of Assange's decision to leak the Afghan War documents. That's very different from saying that she doesn't believe he's innocent of the charges levied against him in the other case.
From the article, the only person I can find who says anything about his innocence on those charges is the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who, as the prosecutor is supposed to believe a crime has been committed (or else, why bring the case in the first place)?
Re:Price (Score:2, Insightful)
Coward.
Re:Does the US-backed smear campaign include /.? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad someone is showing some sense here.
Consent is not a contract you enter into.
You can't say 'Only do X', allow the other person to do Y, and then whinge about consent. Consent is a real-time thing. You don't want something to happen, attempt to stop it. If you made no attempt to stop it, uh, you consented.(1)
I swear, some people seem to live in a universe where 'consent' literally means 'asking permission', which makes me seriously wonder how they think sex works. 'I'm going to move my hand up two inches, are you okay with that?'
What's even more absurd is that what people are talking about was apparently oral sex. That's right, she didn't consent to the blowjob she was giving. Figure that one out.
1) With, of course a full range of exceptions, like unconsciousness, extortion, drugged, whatever. None of which seem to apply here.
Re:Price (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised so few people are intelligent enough to understand this. But people's brains turn off when Hitler is involved. It's almost as bad as bringing up child porn.