For those who might prefer unredacted, here's what Stallman is reported to have said:

"The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."

The issue in a nutshell, right here: Primary source evidence is downvoted in favor of complaints about fabricated statements made by chopping up sentences and adding different words to them.

Of course, the definition of "sexual assault" presumes no such thing.

The law definition in the United States, you mean.

In Poland, it requires use of force or coercion on part of the person doing the sexual act. Without it, say drugging and then letting someone else do it, it's "just" assault. (The other person is committing sexual assault.)

What Epstein did is called pimping and also punishable by law. Potentially also abduction or assault. Forcing a minor to commence a sexual act is a separate category of pimping (pimping a minor) that's yet more harshly punished.

Sex with minor is also punishable by law separately. (With some exceptions and discretion by the judge.) Now there is a strong association with sexual assault, though circumstances can leave it as just sex with minor. Depends on prosecutor and judge.

So it is likely Epstein would be convicted of multiple crimes and potentially recidivism (repeat offense) and organized crime, while Minsky would be convicted for sex with minor, not any kind of assault.

Note that repeat offense means Epstein would not be offered bail nor allowed a reduced sentence.

> The law definition in the United States, you mean.

No, the everyday English word "assault" doesn't have to include "use of violence". RMS has wrongly said it does.