Wikileaks founder accused of rape

Jeboa Safari

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025

Interesting

WIZE

Sounds like a setup from the American Government

TalkieWalkie

Yup, character assassination. :rolleyes:

Richard tea

It was to be expected. As far as I know, the story broke in a tabloid, so not exactly concrete just yet

Jeboa Safari

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316

He's no longer suspected...

Strange, wonder who made the allegations, awful thing to do to someone if not true

gizmo

If the US government wanted to assassinate his character then I think they could do better than a story which lasts less than a day and will be forgotten about in a week.

Actually, if there's a chance of any conspiracy here I'd say it's the other way around. Claiming it was the US government who made the attempt adds credence to the notion that disclosing all the information they have is the right thing to do, what more could Assange and co ask for?

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025

Interesting

I'm edging towards this coming about to try and make Wikileaks more credible and not a CIA front, which I have seen some valid arguments for.

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

If the US government wanted to assassinate his character then I think they could do better than a story which lasts less than a day and will be forgotten about in a week.

Actually, if there's a chance of any conspiracy here I'd say it's the other way around. Claiming it was the US government who made the attempt adds credence to the notion that disclosing all the information they have is the right thing to do, what more could Assange and co ask for?

???

Not to get falsely accused of rape.

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

Not to get falsely accused of rape.

In the context of what they're trying to achieve I think this is a non-issue given how long the "charges" actually lasted for.

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

In the context of what they're trying to achieve I think this is a non-issue given how long the "charges" actually lasted for.

I think that is quite a naive thing to say. In war mongering far-right media he will now be referred to as "accused rapist" or some other smear whenever Wikileaks is mentioned.

Grawns

I would hope he gets access to all the docs and publishes

Duiske

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think that is quite a naive thing to say. In war mongering far-right media he will now be referred to as "accused rapist" or some other smear whenever Wikileaks is mentioned.

Thats the problem with accusations like that. A lot of people will think "he got away with it" rather than "he was not guilty of anything".

TalkieWalkie

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316

He's no longer suspected...

Thank god, he got away with it.

mcmoustache

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm edging towards this coming about to try and make Wikileaks more credible and not a CIA front, which I have seen some valid arguments for.

Wikileaks could be a front for anyone. Any intelligence agency in any nation can leak documents to it. That's the nature of wikis.

The Afghan documents were not the sort of things that the US wanted out there. They tried to accuse him of putting lives at risk and have already tried to strong-arm other governments into making his life difficult. They really don't like this guy and in this day and age, sexual allegations against someone are a pretty good way to discredit people. You only need the allegation because the accusation sticks. I hope this gets investigated and those responsible for the smearing get pointed out. I don't mean the two women either. I mean those who are conspiring to assassinate his character.

mcmoustache

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Thank god, he got away with it.

Who? The alleged rapist?:pac:

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think that is quite a naive thing to say. In war mongering far-right media he will now be referred to as "accused rapist" or some other smear whenever Wikileaks is mentioned.

Quite possibly, I'd like to think that most sane people are able to ignore that kind of trash however.

When I said, "what more could they ask for" however I meant that the claims would add fuel to the calls for the release of the documents. Now, surely if someone is prepared to accept the idea that the CIA orchestrated the entire affair in order to discredit him, surely they'd at least consider the fact that it could have been done by the Wikileaks people in order to achieve the goal I suggested?

Jeboa Safari

I wonder will this be the end of it, this dropped charge will probably have little effect on him, but if more women were to come out over the next few months claiming the same thing it wouldn't look to good for him

WIZE

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I wonder will this be the end of it, this dropped charge will probably have little effect on him, but if more women were to come out over the next few months claiming the same thing it wouldn't look to good for him

You mean the women who would be paid to come out against him

The US Government have probably paid some Hookers to meet him in Bar and stuff . They would have tried to set him up

humanji

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I wonder will this be the end of it, this dropped charge will probably have little effect on him, but if more women were to come out over the next few months claiming the same thing it wouldn't look to good for him

In some of the newss outlets it was saying that the charges of rape were dropped but he's still suspected of molestation. So there could be more charges later. It's all a little too conveniently timed. That said, it's possible he could actually be guilty. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Mahatma coat

The logical progression of this Dirty tricks Smear campaign

Some Hilarious US TV Pundit wrote:

Has anyone Seen Assange?? heard him Speak???? noticed his Mannerisims??

Dont you find it Odd that he's accused of Molesting a WOMAN :eek:

Actually as I read that back I can already imagine it in Glen Becks voice

Bear in mind that any smear is designed to affect the American public perception of him.

Just sayin like, seems the next natural progression

TalkieWalkie

Came across this last night, quite interesting.

Uploaded July 2010

Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange on TED, interviewed by the founder of TED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do

The controversial website WikiLeaks collects and posts highly classified documents and video. Founder Julian Assange, who's reportedly being sought for questioning by US authorities, talks to TED's Chris Anderson about how the site operates, what it has accomplished -- and what drives him. The interview includes graphic footage of a recent US airstrike in Baghdad.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

Tabnabs

The Pentagon are reported as saying any involvement by them is 'absurd'

http://www.thelocal.se/28516/20100823/

Dude111

WIZE wrote:

Sounds like a setup from the American Government

Indeed it is!!

Wikileaks IS EXPOSING ALL THE BAD STUFF THE USA IS DOING and they (acting like 2yos) are NOT HAPPY!

thecommander

Dude111 wrote: »

Indeed it is!!

Wikileaks IS EXPOSING ALL THE BAD STUFF THE USA IS DOING and they (acting like 2yos) are NOT HAPPY!

Did you guess that they're envolved or have you something to go on? If they really wanted to nail him why not have him tried and convicted, rather than dropping them after a few hours? Even have kept it up for a few days, or even weeks.

stevejazzx

It seems incredibly unlikely that wikileaks is a C.I.A front.
Their famous colateral damage video is cetainly not something that the C.I.A puts out there about itself, certainly not in this format
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&has_verified=1
You must sign in to watch

sealgaire

Yea, the establishment is going after him.

Jeboa Safari

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11151277

the case has been reopened again...

demonspawn

Damn, I guess they just can't go around "disappearing" people anymore.

Funny how they accused one of the founding members of the American Resistance Movement with rape of a minor....with no evidence whatsoever other than the testimony of a bitter ex-girlfriend. I guess rape charges are in this season.

Edit: Charles Dyer, a founding member of that A.R.M., was charged with raping a child (his own daughter I believe) by his ex-girlfriend.

This is Dyer speaking at a tea party meeting. Not exactly what I would consider a child rapist to be honest.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Damn, I guess they just can't go around "disappearing" people anymore.

Funny how they accused one of the founding members of the American Resistance Movement

I'm sorry, the, what?

with rape of a minor....with no evidence whatsoever other than the testimony of a bitter ex-girlfriend. I guess rape charges are in this season.

Yes really because rape convictions have a famously high conviction rate. I wonder why when thats the mentality of potential jurors.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry, the, what?

lol The American Resistance Movement, a loose knit community of former U.S. military and law enforcement dudes that have sworn a civilian oath to uphold the constitution and protect the U.S. from enemies, both foreign and domestic. It's a civilian militia without the Christian fundamentalism, or so I believe. Google is your friend.

Yes really because rape convictions have a famously high conviction rate. I wonder why when thats the mentality of potential jurors.

Oh let's not go down this road. We all know pretty well that rape charges have been used in the past to get back at former boyfriends. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence to be considered in a rape case. Men have spent time in prison because of false accusations of rape, so maybe that's why the conviction rate for rape charges are as low as they are. Or maybe some women are just immoral liars willing to put a man behind bars to "teach him a lesson".

I'm in no way saying that all rape cases are false, but some are. I think the entire premise of this thread proves that point quite well.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

lol The American Resistance Movement, a loose knit community of former U.S. military and law enforcement dudes that have sworn a civilian oath to uphold the constitution and protect the U.S. from enemies, both foreign and domestic. It's a civilian militia without the Christian fundamentalism, or so I believe. Google is your friend.

No no no I know what the American Resistance Movement is, a bunch of idiot militia men. Can you show how Assange is a founding member of this group.

Oh let's not go down this road. We all know pretty well that rape charges have been used in the past to get back at former boyfriends. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence to be considered in a rape case. Men have spent time in prison because of false accusations of rape, so maybe that's why the conviction rate for rape charges are as low as they are. Or maybe some women are just immoral liars willing to put a man behind bars to "teach him a lesson".

Woa, you may not have wanted to "go down this road" but hey here we are.

Women have done so, however, plenty of woman have been raped by ex boyfriends.

I'm in no way saying that all rape cases are false, but some are. I think the entire premise of this thread proves that point quite well.

Excuse me? How has this thread shown any evidence that the rape charge in this instance is false?

For record, I don't know about Assange's guilt or innocence. But more than enough people seem to be leaping on the band wagon that this is a "set up" despite being equally in the dark about the facts of this case.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry, the, what?

Di0genes wrote: »

No no no I know what the American Resistance Movement is, a bunch of idiot militia men. Can you show how Assange is a founding member of this group.

Who the hell said Assange is a founding member of A.R.M.? Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your greatest strength. The guy's name is Charles Dyer. He's a founding member of A.R.M. He was charged with raping a child, his own daughter I believe, by his ex-girlfriend.

For record, I don't know about Assange's guilt or innocence. But more than enough people seem to be leaping on the band wagon that this is a "set up" despite being equally in the dark about the facts of this case.

Because it's so obviously an attempt to discredit the guy that reveals the truth about the things going on behind the scenes.

Edit: I'll go edit my other post to avoid such misunderstandings.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Who the hell said Assange is a founding member of A.R.M.? Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your greatest strength.

No I can read just fine. Before you edited your post your entire reference was

your entire post pre edit wrote:

Funny how they accused one of the founding members of the American Resistance Movement

There was no mention of Dyer. If you're going go into rambling non sequiturs about completely different people, and events, and not explain yourself clearly, expect people to be confused.

The guy's name is Charles Dyer. He's a founding member of A.R.M. He was charged with raping a child, his own daughter I believe, by his ex-girlfriend.

And your entire defence of him is a video, of him speaking, and I quote.

Not what I would consider a child rapist to be honest.

Well seeing as your powers of perception are so keen, that you are able to clear a man of rape, merely by looking at a youtube video of him, perhaps your gift should be used in some kind of Crime Fighting capacity.

Because it's so obviously an attempt to discredit the guy that reveals the truth about the things going on behind the scenes.

Firstly how is it obvious?

And secondly how does it discredit wikileaks. Assange provided a forum for people to anonymously leak documents, this action in no way incriminates or taints wikileaks, which I suspect can carry on without his involvement, or innocence or guilt.

It's like claiming the work of a respected journalist is tainted because his newspaper's publisher, is a gambler.


What I do find distasteful is your list of potential innuendo about the motivations of two women, who have been potentially violated, and your willingness to besmirch their character before any facts about the case are known.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And secondly how does it discredit wikileaks.

Ridiculous question of the week time? :rolleyes:

Di0genes wrote: »

It's like claiming the work of a respected journalist is tainted because his newspaper's publisher, is a gambler.

That actually brought a wry smile coming from you. You are always the first to attempt to discredit any CT source based on some non relevant ideology or episode from their past.

demonspawn

Anyone who knows about the A.R.M. is quite familiar with Dyer's case. You obviously knew about the A.R.M. before my post (you even said so yourself) so why the confusion? I wrote that post to simply add that this is not an uncommon thing to use against people.

Well seeing as your powers of perception are so keen, that you are able to clear a man of rape, merely by looking at a youtube video of him, perhaps your gift should be used in some kind of Crime Fighting capacity.

Who says it's not being used? Oh, you haven't seen my costume yet? It's great! Spandex and rubber all over the place!

That last bit of your post isn't worth replying to in my opinion. Sorry.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ridiculous question of the week time? :rolleyes:

No apparently it's just your time of the month. If you're going to come out with snide sarky asides instead of answering legitimate points, I'll engage in the kind of juvenile antics you seem to enjoy

That actually brought a wry smile coming from you. You are always the first to attempt to discredit any CT source based on some non relevant ideology or episode from their past.

There's a world of difference between dismissing a source because of a proven bias, political ideology, or that it has been shown to be inaccurate or unfair, and dismissing a website designed to allow anonymous leaking of documents because the guy who came up with the concept is an accused rapist.

But these concepts seems beyond your ken. So I will use an analogy, it's akin to dismissing the internet as amoral because there's pornography on it.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Anyone who knows about the A.R.M. is quite familiar with Dyer's case. You obviously knew about the A.R.M. before my post (you even said so yourself)

Familiarity with an organisation does not mean I keep up with day events of the extreme right.

so why the confusion? I wrote that post to simply add that this is not an uncommon thing to use against people.

And neither case has been brought to trial. It's funny that the innocence or guilt of these two men has not yet been established and yet you seem utterly convinced both are being framed.

Who says it's not being used? Oh, you haven't seen my costume yet? It's great! Spandex and rubber all over the place!

What you get up to in your bedroom is between you, and well yourself.

That last bit of your post isn't worth replying to in my opinion. Sorry.

Why apologise? I mean you just ignored any substantive part of the argument laid out against your position, and instead got into pedantry.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Firstly how is it obvious?

And secondly how does it discredit wikileaks. Assange provided a forum for people to anonymously leak documents, this action in no way incriminates or taints wikileaks, which I suspect can carry on without his involvement, or innocence or guilt.

It's like claiming the work of a respected journalist is tainted because his newspaper's publisher, is a gambler.


What I do find distasteful is your list of potential innuendo about the motivations of two women, who have been potentially violated, and your willingness to besmirch their character before any facts about the case are known.

I goes without saying that people will be less likely to disclose sensitive information to an alleged rapist. Anyone with any bit of sense can see that.

If he is falsely convicted, that's the end of wikileaks. Simple.

Some women lie, that's no secret. Some men lie, that is also no secret.
I just find it very strange how such a controversial figure can be accused of rape by some random person. These types of accusations can be very damaging to a person's public image, regardless of whether they are true or not. This is why they are effective, because they don't even have to be true.

In a series of other messages posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed, the whistle-blowing website said: "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police", and that it had been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

Happy now?

Edit: Where does it say that there are two women involved? It simply states that there are two allegations, one for rape and one for molestation.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

I goes without saying that people will be less likely to disclose sensitive information to an alleged rapist. Anyone with any bit of sense can see that.

If he is falsely convicted, that's the end of wikileaks. Simple.

Okay right. So You have absolutely no concept of how wikileaks works. The site has over 1,200 volunteers, Assange is on a board of advisors.

It's not as if people e-mail him personally, and he alone decides what is and isn't published.

Some women lie, that's no secret. Some men lie, that is also no secret.

And some people commit rape

I just find it very strange how such a controversial figure can be accused of rape by some random person.

So your entire foundation for your position is your incredulity?

These types of accusations can be very damaging to a person's public image,

As can your insinuations about the character of the alleged victim.

Happy now?

Edit: Where does it say that there are two women involved? It simply states that there are two allegations, one for rape and one for molestation.

The women are the two women who made allegations about Assange and Dyer. What was it you said about reading comprehension?

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay right. So You have absolutely no concept of how wikileaks works. The site has over 1,200 volunteers, Assange is on a board of advisors.

It's not as if people e-mail him personally, and he alone decides what is and isn't published.

He pays the bills, if he goes the whole thing goes. Nobody's gonna work for a convicted rapist.

And some people commit rape

And some people lie. I'm finished with that argument.

As can your insinuations about the character of the alleged victim.

What victim? Who are they? Where are they? That's right, there's no basis for this accusation whatsoever. That's probably why Swedish Police aren't bothering with it.

The women are the two women who made allegations about Assange and Dyer. What was it you said about reading comprehension?

You didn't even know who Charles Dyer was before my post. How am I meant to know what the hell you're talking about? But hey, let's just make it up as we go along shall we?

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

He pays the bills,

No, no he does not.

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for Wikileaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to Wikileaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration to Wikileaks' personnel, corroborating the statement of the site's German representative Daniel Schmitt on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers

http://www.techeye.net/internet/wau-holland-foundation-sheds-light-on-wikileaks-donations#ixzz0td0dXhBx

I think at this junction, you should stop talking, go away, and read up on how wikileak actually works.

if he goes the whole thing goes. Nobody's gonna work for a convicted rapist.

No body works for him now.

What victim? Who are they? Where are they? That's right, there's no basis for this accusation whatsoever. That's probably why Swedish Police aren't bothering with it.

You seem incredibly confident and at the same time, don't seem to know the first facts about the case.

You didn't even know who Charles Dyer was before my post. How am I meant to know what the hell you're talking about? But hey, let's just make it up as we go along shall we?

You raised the Dyer case, I looked into it. You brought it up, and are now getting your knickers in a twist because I referred back to it. It seems someone wants to have and eat their cake.

demonspawn

Well if all his staff are volunteers then they'd be a lot less likely to work for a convicted rapist than a paid employee, right?

Di0genes wrote: »

No body works for him now.

I don't even know what that means.

You seem incredibly confident and at the same time, don't seem to know the first facts about the case.

Likewise. But of course, guilty until proven innocent right? Well in rape cases that's certainly the perception, and that's why they're used to discredit people. Get it now?

You raised the Dyer case, I looked into it. You brought it up, and are now getting your knickers in a twist because I referred back to it. It seems someone wants to have and eat their cake.

And it is at this point that I will take my leave because you're just making less sense with every post. Enjoy arguing with yourself.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Well if all his staff are volunteers then they'd be a lot less likely to work for a convicted rapist than a paid employee, right?

Christ you really don't get it. They're. Not. His. Staff. He. Doesnt. Run. Wikileaks.

I don't even know what that means.

Nobody is directly employed by Assange.

Likewise. But of course, guilty until proven innocent right?

No innocent until proven guilt. You seem to get alot of basic stuff mixed up.

Well in rape cases that's certainly the perception,

No it's not. And as you've clearly demonstrated with this comment

We all know pretty well that rape charges have been used in the past to get back at former boyfriends. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence to be considered in a rape case. Men have spent time in prison because of false accusations of rape, so maybe that's why the conviction rate for rape charges are as low as they are. Or maybe some women are just immoral liars willing to put a man behind bars to "teach him a lesson".

That you'd suspect the alleged victims motives before believing the charges against the alleged rapist.

and that's why they're used to discredit people. Get it now?

And you've given us two examples, neither of which have gone to trial so it's hard to see if they are either an effective tool to "discredit" people, or even if the charges have any merit.

And it is at this point that I will take my leave because you're just making less sense with every post. Enjoy arguing with yourself.

Actually you should have just given up when you exposed the fact that you don't even understand the basic model of how wikileaks works. No scratch that, you should have given up when you suggested that an alleged child rapist was "Not exactly what I would consider a child rapist to be honest." based on a youtube video taken at a public rally.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Actually you should have just given up when you exposed the fact that you don't even understand the basic model of how wikileaks works. No scratch that, you should have given up when you suggested that an alleged child rapist was "Not exactly what I would consider a child rapist to be honest." based on a youtube video taken at a public rally.

I'm gonna ignore all the other stuff because it's just absurd. I base my opinion of Charles Dyer not an a Youtube video, but on the fact that we spoke regularly on the A.R.M. forums before his arrest. I know him and his friends in the U.S. fairly well by now. They all say he's not the type to do that and I wholeheartedly agree. I was actually planning on moving back to the U.S. and joining the A.R.M. before I found out about the tea party members that associated themselves with the movement. Now don't you feel like a complete tool? Well you should.

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm gonna ignore all the other stuff because it's just absurd.

Me pointing out that haven't a bogs notion as to how wikileaks actual works is absurd?

I base my opinion of Charles Dyer not an a Youtube video, but on the fact that we spoke regularly on the A.R.M. forums before his arrest. I know him and his friends in the U.S. fairly well by now. They all say he's not the type to do that and I wholeheartedly agree. I was actually planning on moving back to the U.S. and joining the A.R.M. before I found out about the tea party members that associated themselves with the movement. Now don't you feel like a complete tool? Well you should.

No I don't. You taking the words of a bunch of fascist gun nuts militia types over the internet as proof that he's innocent is fecking hilarious.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

No I don't. You taking the words of a bunch of fascist gun nuts militia types over the internet as proof that he's innocent is fecking hilarious.

Judgmental much? The fact is you have no idea who those guys are. I do. Yes, there are some nutters in there but Charles Dyer isn't one of them. I'm done speaking to you now, good luck finding someone else to entertain your ideas.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Judgmental much? The fact is you have no idea who those guys are. I do. Yes, there are some nutters in there but Charles Dyer isn't one of them. I'm done speaking to you now, good luck finding someone else to entertain your ideas.

But demonspawn you've clearly shown you had no idea how wikileaks was run. I have to admit I had no idea either but then i didn't make accusations like I knew.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

But demonspawn you've clearly shown you had no idea how wikileaks was run. I have to admit I had no idea either but then i didn't make accusations like I knew.

Accusations and assumptions are clearly two different words with two different meanings. I assumed this guy was the boss and wikileaks was a company he ran. I was mistaken. It really has nothing to do with the actual thread. As usual debunkers try changing the subject to suit their agenda.

Next.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

...I assumed this guy was the boss and wikileaks was a company he ran. I was mistaken. It really has nothing to do with the actual thread. As usual debunkers try changing the subject to suit their agenda.

Next.

But it has everything to do with the thread. If he doesn't actually run the wikileaks organisation then destroying his reputation will have little impact on wikileaks. And if it has little impact on wikileaks then there's little reason for anyone to frame him.

Changing the subject???!?!?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

But it has everything to do with the thread. If he doesn't actually run the wikileaks organisation then destroying his reputation will have little impact on wikileaks. And if it has little impact on wikileaks then there's little reason for anyone to frame him.

Changing the subject???!?!?

You can't know the effect this will have on the site, so there's no point in sitting here making assumptions about it either way. It just stands to reason that the head of an organization is a reflection of that organization. When his character is called into question with a rape allegation, his reputation may crumble. Obviously a number of people believe he's the boss over at wikileaks, I've already proven that. I imagine people will be less likely to believe a story that's been broken on wikileaks if they believe the guy is a rapist. Public perception is everything in politics.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

You can't know the effect this will have on the site, so there's no point in sitting here making assumptions about it either way.

But you've been making assumptions from the start of this thread. He may be guilty of something or he may not, that's what a court of law is for. You've been assuming a fit up from the beginning using information that turns out not to be true.

demonspawn wrote: »

It just stands to reason that the head of an organization is a reflection of that organization. When his character is called into question with a rape allegation, his reputation may crumble. Obviously a number of people believe he's the boss over at wikileaks, I've already proven that. I imagine people will be less likely to believe a story that's been broken on wikileaks if they believe the guy is a rapist. Public perception is everything in politics.

The US government complaining about wikileaks has done more for it's popularity than any rape allegation on it's founder will tarnish it.