Is Assange being framed?
- Thread starter Canceled.LTroll.28
- Start date
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Having read some details of the allegations...not really, no.
The Swedish handling of the case has been rather 'unorthodox' as well.
It will be an interesting court case if it gets that far.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is the standard threat that is dished out to any country that dares to defy the US. How anyone can defend the way they have behaved with the Swedes is beyond me?
The charges against Assange are just farcical, one relates to a split condom and another because he never called the woman in question back the next day. What the fuck, you could prosecute half the men in the US using those criteria.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
brits <---- 
<---- americans
<---- americans
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
It is interesting that the US feels that US law should apply to the entire world but would seek to deny that, for example, the international law on torture applies to itself in the same way.
Still, i suppose we in the UK should just be grateful that the US helpfully assist our own government to monitor British citizen's communications for our own safety.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You are not wrong there, I live not a million miles away from Menwith Hill.
RAF Menwith Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ensign of the Royal Air Force.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg/80px-Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/54/Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg/80px-Ensign_of_the_Royal_Air_Force.svg.png
cancel2 2022
Canceled
brits <----
-5/10
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Good Luck
New member
You continue to make the same misunderstanding that has prevailed since the idea of yelling fire was first expressed.
ALL speech is protected. Period.
What is NOT protected is intentionally causing harm to others. And harm does not matter whether it is caused by use of speech, or use of a firearm. The POINT is noone has the right to cause harm and hide behind Constitutional protections to escape responsibility for their actions.
Lots of people yell fire in a crowded theater. It may be an actor's line in a play. It may be a bunch of people obviously goofing around. It may be someone who got canned and is loudly complaining to their friends "I got FIRED!" As such, yelling "fire" IS protected, UNLESS the action of doing so results in harm. It is the context, intent, and causal effects of speech that determines whether a person is criminally or civilly liable for their words, whatever those words may be.
The same applies to defamation. You cannot limit speech in advance, because defamation does not occur unless the speech is both known to be false, AND can be shown to cause harm. Words can be used in one circumstance with no consequences, yet in another circumstance, the exact same words can be determined to be slander, defamation, or libel. So, again, the limitation cannot be emplaced in advance EXCEPT to say, in general, that one cannot use words to deliberately cause harm.
And that is the exact circumstances we have with the referenced case in this thread. Should Assange be held responsible for any harm (if harm can be shown) caused by his actions? If harm can be shown, and if he anticipated, or should have reasonably anticipated harm, then yes, he should pay for it.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
GL....how can "all" speech be protected when speech that harms is not protected?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
semantics. plain and simple. freedom of the press doesn't include libel and slander. that does not mean that there are limits.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i love the semantics argument....it is almost always used when one loses a point....
you earlier argued for am absolute freedom of speech....now...you're doing a balancing approach, giving some speech protection and other speech no protection....
Good Luck
New member
Because what lands one in trouble is any HARM induced, and not the speech itself. ALL speech IS protected (or damned well should be.) I can say whatever the hell I want at any time I want. My speech is 100% protected. No one can toss me in jail or sue me or anything else JUST because I said something.
What I cannot do is USE my free speech protections to shield me from any consequences of doing harm when I exercise my right to free speech.
The difference is subtle, but very important. Using the "free speech is limited" approach yields to the idea that the government can place "reasonable" limits on our freedom of expression based on POTENTIAL harm - the excuse used time and again to bypass or 2nd Amendment protections. And when the government is who defines "reasonable", we are asking to be placed on the road to totalitarianism. In recent years we have seen this very real line approached - if not crossed - under the hate laws trend.
OTOH, treating all speech as protected yields the situation in which any harm caused by one's use of speech must first be linked to the speech before any consequences can be handed down.
The latter yields the more liberty, because only real harm is addressed when someone abuses their liberties.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is not true.....at all. below you wax on about consequences....but the reality is....your speech is not, i repeat not protected 100%.
- you can be sued for your speech -> see defamation
- you can be thrown in jail -> see riot etc...
GL....you are placing limits on speech and yet in the same breath claiming no such limits exist. there is no subtle difference, its black and white with regards to well established law on what speech is protected and what speech is not.
Good Luck
New member
Yes, it is. It is called the 1st Amendment.
If speech harms a person's reputation, then the speaker cannot hide behind their free speech protections to escape responsibility for causing someone harm. Doing harm is NOT a right.
Again, it is not the speech which lacks protection, but rather the ability to use our free speech protections as a means to escape responsibility for doing harm.
Really? Where did I limit speech? I can say any damned thing I want, any where I want at any time I want. So can you. So can anyone.
What I can NOT do is HIDE behind free speech rights to cause harm.
Show me ONE case in which a person was handed legal consequences ONLY for what they said. Just one. If speech is NOT protected, then show me where speech itself is punished.
The fact is, you cannot be handed any consequences for merely SAYING (or writing, or otherwise communicating) anything. The ONLY time you can be handed consequences is when actual harm can be linked to what was communicated. One more time: it is the HARM which yields action against the person, and when harm IS induced, then the fact of our right to free speech does not mitigate responsibility for the harm. Nor do ANY of our rights shield us from responsibility for the way we choose to exercise our rights.
Sorry if you cannot see the difference. But it is very real. You are simply tied into common language use which has, for decades, only continued to misrepresent the original concept of "yelling fire in a crowded theater".
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
then go ahead and defame someone....then yell fire in a theater where there is no fire....then threaten to kill someone.....
we are not talking about reputation
wrong again....speech has impact, speech makes things happen....speech can cause harm....some speech does in fact lack protection....., for example, if i disparage your work professionalism...and it has no truth.....that is not protected speech.....thus....there is in fact a limit on speech
come on GL.....you know that is not true....that is like saying i can kill anyone, anytime i want to....so can you, so can anyone...
you act as if speech has no consequences.....really....do you really believe that?
again....speech can equal harm...but for that speech, there would be no harm....
Good Luck
New member
One more time:
It is the HARM which is not protected. We do not have the right to cause harm.
If someone says (writes or otherwise communicates) something that a large group of people (even a majority) strongly object to, but no harm follows the communication, then there are no consequences for that communication, no matter how many people dislike the content. Those who object cannot take action against the individual for merely communicating their ideas - and that includes the government.
If the same someone says (writes or otherwise communicates) the exact same thing in the exact same way, using the exact same words in the same order, and expressed using the exact same means of communication, but under different circumstances such that harm IS caused by their communication, THEN they can be held legally accountable for it.
To reiterate, the hypothetical person uses the exact same words and phrases, using the exact same means to communicate the message, but in one circumstance no harm results, while in the second circumstance a person or people are harmed, and the person knew (or should have known) that their words would cause the harm under those circumstances.
IF the speech itself is not protected, why do they get off scott free teh first time just because no harm resulted in the first set of circumstances?
It is the HARM which is not protected. We do not have the right to cause harm.
If someone says (writes or otherwise communicates) something that a large group of people (even a majority) strongly object to, but no harm follows the communication, then there are no consequences for that communication, no matter how many people dislike the content. Those who object cannot take action against the individual for merely communicating their ideas - and that includes the government.
If the same someone says (writes or otherwise communicates) the exact same thing in the exact same way, using the exact same words in the same order, and expressed using the exact same means of communication, but under different circumstances such that harm IS caused by their communication, THEN they can be held legally accountable for it.
To reiterate, the hypothetical person uses the exact same words and phrases, using the exact same means to communicate the message, but in one circumstance no harm results, while in the second circumstance a person or people are harmed, and the person knew (or should have known) that their words would cause the harm under those circumstances.
IF the speech itself is not protected, why do they get off scott free teh first time just because no harm resulted in the first set of circumstances?
Good Luck
New member
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Speech does not, nor CAN not EQUAL harm.
Speech can lead to harm. Speech can result in harm. Speech can and has been used to deliberately induce harm.
But speech itself can NOT EQUAL harm.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will fight attempts to take him to Sweden to face rape allegations, his lawyer said.
Mark Stephens told the BBC that legal moves against his client seem(ed) to be a "political stunt" by a state that allowed US rendition flights.
He warned Wikileaks could release more secrets in a bid to protect itself.
A Swedish arrest warrant for Mr Assange was issued on Thursday. It comes amid the phased Wikileaks release of some 250,000 US diplomatic secret messages.
The warrant to interview the journalist - thought currently to be in the UK - concerns alleged sexual crimes during a visit to Sweden in August.
But Mr Stephens told the BBC's Andrew Marr that the entire case against Mr Assange had been dropped by Sweden's chief prosecutor in September.
He said it was only "after the intervention of a Swedish politician" that a new prosecutor in Gothenburg - not Stockholm, where his client and two women had been - began a new case.
It resulted in the current warrants, and an Interpol notice being issued. His client denies the allegations.
Mr Stephens said: "It does seem to be a political stunt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11921080
Mark Stephens told the BBC that legal moves against his client seem(ed) to be a "political stunt" by a state that allowed US rendition flights.
He warned Wikileaks could release more secrets in a bid to protect itself.
A Swedish arrest warrant for Mr Assange was issued on Thursday. It comes amid the phased Wikileaks release of some 250,000 US diplomatic secret messages.
The warrant to interview the journalist - thought currently to be in the UK - concerns alleged sexual crimes during a visit to Sweden in August.
But Mr Stephens told the BBC's Andrew Marr that the entire case against Mr Assange had been dropped by Sweden's chief prosecutor in September.
He said it was only "after the intervention of a Swedish politician" that a new prosecutor in Gothenburg - not Stockholm, where his client and two women had been - began a new case.
It resulted in the current warrants, and an Interpol notice being issued. His client denies the allegations.
Mr Stephens said: "It does seem to be a political stunt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11921080