> She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself.

Stallman's whole point is that Epstein almost certainly concealed these facts from his associates. Stallman does not in any way argue that these women's and girls aren't victims, only that Minsky was likely unaware of this.

I don't see anything sketchy about defending one's dead friend: Minsky isn't alive to say "I had no idea these women were underage and being trafficked" and it seems natural Stallman wants to point this out to people calling his friend a pedophile and a rapist.

Minsky refused Epstein's girl. He was with his wife at that party.

Ignorance isn't considered a defense for statutory rape.

Correct, in some states it's a strict liability crime, but it's not without controversy: should a 25 year old who had sex with someone he met a bar, who entered with a fake ID indicating she was 21, be charged with rape of a child? Even if it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, it's still a very important factor.

> She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time.

It was in the US Virgin Islands where the age of consent was 16 at the time.

Patronizing a prostitute under 18 years of age is a federal crime throughout the United States, irrespective of local age-of-consent laws.

Which just demonstrates how nuts this all is. You’re in this jurisdiction on day X it’s one crime, another jurisdiction on day X+1 it’s another crime.

There are real crimes happening you can get upset about (and maybe even do something about). This is about internet points for people that want to be seen to be upset. They are trading on the suffering of the very people they purport to represent.

Yes, Stallman was trying to get intranet points for Minsky, at a time when the local MIT people were protesting MIT's long-term support for the convicted sex trafficker Eppstein.

You are right that Stallman was trading on that suffering to defend his hero. There was no reason for him to say anything at all. His argument was not relevant as the hero he represented had been dead for year, and only served to shake a stick in a nest of already angry bees.

We don't have One World Government with globally consistent laws, and I hardly think that's what you want. Yes, the speed limit can change crossing a state border. Turning right on red may be legal in one place, and not legal a mile down the street.

You can still get a ticket for breaking the law.

Age of consent != Age where one can legally prostitute themselves

Simple as

And real crimes? Like trafficking teenaged women around the world to be used as sex slaves to please one's powerful male associates?

Yes those are indeed real crimes and there are real ways to effect change with respect to those issues.

RMS being a bozo isn’t a crime and internet outrage about it has no effect on real crimes.

If you donate $5 to a charity helping those affected, for instance, you’ll have done more than all the virtue signaling outrage in the world. You’re not raising awareness, you’re not changing opinions, it’s not “problematic”, you’re just getting your anger/attention rush. It has negative utility and value for the world, and you’re making things worse.

(You in the general sense, you understand. Not you specifically).

>"RMS being a bozo isn’t a crime and internet outrage about it has no effect on real crimes."

Not sure what this has to do with what I posted...

That is the context of the subthread to which you responded. Sorry if it wasn’t clear from my original post.

I'm confused because you seemed to be dismissing them as if they aren't "real" crimes...

Nah I was dismissing faux outrage at a guy saying whatever dumb shit, and those people basing their outrage in large part on such arbitrary jurisdictional issues.

Outrage about the actual crime of human trafficking is of course called for but has nothing to do with RMS. Also, outrage at RMS won’t actually in any way address those crimes. But it feels good!

I don't care about RMS, but what are the arbitrary jurisdictional issues. There's nothing arbitrary or jurisdictional about human trafficking, just because might be of legal age. I feel like you aren't getting the fundamental issue that people base their shock/outrage/whatever off of. It's totally separate from thinking that attacking RMS over it will result in anything - as that's nothing but a strawman. There's no reason why criticism of anyone has to be tied to creating whatever societal-wide change is desired. That's just facially absurd.

I thought Minsky happened in the US Virgin Islands, where it was legal (but now isn’t, thankfully).

My issue is that “sketchy” isn’t enough to block a speaker from presenting on a subject where they have expertise. If MLK was alive today, would be be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of cheating on his wife? Not that I have expertise enough to be invited to speak anywhere, but would I be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of defending MLK?

This all seems like bikeshedding and is decreasing our intellectual growth that comes from sharing ideas about free software and developing from them.

> I thought Minsky happened in the US Virgin Islands, where it was legal (but now isn’t, thankfully)

Just looking at the natural experiment of differing ages of consent in different First World countries there doesn't seem to be an inherent problem with an age of consent below 18.

In the US it is 18 in only 11 states (Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin).

It is 17 in 6 (Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Texas).

In the other 33 plus DC it is 16.

In Europe it is 18 in 3 countries (Vatican City, Turkey, Malta), 17 in 2 countries (Cypress, Ireland), 16 in 20 countries, 15 in 12 countries, and 14 in 14 countries.

It's 16 in Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and most of Australia (17 in the rest).