It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever walked into embassy meeting rooms in his underwear.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange drinks to excess.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador suggested that Julian Assange did not look after his cat or asked him to improve his care of it.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever neglected an animal.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador asked Julian Assange to improve his hygiene.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is “far left’ or “far right”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is “an anarchist”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a racist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is an anti-semite.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a mysogynist or sexist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a paedophile.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a rapist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a murderer.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a communist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever tortured a cat or dog.
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.
I would like to allege that I have heard from other very reliable sources that all of these things could actually be true.
On Sunday, January 6, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks had sent out an email with a list of 140 things journalists weren’t supposed to say about Julian Assange. A complete copy of the email (as sent to reporters by WikiLeaks, v1.2) marked “Confidential legal communication. Not for publication.” follows:
This is a list sent by Wikileaks to reporters on things they cannot legally say about Julian Assange. It's like 4 paragraphs in! Come on Meta.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 25 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#953,940
On Sunday, January 6, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks had sent out an email with a list of 140 things journalists weren’t supposed to say about Julian Assange. A complete copy of the email (as sent to reporters by WikiLeaks, v1.2) marked “Confidential legal communication. Not for publication.” follows:
> This is a list sent by Wikileaks to reporters on things they cannot legally say about Julian Assange. It's like 4 paragraphs in! Come on Meta.
That doesn't make any sense either. If this were a real thing reporters would never say anything bad about anyone because anyone they tried to say bad things about could send them a giant list and end it immediately.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#953,947
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Yeah. It legally has the same significance as me scribbling "u owe me 1 bazillion dollars if ur meen to me" in crayon on a napkin. But Julian Assange is a whiny hypocritical crybaby so this is not unsurprising.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#953,961
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No one is surprised you get your opinion from CNN. It's fake news!
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 27 seconds later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#953,962
I guess. It just doesn't seem real though. If the list was stuff like "it's defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is working for the Russians and tried to influence the 2016 election", I could buy that as something Assange doesn't want brought up in stories.
But the "it's defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange doesn't use cutlery and tortures dogs in the cupboard under the stairs while drunk" stuff is just too much to take seriously. You're the most anti-Assange person here and you've never even hinted at that kind of thing. Which makes me think this is some kind of joke I don't get.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#953,965
Here's the Reuters article on it. The dude is incredibly thin-skinned. This is not out of character for him. If you can find the "real" one referred to by the article, let me know.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#953,967
@953,962 (Meta !Sober//iZs) Here is a Hillreporter.com tweet retweeted by the official wikileaks account with a link to version 1.3 of the list of defamatory statements. The list in my @OP is version 1.2. Wikileaks has not provided the full text of 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2. Presumably because that would violate their privacy rights as an organization.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#953,968
@953,947 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't know, this seems like a pretty good move to me. If he feeds them this list, then they can be sued for deformation later since they reported what they knew were lies... right?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#953,971
@previous (D)
No. At most they would know that Julian Assange claimed they were lies.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#953,980
Isn't this a list of things he's already been accused of though?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#953,983
@previous (C)
Yes, but for Wikileaks to say it is against the law for other people to say these things about him is...well...strange, to put it mildly.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#954,075
so the document got leaked by Wikileaks? that's so ironic or something like that
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 48 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#954,096
@OP
Funny shit. I do imagine that he could have gotten a little crazy after living in that embassy for so long.
It is also a little surreal how the rest of the thread is acting like this isn't crazy and hilarious. I mean, come on, guys! This should be easy to laugh at.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#954,099
@954,075 (Sheila LaBoof)
No, we reached peak Wikileaks irony last November when a mistaken court filing in an unrelated case seemed to indicate that Assange had been charged under seal by the FBI, and Assange's attorney criticized US prosecutors as being irresponsible for putting information in a public filing that clearly was not intended for the public and without any notice to Mr. Assange.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#954,111
@previous (G)
Oh man I missed that! That brings a tear to my eye.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#954,116
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yeah, November 15th or 16th it happened. WaPo story for some background.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#954,134
@previous (G)
Lol thanks! That's grate news for us all.