comment on Rozenberg guardian article on assange's misogynist defense defamation and rape shield violation
comment on Rozenberg guardian article on assange's misogynist defense defamation and rape shield violation
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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment