WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Is Not Accused of Rape (Updated)

This article has been superseded by new charges on rape released by the Swedish authorities. You can read the charges here. The article is provided as it was published, based on the original reports by the Daily Mail and AOL News.—JD


Note to the foxy patriots who want the head of WikiLeak's Julian Assange on a plate with his severed penis in his mouth: He's not a rapist. The Swedish women didn't accuse him of rape but of not using a condom.

Reportedly, according to police reports and Swedish prosecutors, the sex in both cases was consensual. Talking with AOL News, Assange's lawyer says that the authorities want to question him regarding "sex by surprise" charges.

What is "sex by surprise"?

According to Swedish law, a woman can denounce a man if he doesn't use a condom after he has been requested to wear it, even if the sex is completely consensual, like apparently was the case here. They call this offense "sex by surprise". It could get him condemned to a maximum fine of 5,000 Swedish kronor ($715), but no jail time.

Police reports obtained by the Daily Mail show that Assange met the two women who denounced him at an August 11 event that was held in Stockholm by the Social Democratic Party.

The first woman denounced him because the condom broke while having sex at Assange's apartment. Both were seen acting normally the next morning. It was only days after when the woman decided to accuse him of having sex with the broken condom.


The second woman's statement to the police is strange: The 27-year-old photographer said she went to the event because she is fascinated by Assange. She managed to get into a lunch with him and other people. Two days later they talked on the phone and she invited him to her apartment 40 miles from Stockholm, paying for his ticket because—according to her—Assange had no cash or credit cards.

Then she complained to the police that "he paid more attention to his computer rather than me" on the train ride, and that "the passion and excitement seemed to have disappeared" when they arrived to her apartment. However, they still had sex using a condom that night.


The next morning they had sex again, but this time Assange didn't use a condom. According to the New York Times, friends of the woman say that he did not comply with her appeals to stop unless he wore a condom. They had sex anyway. Assange claims that she didn't force her in any case. Talking to the police, she didn't accuse him of rape*, but of not using a condom that morning.

Edit: Of course, the friends' description is rape. No means no. My point is that, if we don't have all the information, we don't really know what happened and we certainly can't condemn anyone before he's declared guilty by a tribunal.


Smear campaign

While you can say Assange is a douchebag for not putting a condom on and continuing after the woman requested he use a condom, there was no rape accusation in both cases. Both women only accused him of having sex without protection.


But if having sex with a broken condom is a payable offense, most people on Earth should pay a fine. And if he was asked to wear a condom by the second woman and, after he didn't comply, both had sex anyway, both of them should be accused of being stupid for risking an infection.

In any case, these "sex by surprise" denounces seem quite far away from the "ASSANGE IS A RAPIST" accusation that many outlets are publishing. It certainly doesn't seem to warrant an Interpol capture order, which describes the two denounces as a number of sexual offenses. Especially when "sex by surprise" is only an offense in Sweden.


Perhaps Fox and most of the media out there is going with the "Assange wanted for rape" line because "Assange wanted for broken condom and not using a condom in morning sex" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Or maybe they are not happy with the idea of someone helping to denounce the wrongdoings of governments. Which is weird, because that's what media is supposed to do: Keep The People informed so they can make their own decisions. I guess that Woodward and Bernstein's long hairs and corduroy jackets are not in fashion anymore. [AOL News and Daily Mail]



I think it is good you linked back to this original post.

Regardless of whether or not people agree with your statements we definitely should put more thought in effort in to our comments. Looking back through those comments , half of them say the same things but offer no support. I read one comment that disagreed with the article but provided links to clear it up. [] This comment was then starred.

Even still the comments are still talking bad about the original statements even though the article has been updated, which is an admission of error. Despite the error though, the definition of rape and the definitions provided in the law aren't always the same, as is the case with many different topics...