> I would also like to clarify that in some headlines, including this Daily Beast one, Stallman is said to have defended Epstein, which is not technically true.

> I would also like to clarify that in some headlines, including this Daily Beast one, Stallman is said to have defended Epstein, which is not technically true. Rather, Stallman was defending Marvin Minsky. I directly emailed and corrected reporters who used that language if I myself had given them any comments or information. I say this to show that I never intended to “inflate” anything, because there was absolutely no need to. It goes further than that. According to the original email presented by the author, this is what RMS wrote: > We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... From this statement, the Daily Beast produced the title: "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" RMS is defending Minsky by saying that for him the most likely scenario was that the person in question presented herself "as entirely willing." Whether or not the person was willing is a completely different question. So the article is wrong on two counts, and no amount of righteous anger or revulsion around RMS as a person can justify it. In the mad dash for clicks at all cost, the Daily Beast has really made a mess of this thing.