I agreee, but is not telling someone that you do not (to your knowledge) have HIV "not revealing a fact"? You seem to be falling prey to the muddying of waters I mention in my original comments: Instead of discussing the fact that the US spied on its own citizens etc, or the fact that Assange is being held accountible in and by a country where he did not commit any crimes, we are discussing the optics of a constructed rape case, without either of us knowing the laws of the country.

Assange could have Tuberculosis too. So that's also rape, right? The flu? Also rape. He could be a triple rapist!

Just forget all that systematic government murdering, spying, and lying he revealed, we won't entertain facts from a possible triple rapist!

Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice?

How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?

Of course not, it's a ridiculous allegation with no basis in fact.

A baseless allegation that would have rightly been completely ignored by police if it wasn't Assange.

I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.