Comparing these kinds of things is usually not a good thing to do. But, this is what we can see: Maxwell comes from a prominent, very wealthy family. Her father was what you would call "connected". She still has that going for her. Her victims are not in the millions, but are not all known and are not influential in any way. In fact. they were children of lower class parents. They have no big guns protecting and advocating for them. If she were not connected, her sentence would probably be about the same as Assange's.
Assange, on the other hand, in leaking documents, has possibly harmed in some way untold numbers of people. He is not a powerful man, except through his work, which is the problem. He may have supporters, but they do not count in court. We do not know exactly who was harmed by him, but we can call it "the public". Few billionaires are coming to his aid, if we consider them the end al and be all of power these days. So, he is pretty much out of luck, as far as being helped by powerful people. That's my take on the sentencing discrepancies.
Which part? In particular, re: people hurt by his leaks:
Same excuse the government always uses to protect their corruption and scheming, so the truth needs to come out no matter what.
If we commit war crimes as a specific example, leaking that to the public so that we can rid the world from those politicians that led to those war crimes (in theory) is a good thing.
More people are hurt by government corruption than was ever hurt by any leak released by Assange.. and probably more children were hurt, killed or mentally broken by Ghislaine's actions too.
Comparing these kinds of things is usually not a good thing to do. But, this is what we can see: Maxwell comes from a prominent, very wealthy family. Her father was what you would call "connected". She still has that going for her. Her victims are not in the millions, but are not all known and are not influential in any way. In fact. they were children of lower class parents. They have no big guns protecting and advocating for them. If she were not connected, her sentence would probably be about the same as Assange's. Assange, on the other hand, in leaking documents, has possibly harmed in some way untold numbers of people. He is not a powerful man, except through his work, which is the problem. He may have supporters, but they do not count in court. We do not know exactly who was harmed by him, but we can call it "the public". Few billionaires are coming to his aid, if we consider them the end al and be all of power these days. So, he is pretty much out of luck, as far as being helped by powerful people. That's my take on the sentencing discrepancies.
So, I dunno, comparing exposing corruption vs literal child trafficking isn't a good thing to do?
I hear you, but oversimplification. Just look for any truth in his sentiment.
Which part? In particular, re: people hurt by his leaks:
Same excuse the government always uses to protect their corruption and scheming, so the truth needs to come out no matter what.
If we commit war crimes as a specific example, leaking that to the public so that we can rid the world from those politicians that led to those war crimes (in theory) is a good thing.
More people are hurt by government corruption than was ever hurt by any leak released by Assange.. and probably more children were hurt, killed or mentally broken by Ghislaine's actions too.
Nobody is arguing against that fren.
I appreciate the thoughtful response.