It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry.
Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured.
But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.
Correct, it's the abuse of the legal system.
> Though legally a sexual assault still occured.
Just because something is true legally doesn't mean it's ok, good, correct, moral or ethical.
We're talking about sex trafficking, which we know did occur and Epstein was convicted of. Twice.
And possibly rape/sexual assault, even though the "perpetrator" did not know about it.
You're getting awfully close to defending Epstein there.
I also can't help but notice that you ignored everything else in my comment?
Coerced/forced by whom? Are you actually stupid or just pretending?
Anyway, I get that you're confused. However, I've lost interest in talking to you.
Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else.
What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.