Oh no!
So anyway…
what happened to the days when drama queens like this just went on a hunger strike, instead of destroying things people actually like
julian assange is a political prisoner with deteriorating health. i would give everything rembrant, warhol, and picasso made to free him.
i don’t give two shits about Julian Assange either way… he’s a narcissist and a criminal…
he might be a narcisist (i’m not a psychologist. where did you get licensed?), but i don’t believe he’s a criminal, and if he is, then the law is wrong. he’s a journalist who speaks truth to power.
Well he raped 3 women in Sweden
I don’t believe that. if it were true, why would they drop the charges?
Because he fled to equador and the statute of limitations ran out while he was cowering there
why wouldn’t Ecuador give him up? surely they have good relationships with EU/Sweden and also have laws against rape. there must be more to this story.
I just don’t believe it’s true.
I don’t know much about him. Can you give a link to some kind of summary of what he is about? I will also take any links from others as to why he is a criminal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
this goes over the worst allegations. nothing is sugarcoated.
he rose to prominence when he released footage from chelsea manning showing the US intentionally firing on journalists. it’s called “collateral murder”.
wikileaks helped pioneer anonymous, encrypted leaking.
he most certainly is not a journalist and he only speaks as much truth as is convenient
he absolutely is a journalist, and, yea, after exposing the pentagon murdering journalists, he started having to consider where he would be safe and making sure not to have enemies on **all** sides.
some people need to believe in him for some reason, i don’t understand it
because he fights the empire. that’s all the more reason i need. han solo is a rogue and a scoundrel, but he’s a good guy.
Now that is some real performance art! Hope he records it. I vote for tannerite as destruction method.
I’m voting for napalm dropped from a private plane out in the desert.
As long as the US has the Hague invasion act along with some of the most inhumane sentences and prisons no country should extradite a non US citizen there. I’m pretty sure the only crime he committed was in Sweden anyways so they should have him.
Oh, no! The thing Russian used to money launder before bitcoin or a person Russian used to selectively leak information! Which will we choose?
If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn’t see, does it make a sound?
“I’m gonna destroy my toy collection if someone dies in prison”
The concept of private ownership is weird, if you think about it. It’s like penguins collecting stones they’ve found and not letting anyone come close
When you describe it like that… I feel like it makes more sense. Like, of course the penguin is gonna want his safety stones. I buy that.
Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn’t made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.
It’s land that wasn’t made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.
But land is literally the first form of property. Territory is defended in life’s history long before any moveable object.
If anything, the conception of certain objects as being part of a person’s territory is the stranger step to take.
I kinda get the feeling that food was the first form of property. Land (by way of good shelter) was probably a close second with good rocks and sticks.
This point neither supports nor erodes the logic of ownership of territory or land; it merely points out that it has a very long history. Many things have a long history, some of which have consistent reason and logic behind them, and some which do not.
I can relate to that, but even in this manner, most of the goods made are the result of vast investments of time efort and money of lots of peoples over decades, just for few individuals to be the owners of.
(Btw, English is not my main language)
It is true that once production of an item becomes a greater task than simply the work of one person, the ownership of it can be considered more complex, but my point was that at least something created by people makes sense to be owned by its creator.
Well, under a free market economic system, each of those people is paid for their input to the thing, and only participates in that when they decide it’s worth their time to do so.
Only in frictionless spherical cow in a vacuum territory - that is to say in theory in unachievable ideal conditions. In the real world the market is wildly distorted and people are forced by a variety of external pressures to participate even if they don’t believe they are being offered what they are worth.
Only the owner (or shareholders) Researchers in universities, are getting paid by public funding from tax payers money (which is agood thing). Every major development is the product of lots of tiny developments and advansments in which the creators or inventors didn’t get their compensation from the end product. Workers in manufacturing are getting paid the least amount of compensation the owner can get away with, or even worse, manufacturing is moved to countries with even less protection for workers. Oh, and workers need protection from the owners.
But where to keep all my stuff asked the guy eternally renting?
Yes a penguin that owns some stones would indeed not want other penguins grabbing them. Glad we’re on the same page with how private ownership works.
Yeah I know how it works. I said the concept is weird, but it benefit some share holders, so I guess we’ll have to live with it
I think they’re talking about art specifically. Like what’s the point of owning art if you ain’t showing anyone? And why should anyone care if ou destroyed art you weren’t willing to show it anyways?
Thanks. Original art have some kind of intrinsic aura, by the art proccess itself. That’s the difference between arts and craft or even art and design. The fact that concept of having the right to destroy art just because you’ve paid someone, sound so obvious and natural to people is weird…
Well… bye.
Seems kinda pointless, I don’t think anyone involved in deciding whether or not Assange dies in prison would change anything due to this.
I wonder if they might now get involved, though. This is the kind of thing that makes it to the cocktail party circuit chatter.
But like really, would anyone pardon a crime because they were being blackmailed with the destruction of art? Would a parole judge really take that into consideration? Seems more likely to me it would make them less likely to help Assange for fear that it looks like the threat worked, but most likely of all they would just continue based on the law and ignore this guy.
No of course it wouldn’t enter into it at all except that it gets people talking and taking sides. Suddenly it’s news again, and public opinion does matter.
I imagine the point is to raise awareness of Assange’s position with people who care about the artworks, in an attempt to inspire others to campaign for his fair treatment.
I think a lot of us only roughly remember the details (or didn’t follow the later revelations) about Assange. My memory was weak, too, so here is a short refresher (with links!)
Pre 2015 Wikileaks did ethical releases of leaked information (vouched; cleaned of names and details that would expose individuals to danger) and exposed generally diplomatic and military-industrial dirt.
Trump Campaign Assange and thus Wikileaks sided with the GOP. Wikileaks had a line to Trump’s campaign team. They also sat on a trove of DNC E-Mails provided by Russian hackers. Wikileaks timed releases to blot out news that could hurt Trump. In one case, the Trump campaign urgently asked for a leak and got Wikileaks to act within 30 minutes. Wikileaks also refused to publish leaks harming Russia.
From the private chat logs (more in the Business Insider article linekd above), some things Assange said to his, until then, progressive aides
Assange: “We believe it would be much better for GOP to win. Dems+Media+liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities.”
Assange: “Russia is absolutely terrified. Kalingrad, Crimea, and its only foreign naval base, Syria are all under threat and are not protected by Russia’s strategic depth. Meanwhile the US hacks the hell out of it”
It looks to me like Assange got suckered in by Russian propaganda rather than sell out intentionally, but that’s just my own guess.
Rape Charges In Sweden, he used his fame to obtain sex from two women, both times trying to refuse condoms. He was creepy and pushy with both. Woman A suspected he manipulated his condom. Woman B woke up in the night to find Assange had climbed on top of her for “second servings” without asking and had penetrated her without a condom.
From my own memory: neither woman went to the police, but when they talked about it (to press?), a public prosecutor in Sweden was duty-bound to start a rape investigation.
It gets too messy from there. The US had an interest in Assange’s extradition and may have plausibly exerted pressure. The women received threats and hate. Russia fanned the flames under everything to fuel division and turn more Wikileaks supporters against the US.
The rest is history. I don’t know where to stand. Assange and Wikileaks were once forces for good. But, in my opinion, he got played, never realized or never admitted to it, and is now just another lackey aiding Russia.
I think we can separate the question of whether he ended up working for Russia from the question of how to treat him fairly. If we would want a certain level of humane treatment for a journalist publishing leaked information, that should apply whether or not we approve of the agenda behind what they’re doing, and whether or not we think they’re being played.
He’s a journalist and a political prisoner.
Who can say where one should stand? 🤷♂️
Ok.
I mean, it sucks to see art destroyed, but I guess if you bought it, you can destroy it.
If that upsets you, then maybe we should reconsider allowing art to fall into the hands of wealthy collectors. If it should be preserved for future art lovers and historians, then to quote a great philosopher of our time, “It belongs in a museum.”
I don’t know what it has to do with Assange.
The fact this guy owns this art is actually kind of disappointing to me. I thought he was just picking a set of famous art and going rogue with it.
A terrorist, but instead of threatening blood only threatening the loss of priceless cultural artefacts. Going beyond mere property damage and loss of value, but still stopping short of violence.
Still a bold move on his part. More impressive, really. But somehow less exciting.
Considering he could make forgeries (considering he has the perfect reference) and destroy those, increasing the fame of those pieces, and their value should he save the original… Something tells me that there’s too much financial incentive not to pull a stunt like that and sell the real paintings later.
Do I have any proof that’s what’s happening? No. But it’s not unrealistic.
“To destroy art is much more taboo than to destroy the life of a person” - the artist doesn’t like how the world works and he wants to raise awareness. That’s what the connection is
I understand the meaning of the quote, but if this artist said he was going to execute hostages, that would be an entirely different conversation.
I think you might be missing the point. There is a life in danger, Assange’s. He’s forcing people to compare the value of human life to art. If he was executing hostages, you’d be comparing one human life to many.
Right, but to me there’s no comprison. Regardless of how you feel about Assange, a human life is more valuale than art, even priceless art from the great masters.
My response is “I’d rather you didn’t.” I’m not in a position to release Julian Assange, though, so whatever happens happens.
It depends on the country. In the US an artist has rights and deliberately destroying an artwork can get you sued.
>right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author’s honor or reputation
not exactly
Additionally, authors of works of “recognized stature” may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work.
The very next line after the one you you quoted. Also look at the case studies of times people have been sued successfully.
What’s the reason for that? Tried googling but couldn’t find anything on the reasoning for the law
Rembrandt, Picasso, and Warhol do not have any rights anymore. They have all died.
And how would that compare, for you, to Julian Assange if he dies in prison ?
If Julian Assange dies in prison, I would think he no longer has rights and any artwork he has created can be freely destroyed without fear of litigation, especially if it is privately owned.
Seriously. What does artwork have to do with Julian Assange? I don’t think he should be in prison but this is an odd protest.
If I had to choose one? I’d burn the art to save a life. If he died and the artwork was destroyed, I would think that was two tragedies.
bravo
These artists are all dead.
In the long run, none of us truly owns anything. We all share the same fate, Assange and this clown included. It’s a shame that this clown is holding western culture hostage to his terrorist demands. If he destroys the works, he’s no different than the Taliban or ISIS destroying pre-Islam archeological discoveries.
deleted by creator
Personally, the Rembrandts get to me because I hate seeing old things destroyed :(
If these art pieces are in a private collection that can’t be enjoyed by everyone already: Was anything of value to culture really lost? 🤔
Would the very fact that destroying them would be meaningful, as well as publicly documented, be more artisticly valuable than keeping the artwork locked up in a vault?
Extremely short sighted view of reality.
A lot of the art that is currently in museums was once donated by a private collector. Many private collectors will also lend their art to museums for special exhibitions.
Some art in private collections stays private but once it’s been destroyed there’s no chance it will ever get to the public.
Remind me, why do you guys not like Assange (or WikiLeaks by extension) again? Is it just the Clinton leaks stuff?
You? Who are you talking to? I, for one, like him
Oh no I like Assange. I have heard some people before saying negative things about WikiLeaks and by extension Assange so I asked. My understanding was they think/thought it’s beholden to the Kremlin or something.
it could also be chelsea manning. some people cant get enough of that five-sided dick.
I mean I don’t think it’s beholden to the Kremlin, but I do think that Julian Assange participated in the same type of secretive disinformation campaign that he claimed to vehemently oppose. I also think he’s not really a man driven by principles, but one driven by ego and fame.
I also think he, like 90% of powerful men involved in tech, probably uses his position of power to sexually harass women.
If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
He has an agenda, and it’s not press freedom.
THERE IT IS. The acceptable conspiracy theory of the left. Thanks
It’s acceptable because it’s true. I would respect him greatly if he had released everything rather than what was damaging to his personal political enemies.
>If he were interested in bringing things to light he would have released all the information he had, but he didn’t, he held back for US Conservatives. He did right-wing politics in the US a big favor.
what makes you think he had something to release?
He leaked information from the DNC, but never released the same email logs for the RNC. He was given both following a known hack of both the DNC and the RNC. He released 1 side, and then tried promote the conspiracy about Seth Richs death.
He has an agenda. Wikileaks is a good idea, but I don’t buy that it didn’t have a state backer.
what makes you think he was given the rnc information?
Because we know for a fact the information was taken from both as part of the same breach of the RNC and DNC servers by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, Russian state actors.
If Assange was not aware of the additional information from the breach that’s just as bad, because he’s happy to be a useful idiot with a fanbase.
So he’s either malicious or stupid. Neither is worthy of admiration.
there is a possibility that nothing from the rnc was that damning (i doubt this), or he felt that releasing it would dilute the seriousness of both sets of accusations.
but this is assuming he had access to the rnc hack, and that is not proven.
this does not entail that they handad that information to assange.
That’s a weird reason to give for it, like it’s obviously not going to change anything. The Justice system isn’t going to be held up by an artist threatening to destroy some paintings (and it could be years before Assange ever dies in prison), it seems like it’s being done as performance art. Pretty much like Banksy trying to destroy one of his works right after it was sold at auction, it’s being done for the attention/message of the act itself.
If there is more of a taboo around destroying art over human lives, it’s not for the sake of the “Art” itself, it’s for the sake of the arbitrary, yet quantitative value of money that those works have attached to them, because of how ridiculously inflated the price of artwork is (for money laundering purposes or whatever financial hijinks the wealthy are using artwork for). The historical value to humanity probably plays into it as well, but that’s not nearly as big a consideration. Otherwise though, you’ve got governments like the Taliban which will happily destroy history just as easily as they’ll kill people, that’s the kind of society we could have where art is given equal weight to human life.
Meanwhile, the people that our society deems worthy of death are people who don’t really have much income or wealth to their name. If you looked at the average wealth of individuals on death row or who have been executed in the US, it’s likely to be lower than the wealth of average Americans. So Art is valued more than human lives because, quantitatively, some pieces of art are probably worth more than some people would make in a lifetime.
Reminds me of the African billionaire that wanted to bury his cars to advocate for organ donation.
cool film it
