Julian Assange has been bailed.

[Vidboy10]

The founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been granted conditional bail by a judge.
The 39-year-old was granted bail in London earlier this week but remained in jail after prosecutors objected.
The Australian is fighting extradition to Sweden over sex charges involving two women. He denies the allegations.
Mr Justice Ouseley granted conditional bail at the Royal Courts of Justice and supporters put up £240,000 in sureties. His release is expected on Thursday.

However, the BBC understands he may not be freed until Friday because those who provided the finances must complete paperwork at a police station.
Mr Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens, said afterwards the bail appeal was part of a "continuing vendetta by the Swedes".
He said: "We have won costs today but they should be paid by Sweden not the hard-pressed Crown Prosecution Service ."

There has been dispute over who was motivated to appeal against Mr Assange's release, with Director of Public Prosecutions saying the CPS was merely acting as "agents" on behalf of the Swedish government. Nils Rekke, from the Swedish Prosecutor's Office, claimed it was "a purely British decision".
'Nomadic lifestyle' bMr Assange's mother, Christine, said she was "very, very happy" with the decision and thanked his supporters.

"I can't wait to see my son and to hold him close. I had faith that the British justice system would do the right thing and the judge would uphold the magistrates' decision, and that faith has been reaffirmed," she said.
Gemma Lindfield, representing the prosecution, had told the judge there was "a real risk" Mr Assange would abscond and pointed to his nomadic lifestyle.

She said he had "the means and ability" to go into hiding among Wikileaks' many supporters in this country and abroad.
But Mr Justice Ouseley pointed out Mr Assange had offered to meet the police in London when he heard the Swedish matter was still live and he said: "That is not the conduct of a person who is seeking to evade justice."
However, he did impose strict bail conditions including wearing an electronic tag, reporting to police every day and observing a curfew. Mr Assange also must stay at the Norfolk mansion of Wikileaks supporter Vaughan Smith.
Earlier, the judge made a ruling banning the use of Twitter to give a blow-by-blow account of Thursday's proceedings.
Mr Assange has received the backing of a number of high-profile supporters including human rights campaigners Jemima Khan and Bianca Jagger, and film director Ken Loach.[/p]

Source

 

[NostalgicMillennial]

awesome....free speech wins....

for now

 

[Wintrale]

That's the problem, really. If he wants to, Assange can disappear for good. If his supporters are willing to get almost a quarter of a million together just to bail him out, how much will they put together to get him to Brazil and how many will shelter him until he can get out of the country?

 

[injected11]

If he wants to, Assange can disappear for good.

So could many people. He turned himself in when the authorities requested he do so. The fact that bail was withheld until now was quite dumb, as it sends the wrong message to others when the authorities ask them to turn themselves in. Criminals that flee and resist arrest are granted bail right off the bat in many cases. A man being charged with a non-violent crime then turning himself in should not be detained in such a way.

 

[GH0ST]

I just read Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange by Michael Moore.


Big brother wins

( taken from http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=55167 )

 

[playallday]

.

 

[Canonbeat234]

Finally! A system were free speech and justice do mix. However, I'm afraid he won't live for very long...just spreading the truth will only create more enemies. Like CNN.

 

[Y05h1]

Am I the only one who's against this whole Wikileaks thing? I mean, I really don't see the benefit... stuff is kept secret for a reason. I'd hate to have my information leaked, so I don't see why other people/groups should have theirs leaked...
Someone please tell me why I should support Assange...

 

[squall23]

^
Nobody said you have to support him. You can have any kind of opinion of him that you want. I mean, I'm neutral on all this. Some things should be kept private, but if you killed somebody or did something that's bad, I want to know about it, and so does the police, I'm sure.

 

[trumpet-205]

I agree. You can have your own opinion on Wikileaks.

Right now, there are some documents indicating wrongdoing on behalf of USA. I think those should be exposed rather than being a secret.

 

[Oveneise]

Wow. Didn't expect this.

 

[PeregrinFig]

I consider Julian Assange a hero, or I would if it weren't for this sexual assault thing. I personally believe that it's ridiculous to call him a cyberterrorist, and if the US ambassadors didn't want documents they wrote about their negative views of another country released to the public, then they simply shouldn't have written them. The government only considers him a wanted man because they didn't want their people to see what they wrote, and I don't believe he's done anything wrong regarding Wikileaks.

 

[Y05h1]

But you've got to wonder, is it really a good thing for people to start doubting their own government? Sure, people have the right to know, and then there's the freedom of the press that needs to be upheld, but when top secret documents get leaked, it just stirs things up, and puts people on alert. It's the kind of stuff that fuels riots and protests. To some people Assange is going to be a freedom fighter, to others a terrorist.

I'm not against Wikileaks. I just think that maybe the consequences haven't been too clearly thought out, and that maybe right now, with the world still recovering from the economic recession, revolutionary acts aren't what we need. Maybe it's okay sometimes to have Big Brother watching over us...

 

[Evo.lve]

So you want to turn out just like North Korea? Or China (to a lesser extent)?

You want to have absolutely no say?

Imagine this. The government goes out and kills everyone you know or love and they cover everything up.

How would you feel, if you weren't able to be told what happened?

Obviously this is an extreme case but it still holds water.

 

[Y05h1]

Uh... well. That depends. If the government has good reason to, such as preventing nuclear warfare, then I wouldn't have a problem keeping silent. If they did it for the sake of entertainment... well... umm... let's hope not.

There's a difference between the North Korean government and the US government, in that North Korea withholds all information, whilst the US government is more selective. So I'm not supporting communism. I'm saying that perhaps the occasional secrecy is for the better.

Imagine if all the James Bond movies were real. How many times has the world been threatened by lasers and missiles? Think about the kind of panic people would be in if they knew about how the fate of the world rested on one mans shoulders (and need I point out how often the countdown timer is stopped just in time). Mass panicking? Throws everything off balance. But by not releasing the information to the public, no one knows, no one panics, and society can keep functioning normally.

I'm not saying the US government is keeping secrets about heroic deeds (who knows though, they might be), but I'm saying the purpose of keeping back information is the same.

 

[playallday]

.

 

[Ace]

I think Wikileaks works in favor of and against both the governments of the world and the people. The right of knowledge plays a very essential part in my thinking, as I'm only partially in agreement with Wikileaks, as well.

Let's take an example: You have a girlfriend, but decide to have a one-night stand with another woman at a party. Do you tell your girlfriend you got laid with somebody else, or do you tell her that you just went to a party without her? Selectively giving out information is acceptable, I think is the general consensus of the GBATemp forums. But does that really make it the right thing to do? It's as if I would decide to post my full name, and my contact details and my social security number. It's not okay, but hey, maybe someone decides to send me pizza, or something special otherwise.

Considering Anonymous has done a ton of work to show their support for Wikileaks, I'd say I'm in favor of their form of protest. Sure, it's been called similar to a sit-in protest, but history has shown us that even those forms of peaceful protest can prevail. While the mindset is very violent, and very heroic, The damage done is superficial, in the end. Maybe that's okay, because there could always be a backlash (which there has been).

What makes me most happy is that the people of Sweden are taking the protests onto the streets, just because they still won't let him fly back to Sweden. I'm definitely going to that protest (next week), because I'm in favor of letting him get tried in a court within the same country the crime was commited. My opinion doesn't have anything to do with the ease of punishment Sweden has in the courtroom, either.

I'm also partially against this thread, because Wikileaks isn't just Julian Assange; it spans the Internet's interest in Wikileaks. I would rather have news about the actual website being posted, or hear some journalistic art about the protests in response of this informational madness.

 

[Deleted member 256505]

There is a line to everything, a line that should not be crossed. Julian Assange has no line, he just keeps on going.

Most of the stuff on Wikileaks does not help the world in any way and just puts good people at risk.

Wikileaks is a great idea, but Julian Assange has turned it into a failure.

Perhaps you could explain this "line"? Your argument appears to be nebulous unless it's explicitly defined.