sleepwalking into dangerous legal territory

Wikileaks Divestiture Ethical Disclaimer:

it is within extreme sorrow that i wish to clarify to the reader that i disapprove of many of wikileaks sexist PR agendas, and have been attempting to reform and help them evolve to a place of less hatred.  my original interest in wikileaks was regarding the human rights potential and environmental law and international law progress that would come about from more information. now that wikileaks has descended to new nadirs of sexism and male domination and is now promoting swedish rape-porn  conflation joke-book: i must very clearly state i ethically cannot support this.  since 2011, there have been many other ethical problems i approached through my blogging and published letters. i am deeply sorry if this is disturbing to people, as it is to me.

it was a great horror to hear the news, and confront the unknowable. what is known, is that the PR Machine that is @wikileaks is now a very un-progressive retrogressive anti-woman character assassination machine. wikileaks supporters attack me regularly for my honesty.

i am also saddened by the anti-islam message and the neo-nazi affiliation. extremely saddened.

for the exceptional legal writing of joshua rozenberg, who i saw repeatedly in the court rooms at the royal courts of justice and supreme court.
he finished his law studies before i was born. much respect for his scholarship.


also appreciative i am that he brought up marital rape in the UK and it's migration to the European Court of Human Rights.

the failure to asses the marital rape norm in emmerson's argumentation on behalf of assange in July 2011, was a huge legal blind spot, which i did not see properly addressed outside of Clare Montgomery's prosecution.

repeatedly, i made attempts to encourage @swedenvsassange to document the consent norm and marital rape norm variation as they speckled the european law.
they instead have gone for the eternal conspiracy theory----much to the harming of their case.

i am not sure why assange's lawyers cannot protect him from these undue defamations  of  un-related women in sweden, as well as persistent reference to rape shield violating bloggers such as rixstep, rick downes.


so grateful to joshua rozenberg
for noting these marital rape cases
here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/20/strasbourg-court-develop-law-study 

case 1:

http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/233813e697620022c1256864005232b7/ad4d6a657f046ef1c1256640004c2dfc?OpenDocument
netherlands institute of human rights

case 2:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html


the added perspective of my studies of swedish law, rape law, and digital transmissions in law culture, inform this post.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/16462370

braingarbage

5 June 2012 12:42PM

"as the digital culture merges with law, i would like to ask the learned figures here, of their sense of a lawyer's duty to assist in digital transmissions during the case.
anyone who has studied assange's defense websites would find numerous problems designed to prejudice the media, which also destroy his credibility.
what level of media management might protect a client from making a defense website which paints a xenophobic attitude for sweden, a violation of rape shield law, or attacks on other unrelated women, which are defamatory and sexist? a website which attacks the primary service provider for domestic violence victims in sweden, and domestic violence activists in sweden as a part of an alleged conspiracy.
i enjoyed very much dinah rose's comportment and calm, but i am at a loss why the english legal community is not pointing out the fact that assange's legal team has allowed him to imperil himself further through disastrous sexist sloganeering on his defense site, and then through derivative fan blogging which is both vicious, rapeshield violating, and attacking of miscellaneous women.
i wonder too, how it is that this has escaped gareth peirce's notice and jennifer robinson's.
the mistakes have been vast including the citation of a neo-nazi mass murderer's opinion about the legal system, as well as blogger's who regularly violate rape shield law. the effect will discourage future rape reporting.
i have conceived it as legal malpractice in a digital sense, and an attempt to prejudice the justices and courts.
the net effect to me has been to the detriment of assange's case, and i am at a loss whether many people have noticed it, as have i, and what your opinions are about managing client's mis-statements and defamation campaigns online, when it may have adverse effects on the client's safety and presumption of innocence. "