The U.S.'s Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

Assange is granted bail. Finally.

They finally identified the accusations against him:
1. Having unprotected sex when the woman wanted a condom to be used
2. Having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep, with whom he had sex with the night before.

---

Per an article in the Washington Post, "In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010
121002571.html

The article also notes than in the U.S. this is not true.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Well I agree that all those should be criminal, because they are non consensual. I'm surprised that having sex without consent is not a crime in the US???????

My problem is that these charges feel very conveniently timed when there appears to be no other legal recourse to lock Assange up.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."

So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape. It defies common sense. Who besides a rapist would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner? "

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, #2 is totally assinine, in my opinion....
The first one; isn't that rape?

---

I don't think we have enough information to judge. We don't know if the accusations are true, we haven't heard his side of the story, we haven't seen any evidence, etc.

These accusations could be anything. It could be he pretended to put on a condom and didn't, and obtained consent under false pretenses. It could be they discussed the condom issue, and he thought he had changed her mind about not wearing a condom after all. It could be he completely took advantage of a woman in deep sleep (though, I wonder how can you NOT wake up during sex?). It could be she was groggy and enjoyed the sex, but couldn't remember afterwards. Who knows, right?

I think it is premature to judge whether he is guilty or not based simply on barebones accusations.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Only to be expected Magons, not only that, but we still have lots of bizarre laws on the books that shouldn't even be there, like anti-sodomy acts which make getting a blowjob technically a felony...

And worse, many sex offenders who prey on members of their own family manage to get their offense classed as simple-incest, which allows them to get probation and a fine, and most of the time, under the pretense of family unity, CPS puts them right back in the home - which sends the message that society condones the abuse to the victim, who is often more severely punished and ostracised than the offender.

That kinda crap is frontline warfare for the aboveboard allies we have, like PROTECT.
http://www.protect.org/campaigns/success/13-california/25-what-the-pas
sage-of-the-circle-of-trust-bill-means-to-children-in-america

Anyhow, the US and it's society is in general, seriously screwed up (pun intended) when it comes to sex anyway, a combination of puritan lunacy offset by peek-a-boo titillation, as a direct result of trying to theologically and socially suppress and/or destroy natural human impulses.

And like I always say, the more you suppress a persons basic humanity, the more warped and twisted the form in which it will finally express itself, and it WILL express itself, in the same fashion a tree root does to a sidewalk - nature ALWAYS wins.

Which also explains how and why the ultra-moral-religious-puritan types are such total freakazoids behind closed doors.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm surprised that having sex without consent is not a crime in the US???????

---

Yeah, we're backwards.

I applaud Sweden's more rigorous requirements for consentual sex.

Obviously, I'm big about consent and not being forced to do things against our will (sexual or not).

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Ah, but isn't all legislation 'force' even legislation that prevents someone from having non consensual sex with another person

sorry, couldn't resist

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME