re: #572 Obdicut

I simply think there is not enough information available to make any conclusion whatsoever. I’m really, really, really not sure why the hell everyone is so eager to come to one conclusion or another.

We don’t, actually, know everything the women told the police and/or prosecutors. We don’t, actually, know the full circumstances of the sexual encounters.

Yes, the word ‘rape’ is highly charged, and an accusation of it on its own is harmful. And yes, there’s a lot of people who are pissed at Assange who are happy to see this charge made against him, and who don’t particularly care about its accuracy.

That has zero bearing on whether we know enough to dismiss the charges. We don’t.

I agree, and sorry, i wasn’t clear, I think that things should be permitted to play itself out. and if he’s found guilty then he is found guilty.

My larger point (which I should have edited down and clarified honestly, but that’s not as fun as just typing stream of conscience) was that stuff like this is used to smear the person. make the person scum, and you don’t have to answer to the larger issues brought up.

I think of Richard Jewell, who found that his collection of porno magazines and movies was widely talked about and reported on by the FBI and the media. becoming the butt of many a joke and snicker. why? because the more you can tear down the person, the easier it is to convict them. Richard Jewell was a hero, and was doing his level best to save lives, and he got smeared and shredded.

And I’m not trying to draw an exact equivalence as Richard Jewell had no message, just his reputation. of just how the idea of tear down the man to destroy a message is effective and repugnant.