Thoughts on the Alleged Rapist, Julian Assange, and Invasions of Privacy

A couple of days ago, there were rumors swirling that Assange was dead. I felt a sense of relief on behalf of his two alleged victims in Sweden. I hoped, for their sake, this was true. You can read about the accounts of the two alleged victims here:

Assange, an Australian citizen, was granted asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London about 5 years ago on the grounds that his civil liberties were being violated. Little thought was given to his two alleged victims in Sweden and their right to due process (however it is described in Sweden) and their civil liberties as free women and citizens in their own home country. Assange’s civil liberties – his right to invade others’ privacy – was of foremost importance.

The two women were called a “honeypot”- a trap. I would suggest to men that if they wish to avoid the possibility of any such “traps,” they should keep their dicks and other body parts to themselves. It’s a simple matter for men to avoid accusations of rape – don’t stick your dick places it shouldn’t be, anyway. It’s very simple, unless, of course, you believe that we women exist for this purpose. That, apparently, is the position of those who defend Assange.

Rape is a violation. It is an invasion. Rape may be accurately described in many ways, including as a violation or an invasion of privacy. This is what Assange quite notoriously does and for which he is hailed as a hero by many. He invades people’s online privacy, collects, and disseminates this information.

The right to privacy is regarded as a basic human right. It is regarded as so important here in the U.S. that it was described in several Amendments in the Bill of Rights. For instance, we have the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Assange is frequently described as a journalist, however, his status as a journalist is questionable since journalists are supposed to have ethical standards. Journalists are expected to uphold the law and honor basic human rights, including rights to privacy. They are not supposed to divulge damaging personal information that harms innocent people.

Yet,  according to this Newsweek article, Wikileaks has released personal information in the Clinton email hack about a single woman, a mother, and a staffer at the Clinton Foundation and her personal struggle with depression, which has been harmful to this innocent individual and her family.

According to this article, first posted on July 25, 2016, posted at Huffington Post, “WikiLeaks Put Women in Turkey in Danger, for No Reason, they doxxed 20 million Turkish women, exposing their names, physical addresses and other personal and private information in the so-called “Erdogan Email” dump. They eventually removed this information, but the damage was done as nothing is ever really removed from the cyber world.

In this August 23, 2016 article from the Inquisitr, “WIKILEAKS POSTS RAPE VICTIMS’ MEDICAL INFO AS JILL STEIN PENS OP-ED PRAISING ‘HERO’ JULIAN ASSANGE,” it is reported that Wikileaks revealed the identities and private information of two teen-aged rape victims along with more than 100 files in a medical information dump.

This kind of careless disregard for the privacy and safety of other people – frequently women, it seems, and in the case of the Turkish violation, they were all women voters! – disqualifies Assange and Wikileaks as any kind of authentic journalistic endeavor.

Furthermore, what have we learned about corruption from Assange’s information dumps that we didn’t already know? Nothing. No one who is paying attention would be surprised in anyway by any details in the emails of the politicians who have been so gleefully “exposed.” It’s a joke and, it appears, a personal economic opportunity for Assange to push his book.

A couple of days ago, it was reported that the Ecuadorian embassy cut off Assange’s internet connection because he is using it to interfere with the election process in the U.S. It is clear that he is not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. He has made this clear by both word and deed. There are, also, accusations that he is colluding with members of Trump’s campaign, which appears to have many ties to the presumably defunct Soviets – not the least of which is his marriage into a Communist family the third time around. While I’m no supporter of either of the Clintons, having grown up in the Cold War Era, Trump’s coziness with allegedly-former Soviets makes me extremely uncomfortable.

One of the hallmarks of a Communist regime is authoritarianism, but there is, also, corruption and lawlessness, as we in the U.S. understand the meaning of the word, “law.” As Americans, we understand “law” to mean rules that limit government and uphold civil liberties and basic human rights and freedoms.

Assange’s lack of understanding about basic human rights – his willingness to violate the privacy and civil liberties of individual women he meets and of large groups of women unknown to him and his organization inform us as to where he stands. He is no champion of civil liberties – at least, not for women.

His recent lack of internet connection has led some to speculate that Assange has croaked. But, I’m sure we couldn’t be so lucky.