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, 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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”.

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.

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)

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

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

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

> 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.