4 ms·

I think the problem here is that Stallman seems to value technical correctness over propriety, and doesn't seem to value political correctness at all. I get hi

I think the problem here is that Stallman seems to value technical correctness over propriety, and doesn't seem to value political correctness at all. I get his point that using the term "assault" is probably incorrect, though it may be the correct term in some jurisdictions. The (usually unofficial) term I'd use is "statutory rape", which covers any nonforcible sexual activity between an adult and a minor (roughly paraphrased from Wikipedia [1]). So, using the term "assault" is technically incorrect in some jurisdictions, and that seems to be the point he was trying to make. That being said, it's not an important point to make at all, and it is absolutely valid to see it as completely insensitive and inappropriate for someone in his position. Stallman does this type of thing a lot, and perhaps it's time to have him take a less public role and pass the mantel to someone who is willing to follow the ever changing rules of considerate speech. Speaking with tact doesn't limit the ability for the FSF to spread its message; to the contrary, it can only help. I feel both sides here are in the wrong. The author made a big deal over what I (and likely many others) see as another of Stallman's eccentric rants, but then again, we probably shouldn't continue giving him a pass just because of his contributions. Maybe he needs to talk to whomever Linus Torvalds spoke with about being more careful with public speech. I appreciate the edit the author made about being a bit hasty, and I'd also appreciate something similar from Stallman about his choice of arguments to involve himself in. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

AndrewBissell 7y ago
"nonforcible" is 100% bullshit in this context. A university professor in his 70s with liver spots on his bald pate who is "approached" by a 17 year old girl for sex on his rich buddy's island is knowingly participating in rape, full stop.
- tutfbhuf 7y ago
  "statutory rape", full stop. To be precise.
  - davidcbc 7y ago
    These were human trafficking victims. They were raped.
    - beatgammit 7y ago
      That's what statutory rape means... rape. The question is whether assault was involved. And this is completely unrelated to whether the girls were trafficked, unless there's evidence that he conspired with Epstein. And that's the type of hair splitting that RMS does, and he needs to be more careful about it. He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        What do you think assault means? Do you mistakenly think "assault" means "force is used"?
        beatgammit 7y ago
        Here's the Wikipedia definition[1], which seems accurate to what I understand from the term: > An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. > > ... > > Traditionally, common law legal systems had separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery refers to the actual bodily contact, whereas assault refers to a credible threat or attempt to cause battery. So, to prove assault, you need to prove that the victim didn't want the physical contact. Rape usually involves assault (in fact, it's defined as a type of "sexual assault"), but statutory rape is a bit different because it essentially says that an individual cannot consent under a certain age and is defined as not involving force. So, I think it's fair to say that statutory rape is a special case of rape that doesn't involve assault. Some jurisdictions use the term "assault" to describe statutory rape as well, but I personally think that's unhelpful because we want statutory rape to include cases where the victim made every indication that they wanted the encounter (they're below the age of consent, after all), so using the term assault just confuses the term. And that brings us to force. A rape can happen where physical force isn't involved, but it can involve other types of force, like intimidation or other types of manipulation (e.g. encouraging use of drugs to reduce inhibitions). I think nonphysical assault still involves force at some level (again, maybe not physical force), so I would say rape requires force. If you're going to claim that someone is guilty of assault, I think you need to prove some use of force, physical or otherwise. I believe that statutory rape does not necessarily involve assault, at least not in the sense that we use it for people over the age of consent. Sex with someone under the age of consent may be considered rape even if the exact same set of circumstances above the age of consent wouldn't be treated as such. Therefore I don't think we can automatically assume assault from a statutory rape case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
- beatgammit 7y ago
  If the statutory rape involved force, I'm sure the sentence would be greater. But rape doesn't need to involve force. I obviously can't speak for Stallman, but I don't think he was trying to make the case that the guy was innocent, I think he was arguing that what he did may be okay in other jurisdictions and that it isn't technically assault. That's it. Stallman is usually very precise in his speech and doesn't go out of his way to counter potential misunderstandings of what says. I see that as a problem, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > is knowingly participating in rape What makes you think that? For all we know he might have thought that said girl was 18 or 25. But even if he thought that she was a 17 years old prostitute I can't see how it would be rape.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    How are you defining rape where having sex with a coerced child isn't rape?
  - jcstauffer 7y ago
    Even if she were 18 or 25, it wouldn't really change the morals of the issue - maybe the legality, but forced sex is wrong regardless of the age of the victim, and it's not in any way reasonable to argue that he wouldn't have known the circumstances.
    - AndrewBissell 7y ago
      Hard to imagine it even changes the legality. These defenses of Minsky remind me of someone who buys a shiny new high-end stereo from someone off the street for one quarter its retail price, then protests to the cops "well he didn't tell me it was stolen!"
danso 7y ago
Have you seen Stallman's homepage, particularly its glossary section? Look at his definition for "planet roasters" or "thug" or "bankster". He clearly is fine with inflated rhetoric, and yet has the nerve to lecture the article author with this tripe: > Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism. (not that I think the author was even technically wrong to use the word "assaulting" for suspected statutory rape)

AndrewBissell 7y ago

"nonforcible" is 100% bullshit in this context. A university professor in his 70s with liver spots on his bald pate who is "approached" by a 17 year old girl for sex on his rich buddy's island is knowingly participating in rape, full stop.

tutfbhuf 7y ago
"statutory rape", full stop. To be precise.
- davidcbc 7y ago
  These were human trafficking victims. They were raped.
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    That's what statutory rape means... rape. The question is whether assault was involved. And this is completely unrelated to whether the girls were trafficked, unless there's evidence that he conspired with Epstein. And that's the type of hair splitting that RMS does, and he needs to be more careful about it. He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      What do you think assault means? Do you mistakenly think "assault" means "force is used"?
      - beatgammit 7y ago
        Here's the Wikipedia definition[1], which seems accurate to what I understand from the term: > An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. > > ... > > Traditionally, common law legal systems had separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery refers to the actual bodily contact, whereas assault refers to a credible threat or attempt to cause battery. So, to prove assault, you need to prove that the victim didn't want the physical contact. Rape usually involves assault (in fact, it's defined as a type of "sexual assault"), but statutory rape is a bit different because it essentially says that an individual cannot consent under a certain age and is defined as not involving force. So, I think it's fair to say that statutory rape is a special case of rape that doesn't involve assault. Some jurisdictions use the term "assault" to describe statutory rape as well, but I personally think that's unhelpful because we want statutory rape to include cases where the victim made every indication that they wanted the encounter (they're below the age of consent, after all), so using the term assault just confuses the term. And that brings us to force. A rape can happen where physical force isn't involved, but it can involve other types of force, like intimidation or other types of manipulation (e.g. encouraging use of drugs to reduce inhibitions). I think nonphysical assault still involves force at some level (again, maybe not physical force), so I would say rape requires force. If you're going to claim that someone is guilty of assault, I think you need to prove some use of force, physical or otherwise. I believe that statutory rape does not necessarily involve assault, at least not in the sense that we use it for people over the age of consent. Sex with someone under the age of consent may be considered rape even if the exact same set of circumstances above the age of consent wouldn't be treated as such. Therefore I don't think we can automatically assume assault from a statutory rape case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
beatgammit 7y ago
If the statutory rape involved force, I'm sure the sentence would be greater. But rape doesn't need to involve force. I obviously can't speak for Stallman, but I don't think he was trying to make the case that the guy was innocent, I think he was arguing that what he did may be okay in other jurisdictions and that it isn't technically assault. That's it. Stallman is usually very precise in his speech and doesn't go out of his way to counter potential misunderstandings of what says. I see that as a problem, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
dependenttypes 7y ago
> is knowingly participating in rape What makes you think that? For all we know he might have thought that said girl was 18 or 25. But even if he thought that she was a 17 years old prostitute I can't see how it would be rape.
- DanBC 7y ago
  How are you defining rape where having sex with a coerced child isn't rape?
- jcstauffer 7y ago
  Even if she were 18 or 25, it wouldn't really change the morals of the issue - maybe the legality, but forced sex is wrong regardless of the age of the victim, and it's not in any way reasonable to argue that he wouldn't have known the circumstances.
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    Hard to imagine it even changes the legality. These defenses of Minsky remind me of someone who buys a shiny new high-end stereo from someone off the street for one quarter its retail price, then protests to the cops "well he didn't tell me it was stolen!"

danso 7y ago

Have you seen Stallman's homepage, particularly its glossary section? Look at his definition for "planet roasters" or "thug" or "bankster". He clearly is fine with inflated rhetoric, and yet has the nerve to lecture the article author with this tripe: > Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism. (not that I think the author was even technically wrong to use the word "assaulting" for suspected statutory rape)