To imagine a scenario, sure. I can imagine plenty of scenarios.

Epstein liked to film his visitors and use the material to blackmail them. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that he ordered his slaves to behave nice and inviting.

You should be very careful about drawing lines between what you can and can't think. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter if you call it Religion or Science; you're still hosed.

He’s not just imagining a scenario. He’s saying that this is the most likely scenario, and that the fact that she presented as willing makes everything totally cool.

Your repeated false statements in this comments page might be doing your cause more harm than good, since others have posted links and full actual quotations that contradict your statements.

> totally cool

I didnt read that in the email thread. Human trafficked sex slaves appearing willing to Minsky does not mean everything is totally cool.

He keeps saying it shouldn’t qualify as sexual assault or rape. If it’s not that then what is it?

For Minsksy it’s at least statutory rape, not cool at all. For Epstein it’s the whole gamut of messed up stuff, also not cool.

It seems to me that Stallman is saying that qualifying language is valuable as statutory rape in USVI (and most other jurisdictions) has a much smaller penalty than other forms of sexual assault. So using the same word for Epstein and Minsky is not fair, I think, to their victims.

But saying “use more accurate language” is not the same as saying what Minsky is accused of is totally cool.

He also spends a lot of time arguing that statutory rape shouldn’t count. So if he thinks that’s all Minsky did, it seems entirely fair to summarize that as “totally cool.”

Not to mention that if Minsky did in fact have sex with a slave who was forced to do it, that’s real actual rape, and the best thing you could say there is that Minsky was somehow tricked into committing rape.

Lots of people think statutory rape shouldn’t count. In the British Virgin Islands the age of consent is 16, so the crime Minsky is accused of isn’t a crime a little while away. I don’t think it’s fair, or accurate, to characterize the entire population of the British VI as being “totally cool” with other forms of sexual assault and human trafficking.

I think the risk I run is in characterizing acts incorrectly. I’m not aware of anyone being charged with “actual rape” for having sex with human trafficked prostitutes in USVI. So it depends a lot on the facts of the case, etc etc.

We will have a tough time knowing what Minsky knew and didn’t know. I think it’s reasonable to know if a sex partner is legs age, but it’s much harder to know whether someone was exploiting someone against their will. But legally I’m not sure he would be charged with being “unwilling rape” or whatever crime you think he committed.

What I’m trying to point out is that someone can be against statutory rape, even against rape tricking, and not think it is “totally cool.”

Logically, it is not appropriate to make such leaps unless we have more info.

The US, and England, and probably other countries, have enacted laws that mean some sexual offences against children committed outside those jurisdictions can be tried inside the jurisdiction. Precisely to stop this kind of sex tourism.

See for example this from England:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/48

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/53A

I don’t get it. If it wasn’t rape (statutory or otherwise) then what is RMS saying isn’t “totally cool” about it?

The gist of what RMS said is that Epstein trafficking a 17 year old is bad, but if Minsky had sex with a 17 year old who gave the appearance of consenting, Minsky didn't do something wrong.

> For Minsksy it’s at least statutory rape

That's probably not the case. At the time, 2001, the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands was 16. Around the middle of that year the legislature said they wanted to raise it to 18, but I don't think they actually accomplished that until the passage of the Child Protection Act of 2002.

(For comparison, it varies from 16 to 18 for US states. 16 in 31 states and DC, 17 in 8 states, and 18 in 11 states).

Oh thanks. I just looked up the current age of consent in USVI and didn’t think to look it up at the time of the event in question.

A couple things to note.

1. The sex they are talking about was in 2001, which was before there were any criminal cases or charges or civil cases against Epstein. Is there any reason for Minsky to have suspected that the girl he met at Epstein's place then was being coerced?

2. Stallman and Minsky were good friends.

So it's a binary decision is it? It's either acceptable or not? Does every argument have to be reduced to for or against?

If a person has sex with a minor without knowing they are a minor it is a crime. But should they lose their livelihood and reputation if they didn’t know the parts that make it a crime or didn’t commit the coercion themselves?

If I buy a car cheaply at auction that was seized as part of a drug-dealing crime and then get busted for having drugs still stashed in the doors, I am now a drug offender. I did not knowingly do it nor did I mean to hurt people with drug trafficking so should I lose my livelihood and reputation?

If buy a unknowingly stolen Gucci handbag on the street for a cheap price (thinking it could be a knockoff).... you get the picture.

I’m not defending drug traffickers, child rapists, or appropriating stolen goods, I am wondering if knowingly participating in the moral violation that defines the crime should make the reputational difference... or should you be persona non grata regardless? Is that Stallman’s question?

Let's say you knowingly stash the drugs in your car doors and are then arrested, convicted, serve your sentence, and are released. Should you then have the rest of your life extrajudiciously ruined by a group of people who have dedicated their lives to harassing drug dealers because their own kids died of drug overdoses?

Because applying metered justice and preventing ongoing escalating feuds is the entire point of the justice system. We're in this clusterfuck because people don't feel it is working, and they are not wrong. Specifically here, we all expect Epstein's close associates to reliably quash deeper investigation - investigation into their guilt went cold with Epstein's body.

And I'm generally for grassroots direct action, but this frenzy doesn't seem directed towards making up for the failings of the system, but rather scoring points against easy targets for the thrill of it. RMS himself was nowhere near this island, rather he simply had the audacity to question the lynch mob's narrative! With a reaction like this, how can it be said that these pitchforks are in the service of justice?

In every case you suggested, yes you would be charged as described, except the theft unless there was evidence you were not involved. In the first two you would go to court to prove your lack of guilt. We're talking about grown adults going to the house of a convicted sex offender finding young women who are held against their will in a harem and then having sex with them because they were told to make you happy. If you cannot understand why your defense wouldn't hold up in this case then you'll never be convinced. Stallman, a man I've met and had a very nice conversation with, holds views that literal children have the intellectual and emotional capacity to engage in sexual relationships with adults on equal footing. This is just plainly untrue. A child cannot fully understand the consequences, they aren't even fully developed yet. This is not the middle ages, this isn't the neolithic. We know the proper development is required for children to become proper adults. Stallman has repeatedly made statements and actions that are inappropriate, blatantly sexist, and has himself abused his position within the community for personal gain and satisfaction. As much as he has given to the FOSS community, it's time for him to step back as being the face, if he's not willing to do so then it's up to the community to police itself lest we all be considered supporting his positions.

At some point recklessness takes over from lack of mens rei. If someone is so reckless as to have sex with a 17 year old without making very sure that she consents and isn't coerced then they're so reckless that it doesn't matter if they know or not.