Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbhjpbhj | Hacker News Reader

> wanted to get legal advice if she can force Assange to take an HIV test after having unprotected sex with him //

If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.

A person seeking police advice may not know they were raped in that way. And prosecution despite that person's reluctance would seem right as it seems to protect the public from a menace (someone knowingly spreading HIV).

Those mightn't be the facts here, but save the last paragraph it fits with what you're saying and explains why a public prosecutor would seek a prosecution despite the alleged victim not considering themselves to have been raped.

If someone is familiar with the case and Swedish rape laws then I'd be interested in their input here?

View on HN

> If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. That seems a reasonable definition of rape.

I agreee, but is not telling someone that you do not (to your knowledge) have HIV "not revealing a fact"? You seem to be falling prey to the muddying of waters I mention in my original comments: Instead of discussing the fact that the US spied on its own citizens etc, or the fact that Assange is being held accountible in and by a country where he did not commit any crimes, we are discussing the optics of a constructed rape case, without either of us knowing the laws of the country.

>If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given.

Assange could have Tuberculosis too. So that's also rape, right? The flu? Also rape. He could be a triple rapist!

Just forget all that systematic government murdering, spying, and lying he revealed, we won't entertain facts from a possible triple rapist!

If one knows one has a deadly communicable disease and is willfully negligent knowing that your actions are likely to cause particular harm then it would be assault.

Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice?

How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?

Is there any evidence at all to suggest that is the case?

Of course not, it's a ridiculous allegation with no basis in fact.

A baseless allegation that would have rightly been completely ignored by police if it wasn't Assange.

FWIW I made it quite clear I was addressing the general principle of how sexual intercourse might be rape even if consent was seemingly given (that 'consent' being ignorant of the facts, and ignorant of the law). And also addressed the question of why a country might seek prosecution even when a person didn't feel they were raped.

I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com