
Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks - Tomte
https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-assange-or-wikileaks/
======
ucaetano
It is sad to see how low WikiLeaks has fallen, and makes me think more and
more that there has never been much of WL beyond Assange himself.

It has reached comical levels of insanity, illusion of grandeur and
narcissism.

~~~
marpstar
WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence
agencies and is operating as a front.

~~~
smacktoward
It's not clear to me that intelligence agencies would have ever _needed_ to
compromise WikiLeaks-the-organization. WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to
publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them. Any
intelligence agency that wanted a clean way to get some illicitly-obtained
documents out into public view could therefore do so just by handing them to
WikiLeaks, without needing to subvert the organization in any way. WikiLeaks
made a perfect front just by working the way it was designed to work.

~~~
hannasanarion
We can tell that wikileaks is now a front precisely because they have
_stopped_ operating in the way you describe.

They no longer publish everything they have been given (Assange once claimed
to have documents embarassing to Russia but they are as yet unpublished).

They no longer publish documents indiscriminately (Podesta emails trickled out
over the course of October 2016 for maximum political effect on the election)

If that wasn't enough, everyone should've been convinced that wikileaks is
compromised when Assange refused to demonstrate that he held the wikileaks
signing private key during his reddit AMA

~~~
Varcht
_" It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks
have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in
fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia,
millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see
[https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/](https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/),
[https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#...](https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#results),
[https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/](https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/) &
[https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=trump#results](https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=trump#results)]."_

~~~
hannasanarion
ooooOOOOOOooooOOOO is Julian going to sue me for defamation now?

Allow me to amend: Wikileaks now publishes Russia and putin related material
long after they aquire them and only after they are called out on it.

They sat on the "spy files" for a full year, and only published them _after_
their source went around telling other publications about them.
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-
down-l...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-
on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/)

~~~
taylodl
Are you suggesting Wikileaks may have had a hidden agenda? Say it ain't so!
</sarcasm>

------
mhkool
I have always love wikileaks for what they do. It is very sad to see that
there is so much wrong information and it makes me believe that there is
indeed a smear campaign against Julian Assange and wilileaks.

~~~
nness
If anything, can't but help feel that WikiLeaks informed how the ICIJ handled
the leaked 11.5 million leaked documents that comprised the 'Panama Papers.'
The involvement of multiple journalists, across different organisations,
really adds authenticity that the information was handled objectively and
fairly. There's been very little criticism of that fact, at least when
compared to WikiLeak's handling of other materials.

~~~
r3bl
> Even WikiLeaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly. The media has failed.

Direct quote from the Panama Papers source[0], after which Wikileaks "slammed"
the source for not releasing the full leak. That was such an obvious
defamation attempt that Wikileaks disgusts me ever since.

That wasn't the only defamation attempt around Panama Papers that Wikileaks
attempted. Check out this[1] investigative gem, in which they've used a secret
technique called "scrolling to the bottom to see the donors". I worked at that
organization at the time and specifically remember myself thinking "Fuck you
Julian, we're supposed to be on the same side." Edited to add: Of course,
Russian media picked up on that tweet immediately[2].

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-
papers-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-papers-
source-breaks-silence-over-scale-of-injustices)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352)

[2] [https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-
attack/](https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/)

~~~
RealityVoid
OCCRP does amazing investigative journalism. I know in Romania, Rise project
is associated with them, and they have some amazing pieces.

------
gadders
My opinion of Julian Assange has varied over the years, depending on who the
victim of his latest exposure was. I think this means that on balance he's
fairly neutral.

However this item is a statement of fact, no?

>> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever
"breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that
he has ever been charged with such at any time.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-
supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail)

~~~
samwillis
You are quite right, there is an active arrest warrant for him (from the uk,
Sweden never issued one) [1]. My understanding is that he fled the warrant as
he beleves he would be extradited to the US if the UK arrest him.

1:
[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/201...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/13/judge-
refuses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant)

------
davidwitt415
Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths
being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange
meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally
no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed
Manafort entering the embassy).

[https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-
gua...](https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-
viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-
stonewalling/)

Clearly, we are being played by the media and whoever is putting them up to
it, with the understanding that most people hear a headline and think they now
'know' the story. Another great example is teh high-tech sonic attack on
Guantanamo US personnel which is now being revealed as.. crickets!

~~~
hannasanarion
Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the
facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the
original Guardian story.

1\. There is photo evidence, but the Guardian cannot publish it for one reason
or another. They described the clothes he was wearing that day in detail.

2\. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you
ctrl-f because they misspelled his name, it appears as "Paul Manaford".

This isn't "lack of transparency", it's protecting your sources.

But, then again, I wouldn't expect The Intercept to know how to tell the
difference, seeing how they've burned Reality Winner and Terry Albury.

~~~
mrguyorama
Reading this makes me sad. I thought the intercept was quality journalism. I
didn't know they had this kind of history

~~~
hannasanarion
Yeah. And those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John
Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and
there may be others.

The Intercept isn't safe any more, and it's increasingly becoming sidelined,
with the biggest leak since Snowden, the Panama Papers, being given to
Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, by a source that is still anonymous 4 years
later.

~~~
hutzlibu
Well, first I think there is a difference between having the facts wrong and
not protecting a source enough. And secondly, what exactly did the Intercept
do to harm John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman?

------
iaw
> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange bleaches his hair.

I mean... I feel like we've reach full self-parody at this point.

------
ancymon
Is it false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks was a tool used to affect
US election?

~~~
throwaway6356
isn't the role of every media organization to affect the outcome of elections,
by revealing true facts to the public?

democracy dies in the dark you know.

~~~
phaus
There's a difference between objectively revealing all relevant, true facts at
your disposal and selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or
actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous
for you to do it. There's also a difference between having legitimate
complaints about the United States government and actively working with
Russian Intelligence to destabilize western civilization.

Journalism is supposed to inform, not manipulate.

You talk about democracy dying. If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd
like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us.

~~~
ng12
Honestly curious -- do you think there are outlets that meet that ideal? I
used to think so but 2016 shook my faith in a lot of outlets I used to trust.

~~~
phaus
No. Alt-right tabloids like Breitbart are obviously significantly worse than
mainstream media, but almost all journalism is trash. Every major network can
point to really great work that some of their journalists have done. However,
every day ALL of them post intentionally misleading stories designed to
manipulate people that don't fact-check.

Frequently, they leave things out or use deceptive wording to change the
meaning/context of events. Even when they cite facts, they often do so in ways
that make telling what actually happened difficult.

~~~
cowpig
This "almost all journalism is trash" is just naively cynical.

I bet what you call "deliberate manipulation" I would describe as "telling a
story."

There is often no such thing as "the truth"; two people who saw the same thing
happen will often interpret and describe it very differently.

It's unavoidable, and if you see the world in black and white you're blind to
most of the details.

~~~
phaus
You're making an awful lot of incorrect assumptions here.

------
ancymon
Overall such statement leaves bad taste. But pressure to be first or
negligence makes media publish press releases without looking at them. Maybe
starting it this way would make someone think about its content and not just
put on their website?

------
driverdan
This is the original source: [https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-
not-allowed-to...](https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed-
to-say-about-assange-or-wikileaks/)

After it was leaked WL released their edited version.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Among the bullets from the original version:

 _> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks._

 _> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use
cutlery or does not wash his hands._

 _> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has
ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs._

What on Earth…?

~~~
cromulent
I think it comes from Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book.

For example:

"Julian ate everything with his hands and he always wiped his fingers on his
pants. I have never seen pants as greasy as his in my whole life."

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/02/23/ten-
thin...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/02/23/ten-things-you-
should-know-before-moving-in-with-julian-assange/#37baf65970ac)

------
walrus01
The ridiculous hypocrisy of the "official" wikileaks organization sending out
a document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION."

~~~
jklinger410
Isn't this something that Assange should be releasing personally, anyway?
Feels a little weird for him to have his org do his dirty work. An org that
claims such objectivity.

~~~
walrus01
Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet
access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon
"misbehavior" by Assange.

~~~
Varcht
_" It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador isolated and gagged Mr.
Assange due to his comments on Sergei Skripal [in fact, he was isolated over
his refusal to delete a factually accurate tweet about the arrest of the
president of Catalonia by Spain in Germany, along with U.S. debt pressure on
Ecuador. The president of Ecuador Lenin Moreno admitted that these two
countries were the issue, see [https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-
julian/](https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/)]."_

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
We can’t be very far from, “It is false and defamatory to suggest that the
wizard of Oz is just a sad little man hiding behind a curtain.”

------
bootlooped
"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever “breached
his bail”, “jumped bail”, absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has
ever been charged with such at any time."

I would love to hear their explanation for why they think this isn't true.

~~~
nkurz
Since we're unlikely to get an official statement from Wikileaks here
(although it's not impossible) perhaps we could go the other way. Maybe you
could research whichever of these you think is most clearly false, and report
the evidence you find? My guess is that they are all technically true (as in,
he didn't "breach his bail" because he never paid a bail), but it's also
possible that at least one is an outright lie. I and others would be
interested to see the clear evidence of this if you can find it.

~~~
bootlooped
Here's an article about when he was released on bail:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12005930](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12005930)

And here's how the people who posted the bail were ordered to pay the
remainder when he breached the terms:

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-
supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail)

Absconded: To leave quickly and secretly and hide oneself, often to avoid
arrest or prosecution.

He left his house arrest location quickly and secretly to avoid arrest and
prosecution.

~~~
nkurz
OK, that convinces me: it's a lie to say that Julian Assange has never
breached his bail.

Version 1.3 of the document says: "It is false and defamatory to suggest that
Julian Assange has ever "breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an
arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time."

And yet we have a decision by a UK judge that Assange "failed to appear in
accordance with the conditions of his bail" and that "the associate sureties
should be forfeited": [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-
content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-
content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf)

So while I can see why Wikileaks might try to argue that seeking asylum
instead of appearing did not "breach his bail", there is a clear UK legal
judgment saying that he did. It's a lie for Wikileaks to claim otherwise.

Nice job. I'd suggest passing it on the author of the post (Emma Best) to see
if she can publicize this clear example.

------
midgetjones
> Contrary to false reports, his cat hasn't even been at embassy since well
> before the inunction was filed

------
freewilly1040
The bizarre call for secrecy and extremely long length are reminiscent of cult
communications. I get the image of Assange ranting for hours while some
faithful deputy uncritically types up every word.

------
kakarot
It started out well but some of the things on there were a little petty.
Surprised I didn't see a statement mentioning it was false and defamatory to
claim that Assange has a small penis.

~~~
fixermark
Are we going by the British law regarding defamation, or the US law (where
"Truth is an absolute defense")?

~~~
jessaustin
Do you know something you'd care to state publicly?

------
mcguire
" _Defamation List v1.3_ "

Is this in version control somewhere? Github?

------
vetrom
While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti-
chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between
the journalistic climate between common / civil law jurisdictions, especially
as it pertains to libel law. Wikileaks, as an organisation, and independent of
any particular motivational bias has a clear and present interest in
maintaining and pursuing a list such as this. I'm pretty sure pretty much any
journalistic or advocational/lobbyist organanisation in any jurisdiction with
a libel clause has a clear and present interest in maintaining this sort of
stance, even if as an American you think it shouldn't be necessary.

That doesn't mean I agree with it, but if you operate in a commonwealth
country and do anything controversial, I'd say it's pretty much mandatory.

~~~
vetrom
for those who arent aware of some of the differences, a factual defense --
i.e. you're only speaking provable truth -- is not a defense against a libel
suit in say the UK.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
The defence of fair comment is effectively a factual defence in UK law.

If the statement(s) are shown to be views anyone could be expect to hold, ie
including truth, the defendant can countersue for fraud. I don't know if the
changes to the law during the coalition removed all the grounds for libel
tourism, but that was the intent.

Some cyclist, I forget who, did against one of our newspapers about some
doping scandal. He won significant damages. It sticks in the mind as he was
later found guilty of doping and ended up admitting it and compensating the
newspaper.

------
8note
> It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange
> shared documents with a dictator

so no dictators have read any documents on WikiLeaks?

------
lkdjjdjjjdskjd
I don't get it - it seems to be just a list of common false claims about
Assange (according to Wikileaks)? How is that "things you can't say"? Surely
you can still say them? Or what - will Wikileaks send their hired guns to
silence you?

Also I think Assange is not in control of Wikileaks anymore.

~~~
nomel
My understanding is that defamation and slander laws vary wildly across the
world. Many people are looking at this with a US-centric slant.

------
sctb
We've updated the link from [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2019/01/140-things-wikil...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2019/01/140-things-wikileaks-says-reporters-cant-say-about-assange/),
which points to this.

------
shiado
Wow it's such a mystery why American 'tech' sites would run propaganda like
this.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000041920&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000041920&cycle=2014)

------
a0-prw
Don't cross the man, he'll crucify you for sure. Respect, JA

------
kome
That's a very bad title on a very interesting list. Wikileaks did some great
work over the years, and I hope they can continue.

------
ashelmire
Every time they say "It is false and defamatory", it sounds like "It is true".
Also, has anyone ever seen a prominent organization go to such lengths to
protect an executive from accusations?

~~~
fixermark
All the time. Usually by doing things that Wikileaks would eventually out.

... which is one of the reasons it's so sad to see the org falling into the
trap as well, instead of recognizing the mission exceeds the man and cutting
ties with this albatross.

~~~
ashelmire
I've never heard of an org sending something like this to the media. Can you
cite a few examples?

------
scottlocklin
The funny thing about this is, Wikileaks very effectively got a media outlet
to publish a long list of corrections to media lies about Wikileaks. Great
self own, ars technica!

~~~
fixermark
It'd be a valid self-own if they were lies.

Since the truth of them is in dispute, it comes off more as a list of nerves
the media has struck on a very vain man.

~~~
not2b
But at least some of the "false and defamatory" items are definitely true. For
example, he jumped bail, and the contributors who put up his bail forfeited
their money. But Assange thinks that I am being defamatory for stating this
true fact.

