Julian Assange threatened legal action over WikiLeaks documentary

South by Southwest film festival was warned against showing the film, titled WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies

Guardian
Josh Halliday

Julian Assange threatened to sue the film festival South by Southwest
if it aired a documentary titled WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies.

Julian Assange threatened legal action against a film festival in an attempt to pressure them not to show a documentary on the history of WikiLeaks.

Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, threatened to sue the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in the United States if they broadcast the documentary, WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, earlier this year.

The legal threats came to light after media regulator Ofcom rejected a detailed complaint from Assange about the programme on Monday.

Assange had complained that the programme, which first aired on More4 in the UK on 29 November 2011, was libellous, unfair and had invaded his privacy.

The Australian whistleblower, who is fighting extradition to Sweden where he faces sexual assault allegations, attempted to get the programme banned from public screenings in the US, sending a tersely-worded email, seen by the Guardian, headed "LETTER BEFORE ACTION" to festival organisers. Assange is understood to have sent a similar email to US cable news broadcaster CNBC.

In the email, which carried Assange's signature, he told a SXSW organiser: "Please also send me full details of SXSW's formal complaints procedure. This latter request is made without prejudice to any subsequent legal action I may take against SXSW for the screening of this libellous programme."

He claimed in the email that Oxford Film & Television, the independent British production firm behind the programme, was "under investigation by the UK statutory regulator Ofcom for multiple breaches of the Broadcasting Code".

Ofcom had undertaken an investigation into whether Assange's complaints about the programme were justified and ruled on Monday they were not.

SXSW aired the feature film version of the programme as planned on 9 March and CNBC showed a shortened version of the documentary in the US on 1 March.

Patrick Forbes, the head of documentaries at Oxford Film & Television, welcomed the Ofcom ruling and praised SXSW and CNBC for not caving in to legal pressure from Assange.

Forbes said the threat of a lawsuit meant his company had to pay for costly legal insurance, and that Assange's threats may have hampered the programme's chances of attracting a US cinema deal.

"Julian Assange attacked this film and accused us of being unfair to him. I am delighted that Ofcom has rejected his detailed complaints about our methods and entirely vindicated the programme and its making," Forbes told the Guardian.

"The film provides the definitive account of a turning point in history. As is the way with such moments, passions run high. But we have striven to make it as a accurate and fair a film to everyone involved as is possible. And I am very glad that Ofcom has recognised that."

Assange responded to the Ofcom ruling in a lengthy statement on the WikiLeaks website late on Monday. He said the ruling "glosses over many substantive points of fact" and accused the programme-makers of a producing a "biased and one-sided smear documentary".

A spokesman for Assange declined to comment further. WikiLeaks had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Assange is currently taking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden. His most recent public appearance, on the balcony of the embassy in Knightsbridge, included a lengthy attack on critics of WikiLeaks, whom he described as a threat to freedom of expression.

He wrote to the Leveson inquiry into press standards in April, claiming he had "suffered extensive libels" comparable to Gerry and Kate McCann, who received significant damages from a number of national newspapers over coverage of the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

He had previously had a complaint not upheld by the Press Complaints Commission about 45 articles, in publications including the Guardian and the Independent, which he claimed were inaccurate and unfair.

Breaking: Eminent Scientist May be Jailed for Faking Climate Emails

Climate Change Dispatch
John O'Sullivan

Peter Gleick

In a sensational public confession a leading climatologist, Peter Gleick has admitted to taking part in a high-profile climate emails forgery that has backfired; says it was done to intentionally injure skeptic foundation.

Britain’s pro-green national daily, ‘The Guardian’ was the first major newspaper to break the news that Dr. Peter Gleick had confessed to unlawfully libeling the prominent climate skeptic supporter, the Heartland Institute (HI). Heartland is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Stopping short of specifically admitting he was the author of the faked Heartland Institute document, Gleick nonetheless spilled the beans that he was a co-conspirator, via the Huffington Post late last night (February 20, 2012). Gleick admits that his political bias on climate catastrophism led him to commit “ a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.”

In reply Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast immediately issued an official statement declaring,

"Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.”

Climate Criminality to Promote Failing Alarmist Agenda

Gleick, an eminent climate scientist promoting the man-made global warming meme, had jumped off his lofty establishment pedestal to admit that he had knowingly intented to cause injury and defame HI, a registered charity.

Dr. Gleick added he would “not comment on the substance or implications of the materials.” But there can be no doubt that the tone of his letter suggests it was drafted under the direct guidance of an attorney.

Heartland Institute lawyers have announced they will mount a prosecution in a civil court for knowingly using a fraudulent instrument to inflict intentional injury upon the prominent skeptic foundation.