Source: Joe Arpaio Loses: New Times Co-Founders Win $3.75 Million Settlement for 2007 False Arrests (Trump pardoned Arpaio because he loves pardoning the very worst offenders)

THE 'trial' of Julian Assange is a few days away (Twitter prevented Wikileaks accessing its own account for nearly a week and that does not help); there's already intentionally-misleading press coverage associating Assange with a Trump pardon, Russia and so on. Wikileaks, still depending on Twitter as its prime communications medium, spoke about Twitter's suppression attempts and it is already debunking some of what the press is saying, seeking to alter public opinion just days before this trial's commencement in sites such as BBC (which are eager to associate Assange with Russia, with Trump and so on). This sort of deception by false association is an art form we've seen a lot of, sometimes coming from Team UPC and the management of the European Patent Office (EPO), e.g. associating staff unions (notably SUEPO) with Nazism and seeking to paint opposition to the UPC as just AfD.

"What's really at stake here in the UK and over in the US (Chelsea Manning and a few other cases implicating imprisoned Wikileaks sources) is the legality of exposing crimes, sometimes by means of unauthorised access (by sources, not publishers, although this 'trial' deliberately conflates the two things, as does the 'case' against Glenn Greenwald in Brazil)."We see no point linking to the latest smears and their refutation (as the refutations themselves link back to the smears), but let's just say that we in Techrights have a lot at stake because we're receiving a lot of leaks, we use encryption for communications, and sometimes our sources clearly break company/institution rules in order to get information to us. This isn't a case of committing a crime but exposing actual crimes by breaching rules whose sole purpose is to protect criminals from accountability (or public embarrassment).

What's at stake in the upcoming 'trial' (see our Daily Links for lots of information or scandals associated with these so-called 'trials') isn't whether Assange is a "nice guy" or whether he "respects women" or "likes Trump" or "works for Russia..."

What's really at stake here in the UK and over in the US (Chelsea Manning and a few other cases implicating imprisoned Wikileaks sources) is the legality of exposing crimes, sometimes by means of unauthorised access (by sources, not publishers, although this 'trial' deliberately conflates the two things, as does the 'case' against Glenn Greenwald in Brazil).

"A campaign of misinformation is in full swing, seeking to manufacture support for an outcome that seems pre-determined (based on appointment of judges and procedural anomalies)."Don't be fooled by what billionaires-funded sites like the BBC say. They actively suppressed coverage -- as the EPO had done -- about Battistelli's corruption, they never mention António Campinos, and illegal software patents being granted in Europe never bothered them. The BBC is being bribed by Bill Gates every few years and many managers at the BBC come from Microsoft UK. I've noticed that another publication that smears Assange at the moment (misleading coverage if not fabrication) has Chelsea Clinton on its Board. So much for impartiality and objectivity...

In closing, regardless of your views on Wikileaks or Assange (or both), the upcoming 'case' has impact on us as well. So think carefully before condoning a dangerous precedence. A campaign of misinformation is in full swing, seeking to manufacture support for an outcome that seems pre-determined (based on appointment of judges and procedural anomalies). ⬆