As far as I am concerned, yes they are (fair game I mean). By having the information they have, they are in a position of power and thus if they use that information to start doing Bad Things(TM), I would fully expect (and welcome) such abuse being leaked.

But unless Assange used some aspect of Wikileaks to perpetuate the crimes he was accused of, it stays firmly in the realm of "individual" privacy. Isn't it a fallacy to try to win an argument by discrediting your opponent with unrelated things anyway? :)

I was about to say the same damn thing... I mean I would complain about that too...

A private individual? That's an interesting take. Assange made himself a political figure. Now he's got to take all that goes with it. Which according to you includes having his privacy violated.

Dude is unemployed outside of his wikileaking. So they probably pay for most of his traveling.

And if we found out that Obama had a thing for the little boys and was partaking of them on trips to Thailand (even if for completely valid US Government reasons), you can be damned sure people would want to know and it would be leaked.

When you are a political figure, the line between individual and political are heavily blurred (which is what the other guy is sort of trying to say, in his angry way).

And even if it was his own money: Assange MADE this political. He called it a "set-up" that was arranged by the enemies of Wikileaks. That right there made it political and, by the virtues of many of the pro-Wikileaks people, it became public domain.

So yeah, sorry, not unrelated :p

And to comment on the earlier Clinton reference: What got most people (in power) in a bunch wasn't that he was porking the fat chick (seriously Bill, I know Hilary is scary, but you can do better...), but that he lied when under oath (perjury). It just kind of gets lost in the shuffle.

I'm a supporter to what Wikileaks did. Go ask Gundato if you don't believe me. :)

After reading through here, I'd like to point out a few things.
- the irony is great. Rant about political figures and individual persons as much as you want, it just is.
- linking and judging this case with a look at what Wikileaks did, can't work. Try as hard as you want to make it stick, it just won't.
- however, Assange complaining about this leak is a "NO GO". Not because of Wikileaks, not because one sees him as a guy with an agenda or what so ever.

Simply because he put the two woman upfront, claiming political conspiracy and what not, when ever he could.
He's probably right with describing it as "selectively publishing" parts of it, questioning the timing of the leak, and saying it was clearly designed to undermine his bail application. However, he's guilty of all these charges in the same case, trying to undermine the credibility of the two womans whenever he or his lawyers could.

Well said.

I would just add: You can make the same accusations with most of Wikileak's high-profile leaks :p

Guys, just because it didn't involve Jodie Foster being slammed against a pinball table doesn't mean that it is any less serious. Maybe you disagree with Sweden's laws regarding nonconsensual sex, but everyone seems to be forgetting: Assange is NOT the victim in this. He is the accused. And while we are supposed to give people due process (ha, like that ever happens these days :p), "innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "the victims are wrong".

Several things you mentioned there that I was unaware of (such as him being unemployed outside of Wikileaks) so thanks for enlightening me on those.

With your Obama example, I'm not really sure what to think. I can see the point that you are making (or at least, I think I can :]) but my initial reaction is that it is an unfair comparison. Perhaps it is because it implies he was proven guilty by law to be doing it whereas Assange hasn't been. Plus, it is the revelation of new information, whereas people already knew of the accusation and there is little (?) to gain from leaking the testimonials at this point except as a political character assassination, which brings me to my next point.

Just because he says it was a set-up doesn't make it political. He might be right, which means the people who leaked it has political motivations to invade his privacy as an individual. Calling a duck a horse doesn't make it a horse, after all :) It was unrelated before it was leaked, which puts the leaker in the wrong, not Assange.

Out of curiosity, what is the state of that investigation? Has he been found innocent/guilty or is it still ongoing?
EDIT: Not just curiosity, but to actually "resolve" my indecision on the Obama comparison.

No idea on the state, but you are essentially arguing that nobody is allowed to comment on it until it is over. Honestly, I agree with that. But Assange (at the very least) has opened the precedence of saying that it is character assassination and it is a politically motivated trial. So that needs to be investigated.

And, if anything, this leak probably did a lot more than many of the other leaks. At the very least, it lended further credence to there actually being a case underneath this. Take a look at other threads HERE on this, there are posts that go as follows (I paraphrase):

"It isn't rape just because he didn't use a condom"
Except that she demanded he use one. So non-consensual sex. And Sweden apparently has laws about this very subject.

"It is all a conspiracy"
This is akin to the traditional celebrity response of "She wanted it, and now she just wants more money"

Even with ninety million different episodes of Law and Order SVU where Stabler and Not-Stabler try and teach this lesson, people still don't get it. Rape is serious, for everyone involved. If it is a false accusation, it still destroys the credibility of the accused. And considering that the only real defense for the accused is to call the accuser/victim crazy/slutty, it isn't like the victim's worst experiences are behind him or her.

And Assange, and many of his followers, have been trying to downplay this and call the women tools of the Ebil Government!s. His people started the character assassination. That is not to say two wrongs make a right (they don't), but you have to appreciate the difference between attacking the accuser and "leaking" information on the accused. And at least the jury pool is now tainted on both sides.

Nobody is really in the right here (except the victim, assuming this is legit). But everyone seems hellbent on picking their side and discrediting the other.

It is? Really? We'll see. But maybe you should read those reports first before judging. :)

My favorit part up to now is, that the first victim (the one claiming that he might have done something so the condom broke) hosted a party for him the very next evening.
That's clearly something a rape victim would do. Throwing a party for, or going out with the rapist from yesterday.

Personally, I wouldn't dare to conclude what was and what not. But I see a lot of couch and popcorn time coming before this case is settled.

Thanks to you both for sharing your knowledge :)

I haven't learned anything to change my conclusion that this is invasion of personal privacy but I can see how Assange may have prompted the leak himself with his political stances/movements etc.

Sounds like quite a few people didn't even bother to read the article. From the article it sounds like Assange's complaint was not so much that the material was leaked (I actually wouldn't surprised if he was somewhat happy about it, since he and his lawyers have been requesting access to the police reports, but have been getting stonewalled by the Swedish prosecutors). Rather, his complaint seems to be about selective reporting of the contents of the report, along with timing that seemed intended to influence his bail hearing (undermining due process).

Then again, given the sheer amount of ignorance floating about in any Wikileaks/Assange threads around here I'm really not too surprised to once again see many people shooting their mouths off while having little idea what they're talking about.

Yup, doesn't make it right, at all. But hopefully you'll at least look at the previous leaks in a different light.