Stallman conjured up a thought experiment where Minsky is innocent because the minor was "entirely willing." That was the defense Stallman decided, even if those aren't his exact words. His exact words aren't any better then whatever the media decided to run with, at the end of the day his intent was identical. The headline could have been "MIT scientist says you shouldn't get punished for raping minors as long as they present themselves as entirely willing." Do you believe I have gotten that wrong? And if not, can you argue why that is any better than what the media put out?

If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.

You are failing to parse this sentence correctly.

He explicitly does not think she was willing. He thinks she was unwilling but was coerced to give the appearance of willingness and that the appearance of the two from Minskys point of view were the same.

This isn't a subtle difference. You think he said almost exactly the opposite of what he said

So Stallman's argument was that the most plausible scenario here is this: Minksy -- who at the time of these events had to at least have been in his sixties, not to mention, you know, married -- went over to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion, where Epstein presented a teenage girl to him for the purposes of having sex (the claim she makes is that she was ordered by Epstein to sleep with "powerful men"), and because the girl didn't explicitly say she had been ordered to do so, Minsky was fine with it all.

So, are we saying this is a particularly good defense? Because it doesn't sound like a great defense to me. It doesn't sound like any reasonably smart person -- which Minsky undoubtedly was -- would find themselves in this situation and not have a question or two about the ethics.

Let's agree that the reporting did, in fact, get Stallman's meaning wrong here. Let's even agree that isn't a subtle difference. Here's the thing: even the most generous reading of what Stallman wrote is still, at the end of the day, excusing Minsky's actions.

And at the end of the day, I think that's still a problem.

Refer to my comment below. This wasn't a judgment statement. I'm not defending Stallman.

I'm simply saying he failed at the task of correctly parsing this statement in a way that is clearly causing him to misunderstand the story.

> This isn't a subtle difference.

Thanks. You're right, it isn't, but the gaslighting had me doubting my own sanity for a moment there.

The thing is, this one statement is ... tolerable. A bit in poor taste as far as apologia goes.

But then to have a long track record of disagreeing with age of consent; semantic arguments about pedophilia; treating women with disrespect and general creepiness-- it eventually gets to be too much.

Any time you have to say this:

> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

After having said this:

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

You've really screwed up, IMO. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html

That is, once you've fucked up with pedo-apologia a few too many times, maybe it's time to be really, really careful in what you say in defense of a colleague's possibly questionable sexual actions.

How many disagreeable opinions do you personally allow someone to have before you believe it correct for people to try to coerce other people to stop doing business with them so you can silence them exactly?

That question of your is kinda in bad faith, though isn't it? There's no reasonable answer to that question. The answer is, of course, "it depends".

I would not want to work for a CEO who believed for years that "voluntary pedophilia" doesn't harm children. If I were someone at the FSF with any amount of power, and I found out about that, I would immediately work to get him ousted, or, failing that, I'd quit.

And it's not like this is the only thing he's done; he's been creating a hostile environment for women at MIT for decades. It's about time he was held to account for that, too.

You should care about what people do not what they think.

So, do you think, for instance, FSF donors and contributors should be compelled to keep working with the FSF even if they find the statements of the president of the FSF to be repugnant?

A key reason behind him stepping down is because the GNOME folks wanted to part ways with the FSF over these issues.

I'm curious about this point. If I don't do business with some company, am I silencing someone? Or only when I don't do business with a company for some specific reason?

Now, say I tweet about my boycott of this company. Am I now silencing someone?

Since we're discussing the fine details here, can you tell me exactly when my freedom of speech becomes a tool to coerce and silence others in this scenario?

How many people do you want to force into doing business with someone they find repugnant?

It's certainly sad seeing Stallman condemned and called autistic low EQ by people when it's they that lack reading comprehension.

I don't see how that's materially different. It still amounts to "Stallman thinks it's acceptable to rape a child in certain circumstances."

I'm not defending Stallman or commenting on what he thinks is acceptable or not, in any way.

But surely, if you are saying what he said is bad, it must matter whether he said some thing, or it's exact opposite.

Or is this the Schrodinger's cats of statements where it and it's inverse are both totally and equally intolerable?

Having sex with someone who is underage (in this case, 17, in a jurisdiction where the legal age is 18) is a strict-liability crime, meaning the prosecution doesn't have to prove that you knew. But be aware that, while Minsky is dead and unable to defend himself, there is apparently a witness who claims that Minsky is innocent--specifically, that Giuffre was directed to have sex with Minsky but Minsky turned her down. Since dead people can't have trials, we will probably never learn the facts of the matter.

Unless of course it had happened in about half of Europe or many other places in the world where he wouldn't have even been charged with a crime...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

We are conflating 'law' and 'morals/ethics' in these arguments. If you act with strict adherence to the law, I'm assuming you've never jaywalked, committed piracy, ran a red light, etc.

Oh, these are 'victimless crimes?' What about sex after having a couple drinks? Technically neither of you can consent under the law... a person has probably committed rape if their consensual partner had a 0.08 BAC.

I think that our lack of a legal word other than 'rape' to describe 'statutory rape' does a disservice to those women are victims of forcible, violent sex acts.

Although technically correct in many US jurisdictions, I think you would have a VERY hard time arguing that an 'adult' having consensual sex with a 17 year old being described as 'raping minors' is morally equivalent to the things that 'rape' is typically used to describe.

I remember some US politician making a similar point about "legitimate rape"

That’s not his defense. Stallman never disputed the lack of consent of the minor. He’s saying the minor might have been coerced by Epstein to “present herself as entirely willing”, i.e. she _looked like_ she’s willing when she’s really not. Minsky would have no way of knowing.

>Minsky would have no way of knowing.

You are making the same defense that you are claiming "that's not his defense." You both are making the same statement that "its ok, because he didn't know.", just in a very roundabout manner.

If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.

> If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.

This is correct, at least for many US states (22, according to Wikipedia’s article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) ) . You can meet someone under the age of consent in a bar, see them drinking alcohol, even have them show you their license and be fooled by a fake ID, and still be liable under the law to go to jail for statutory rape.

According to that Wikipedia article though, in some other U.S. states ignorance would be a defense. Whether that’s the case for the U.S. Virgin Islands isn’t clear.

I’m not saying it’s ok because he didn’t know. It’s certainly still rape, but I’d say the criminal in that case would be Epstein, not Minsky. If he sincerely thought she was a sex worker who’s over 18 and willing, why is he at fault? He might have done everything right and have gotten (what looked like) informed consent, for all we know.

You don’t have to agree with this idea (it’s not like we have any evidence after all), but I hope we can agree that it’s not entirely unreasonable.

>If Minsky were tried in US, he would be convicted. Ignorance is not a defense.

He would be convicted if he had sex with her. The evidence that he had sex with her is that she was sent to his room and he didn't report that to the authorities. That doesn't seem overwhelmingly persuasive.

The statement is NOT "it's ok because he didn't know". The statement is "he probably didn't know". If he did have sex with her, it's still not ok, regardless of whether he knew or not. And yes, he would still go to jail.

He does not really say Minsky was innocent - he insists that what Minsky did should not be called 'assault' because this term is misleading.

[Update] In another place he does argue that it is not evident that Minsky eventually did have sex with her - from the deposition it seems that she said she was directed to do it and then the lawyer asks where she went to do that and she answers that question, but it is quite probably that she misunderstood and answered the question 'where was she directed to go to do that', and there is a witness who says that Minsky turned her down. For me this is a fair argument.

It's sad when people are blinded by anger and cannot read a sentence properly and understand what is meant.

I'll repost here a comment found under the original source that started this misinterpretation of words:

I want to point out a problem: The article claims that Stallman states

    (…)that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.

I think this is a misinterpretation of what he said; it doesn’t change things for the most part, but what he said is at least understandable, if still fairly awful.

His claim, which I don’t really believe is well-founded (but that’s beside the point at this instant) was:

    (…)the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

(emphasis mine)

That is, as far as I understand, he’s stating it’s most likely that Epstein coerced her into the situation, but that she led Minsky to believe it was of her own free will — and, while I (and I suspect many other people) don’t see where Stallman gets that idea, and it isn’t necessarily the case here, I would assume we can all agree that in such a case, the individual wouldn’t be guilty of rape (due to a lack of mens rea, that is, not knowing that the person was being coerced). In short: he never states that an enslaved child could be ‘entirely willing’, merely that someone lacking relevant information could believe an enslaved child was entirely willing (requiring them to neither know the individual is enslaved nor that they are a child — which is possible for someone who’s 17 years old)

The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, as it is in the majority of US states. In fact, only 13 states put the age of consent at 18.

While it might seem icky, sex between 17 and 75 year-olds isn't a crime.

It is in the US Virgin Islands, where this all took place, where the age of consent is 18.

If you buy weed from a guy who robbed it from some other people, are you guilty of just buying the weed, or are you guilty of armed robbery?

That is the distinction being made here, especially since in other parts of the world it's even legal to buy weed.

As far as I'm aware buying stolen property isn't a strict liability crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

That is seriously fucked up. From that wikipedia article:

> a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless.

> a 15-year-old boy was convicted of statutory rape of a child under 13, a crime under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution accepted the boy's claim that he had believed the 12-year-old girl to be 15, but he was nevertheless sentenced to 12 months' detention.

When I read this, I'm very happy to live in a more sane part of the world.

Identical? That’s not what the English language suggests.

> If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.

The way you worded this makes the argument much clearer, it's helpful. This is one of the few comments that add value in this thread. Thanks.

Whereas 15 is a more extreme example, the law is absurd if that is also the case for 17 and a half vs. 18. Obviously there is no way to know the difference, so is the actual intention of the law to simply prevent people under 30 from having intercourse?

Disclaimer: I am definitely not defending the whole sex dealership thing, I am just wondering about what a 19 or 20 year old college student is supposed to do to behave legally.

Edit: as a comparison, in Germany the age of consent is 14 afaik and there exist several additional laws to protect, e.g. 15 year olds from older people that have some kind of power over them (e.g., teachers).

As the parent poster pointed out, the ethical ground of the law, or how the case would be treated abroad would have no baring in court.

Regardless, I think Stallmam's mistake was to try to start a debate about Minsky's guilt and about statutory rape in the wrong place: a mailing list about Computer Science which includes both staff and students, especially given that he is not a random person, he is an authority figure when it comes to CS and at MIT.

The debates might be valid but the place, and time (given everything going on about the connections between Epstein and the MIT) are what is wrong here.

> The debates might be valid but the place, and time (given everything going on about the connections between Epstein and the MIT) are what is wrong here.

Yes. And it's such a Stallman thing to do, to have a valid debate regardless of circumstances (whether it was the time or the place to do it). He takes his principles to unheard-of extremes.... but at least, he is a principled man. I wish we had more people like him, TBH. It's one of the persons I don't always agree with, but I always found it very easy to respect his position.

She was 17, and at that point in time 17 was above the age of consent in the US. It was changed to 18 around 2002. So it would have been completely legal back then.

This is incorrect. The age of consent in the USA varies based on state, many being 16, some being 17 and 18. However, the age of consent for sex trafficking or prostitution is fixed at 18 by federal law.

I would still find it grotesque if she had been 20. Minsky was behaving like a huge sleazebag.

Not trying to defend them for not doing journlism and being unable to understand a simple sentence but these 'news' outlet just copied what had been written in the medium publication calling for the removal of Stallman[1]:

"…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice."

[1]: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

> They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't.

Actually they did not do that, they simply parroted what had been posted on medium by Selam G.[0] in her call to remove Stallman[1].

Not trying to defend the media, they clearly did not do their job of fact-checking and jumped of the bandwagon of making outrageous headlines to make money, but the actual responsibility of misrepresenting RMS words to call for his removal lies on the original author.

[0]https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/author/selamie/ [1] https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

The Vice article has the original emails and still purposefully misquotes them.

Really this reminds me of a recent set of CNN opinion articles after the whole ridiculous Greenland thing. On video Trump referred to the comments by the Denmark PM as "nasty". CNN even has a headline "Trump calls Danish PM's response on Greenland 'nasty'".

Okay, but then they also ran a suite of opinion articles that said "Trump calls Denmark PM nasty" and then "Trumps Problem With Calling Women Nasty." I mean, look.. I get the thread and all that but that springboard article headline is just factually incorrect and then you have a whole analysis piece built off it. CNN has no way I'm aware of to report inaccuracies.

So much of news is just designed to get a rise out of people and EVERY site is guilty. It's particularly bad with opinion pieces which are, IMHO, tailored to specific demographics. News orgs hide behind the "opinion" label but really they just kill the whole orgs credibility. NYT keeps stepping in this; most recently with the Sunday Review piece on the new Kav book..

RMS also wrote in April, “I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal,” and that alone disqualifies him from any position at a school or foundation.

erm... except it's true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

In no way is he defending Epstein. He actually calls for a harsher sentence for Epstein, and a more concrete term that paints him in a harsher light than the verdict. This is a simple matter of classification, which doesn't seem at all strange to me coming from a scientist at MIT...

Link and full text below.

https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...

> (Now) Labor Secretary Acosta's plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein was not only extremely lenient, it was so lenient that it was illegal.

I wonder whether this makes it possible to resentence him to a longer prison term.

I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal.

By contrast, calling him a "sex offender" tends to minimize his crimes, since it groups him with people who committed a spectrum of acts of varying levels of gravity. Some of them were not crimes. Some of these people didn't actually do anything to anyone.

I think the right term for a person such as Epstein is "serial rapist".