I think that the idea that Minsky was unaware (or at least had no suspicions of) coercion is highly suspect, and a bit naive.

Powerful billionaire brings you to his private island and presents a beautiful young woman to you who appears ready and willing to have sex with you, a 75-year-old man.

Is that ever credible, even in a porno?

For Stallman to push this "Minsky didn't know" narrative now, with no horse in the race, and Minsky having passed away 3 years ago, is beyond the pale. I get the idea of trying to defend the reputation of your dead friend, but... c'mon. It's not the time or the place, and Stallman should know better after decades of being "misunderstood".

So, I could certainly be convinced of that argument. But there is a middle ground between coercion and porno-plot that makes sense here: Minsky thought she was a prostitute of legal age, there by her own free choice in exchange for compensation. If that were the case, I don't think we should be calling what Minsky did assault, and I do think that that is a pretty reasonable and likely scenario.

More reasonable, perhaps, but still a bit out there. Age is often hard to tell at a glance, but just going along with the situation without asking any questions would seem to be ridiculously irresponsible.

Then again, an account from someone else at the gathering claims he saw what happened, and that Minsky rejected the girl's advances. If true, that kind makes the whole thing moot.

I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments.

(I'd like to not get into arguing about Minsky's own actions or about mitigating factors in sexual assault in this particular thread. 'esotericn is talking about what is reasonable to discuss or not in which circumstances, not about the merits of the argument in question. And I'm also personally not interested in arguing the case.)

> I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments.

I guess I don't understand your point about Stare Decisis, then. Is your point that Stallman knew that his argument was wrong, but he put it forward anyway? Was there some piece of social case law he was supposed to be referencing here?

So what you are saying, after a rather long discussion, is that you can't point a fault in what Stallman wrote, but you think that those who were outraged must have had a good argument to be so. And you agree with them despite not knowing what that argument was. Is that correct?

That's a deliberate misreading of me. I can find concrete fault in what he wrote. To demonstrate the fault would require engaging in a discussion on the merits of his argument, which I have no interest in doing. (I'm on the mailing list, if I had an interest in doing so, I would have replied there, where it's productive, not here.)

"Honestly officer, I had no idea the new-in-box MacBook that guy to sold me for $300 out of his unmarked van was stolen."

Certainly that would be a reasonable counter-argument, that the circumstances were such that he ought to have known. But that then invites a discussion about the exact nature of the circumstances Minsky was in. Personally I don't know what they were.

If those circumstances were unfavorable to him (as in your analogy), i'd be convinced that Minsky was at fault. If not, then I wouldn't be. But all that is to say that it seems to me that Stallman's abstract argument was fine to bring up - it just then puts the question back to his counterparts in the discussion to articulate a view on those circumstances to justify their position.

When he was charged it was determined that despite this possible defense there was enough evidence to convict him off knowingly committing sexual assault. It's possible he'll be found not guilty in the court of law, but it's unlikely a convicted sex offender with a harem of women is above coercion and the law likely find the defendant would more likely have known than not known.

You appear to be confusing Minsky, who was dead before any of this hit the news and was never charged with any crime, and Epstein.

It looks like you're right about that reader beign confused.

To clarify further, however, Minksy was not dead "before any of this hit the news"; he died in January 2016.

Claims against Epstein had significant publicity much earlier than that; as just one example, in 2015 the Prince Andrew - Epstein connection was making headlines due to the Virginia Roberts case.[1]

[1] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-planning-panorama-...

The allegation against Minsky were made in a deposition in 2016 though, and I believe that deposition was only unsealed this year, hence making the news this year (leading to the recent resignations at MIT). I don’t think Minsky had a chance to respond to the allegation before he died, hence this mailing list thread between his former colleagues speculating about it.

You’re absolutely right that the allegations against Epstein were in the news before 2016 though, after all he was initially sentenced for his crime in 2007.

You're correct. I read deposition and made the incorrect connection.