dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to norwegian

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

said by norwegian:

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.

I think the chances of a person generally supportive of Assange being targeted by some sort of nefarious intelligence arm of a hypothetical nation to be about zero. And they have a few thousand to get through before you even assuming the wild notion that they'd be interested in any way to be true. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this "worry". Assange himself operated basically in the open for years. And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.

By a similar token, I suppose I could worry about being "hacked" by Anonymous or what-not for generally believing that Assange should "man-up" and go face his accusers, in Sweden, and saying so.

Am I worrying? Nope.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


yeeeah

@videotron.ca

said by Ian:

And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

said by yeeeah :

said by Ian:

And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.


100% accurate
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

said by norwegian:

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.

I think the chances of a person generally supportive of Assange being targeted by some sort of nefarious intelligence arm of a hypothetical nation to be about zero. And they have a few thousand to get through before you even assuming the wild notion that they'd be interested in any way to be true. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this "worry". Assange himself operated basically in the open for years. And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.

By a similar token, I suppose I could worry about being "hacked" by Anonymous or what-not for generally believing that Assange should "man-up" and go face his accusers, in Sweden, and saying so.

Am I worrying? Nope.

Who are we to fear the most when it comes to free speech, the evil government or the so called defenders of free speech? If the question even has to be asked, then perhaps the defenders have already failed.

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 edit

said by Link Logger:

Who are we to fear the most when it comes to free speech, the evil government or the so called defenders of free speech? If the question even has to be asked, then perhaps the defenders have already failed.

Blake

I think the time is drawing closer when this will be. Outspoken is already frowned upon.

Just look at the link posted above on the affects of a prime minister. Our prime minister allegedly commented on Julian being guilty in 2010, and the subsequent shut down of all credit card blocking of donating to an 'illegal organisation" as well as other forms of donating. I'm sure it was discussed here in the topic earlier too.

She has basically used the power of her seat to thwart his cause. I can understand the want to hit back with a deformation suite of some sort.

»www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-08/a···/4300262
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

said by norwegian:

She has basically used the power of her seat to thwart his cause. I can understand the want to hit back with a deformation suite of some sort.

Publicity stunt. Nothing more.

»www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi···ext-only

"Prominent defamation lawyer Stuart Littlemore, QC, has labelled attempts by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange to find ways of suing Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation as nothing more than a stunt.

Mr Littlemore and other legal experts have today said that defamation claims generally must be made within 12 months of the comments."

""For the life of me I cannot imagine that there is a cause of action that WikiLeaks could ever bring, least of all if it had done it within time."

So what exactly did Ms. Gillard say that was so "slanderous"?

"I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It's a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.""

Yeah, good luck with that Mr. Assange. It might serve its purpose in deflecting conversation away from his ducking rape charges for a bit though.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong