News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by _jal on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @05:25PM (#21000241)
No, it is not just that. You are apparently intent on ignoring the point of my post, so let me rephrase:

If someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum. (It may be a tacky example to use, but that's a different question.)

On the other hand, if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, and, having never before shown any interest in a particular legal argument, trots it out to defend (and yes, that exactly what it was) abhorrent behavior, people are going to take it differently.

> That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.

You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Well sure. In the US, people can sue over anything they like. But if that's what you meant, I still have no idea what "charges" you're talking about.

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by lostjohnny on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @05:05AM (#21003488)
> if someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum

that's a big IF

and BTW Stallman notoriously complained about absurd legal result, that's his real life achievement: a legal framework for free software!

that's his bread and butter.

> if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal,

that's false premise

> You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them?

Yes.

Because "defending rich old men screwing young kids" never happened.

It's a fabricated lie.