4 ms·

Stallman participated in an online discussion of the situation in which he condemned Epstein, but questioned whether or not Minsky had done wrong. It was not c

Stallman participated in an online discussion of the situation in which he condemned Epstein, but questioned whether or not Minsky had done wrong. It was not clear whether Minsky was aware that the woman had been coerced into having sex with him. There was a reply on the thread which said that the woman was under the age of consent in the country where the act was said to have taken place (but not in the US, I guess). Stallman further replied that in general (but not not necessarily specifically about this case) he felt it wasn't reasonable to quibble about that kind of technicality when discussing the morality of the situation (i.e. it would have been legal in one place, but not another). After that, there were pieces written by various web media outlets where they mis-quoted Stallman, alleging that he said things which he does not seem to have said. So I think the OP is wondering out loud why it's not OK for Stallman to have a public opinion about the morality of the situation where it is apparently OK in one country, but if you go on holiday to another country it is rape. The OP did not mention Epstein at all and it's not related to the discussion in any way. The problem is that the media has been waging a kind of character assassination of Stallman and quite frankly appears to have slandered him rather badly. However, to answer the OP's musings: Stallman should know better than to get pulled into this kind of conversation because he has many political opponents who will stop at nothing to drag his name in the mud. He was completely stupid to respond at all. Maybe it's not fair, but it's reality.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
> where it is apparently OK in one country, but if you go on holiday to another country it is rape No, having sex with Epstein's trafficked victims is considered rape in pretty much all countries. Protestations that the victim "presented herself as willing" are like defending a buyer of obviously stolen goods on the basis that the fence didn't overtly tell them they were stolen. Minsky was a 73-year-old man offered sex by a 17-year-old girl on his friend's Caribbean island -- he knew what the real situation was.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Could he have thought she was "just" a prostitute?
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    I suppose this extremely charitable reading is possible, but it still doesn't exonerate Minsky. Not only did he fail to confirm she was of age ("I never asked how old she was" is not a defense), he maintained professional and academic ties with someone who (as far as he supposedly knew) was sending extremely young prostitutes to him and his peers. Given that even the Virgin Islands locals took to calling it "Pedophile Island," it's a pretty good guess that most of the people who went to the parties there had at least an inkling of their true nature. But no-strings-attached money (or worse, other "favors") were a powerful motivator to look the other way.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      How would he confirm she is of age? Isn't the scenario that she was forced to hide the fact she was sex trafficked from him? Would she not also have to lie about her she then too? 17 year olds can frequently pass for 18 year olds, which is a legal age almost anywhere. > Given that even the Virgin Islands locals took to calling it "Pedophile island" Locals almost always have more knowledge about a place in their backyard than someone flown in for a special occasion.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  I think you are correct but at best this means minsky is guilty not Stallman because coming to the wrong conclusion unlike rape isn't a crime and we shouldn't be afraid to have opinions.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    I have to say that I'm pretty much 100% in agreement here. I kind of understand where Stallman is coming from. The morality of the situation is completely separate from the legality of it. Things that are illegal are not necessarily immoral. Things that are immoral are not necessarily illegal. Especially saying that because you travelled from one country to another, it suddenly became immoral is a pretty ridiculous statement to make (which is what he said). I'm also pretty much 100% in agreement that Minsky ought to have known that what he was doing was wrong. However, I know literally nothing of the situation. It was stupid of Stallman to give a "for instance" because it's always going to be construed as him advocating a really bad situation. But later he literally asks people for copies of the deposition (that he can read with free software) so that he can find out what actually happened. He also had no idea what actually happened and was basically saying that he's not willing to condemn someone without understanding the circumstances. There may be mitigating details that we know nothing about. There may not. There are people who believe that there can be no mitigating details. They may very well be correct (again, I literally don't know), however, I hate the witch hunt against people who do not wish to pillory others without understanding the situation first. Having said that, like I said, it was stupid of Stallman to wade into this. He's got a big target on his back and there are people who will take every opportunity to lob something at him.

AndrewBissell 7y ago

> where it is apparently OK in one country, but if you go on holiday to another country it is rape No, having sex with Epstein's trafficked victims is considered rape in pretty much all countries. Protestations that the victim "presented herself as willing" are like defending a buyer of obviously stolen goods on the basis that the fence didn't overtly tell them they were stolen. Minsky was a 73-year-old man offered sex by a 17-year-old girl on his friend's Caribbean island -- he knew what the real situation was.

oh_sigh 7y ago
Could he have thought she was "just" a prostitute?
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  I suppose this extremely charitable reading is possible, but it still doesn't exonerate Minsky. Not only did he fail to confirm she was of age ("I never asked how old she was" is not a defense), he maintained professional and academic ties with someone who (as far as he supposedly knew) was sending extremely young prostitutes to him and his peers. Given that even the Virgin Islands locals took to calling it "Pedophile Island," it's a pretty good guess that most of the people who went to the parties there had at least an inkling of their true nature. But no-strings-attached money (or worse, other "favors") were a powerful motivator to look the other way.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    How would he confirm she is of age? Isn't the scenario that she was forced to hide the fact she was sex trafficked from him? Would she not also have to lie about her she then too? 17 year olds can frequently pass for 18 year olds, which is a legal age almost anywhere. > Given that even the Virgin Islands locals took to calling it "Pedophile island" Locals almost always have more knowledge about a place in their backyard than someone flown in for a special occasion.
michaelmrose 7y ago
I think you are correct but at best this means minsky is guilty not Stallman because coming to the wrong conclusion unlike rape isn't a crime and we shouldn't be afraid to have opinions.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  I have to say that I'm pretty much 100% in agreement here. I kind of understand where Stallman is coming from. The morality of the situation is completely separate from the legality of it. Things that are illegal are not necessarily immoral. Things that are immoral are not necessarily illegal. Especially saying that because you travelled from one country to another, it suddenly became immoral is a pretty ridiculous statement to make (which is what he said). I'm also pretty much 100% in agreement that Minsky ought to have known that what he was doing was wrong. However, I know literally nothing of the situation. It was stupid of Stallman to give a "for instance" because it's always going to be construed as him advocating a really bad situation. But later he literally asks people for copies of the deposition (that he can read with free software) so that he can find out what actually happened. He also had no idea what actually happened and was basically saying that he's not willing to condemn someone without understanding the circumstances. There may be mitigating details that we know nothing about. There may not. There are people who believe that there can be no mitigating details. They may very well be correct (again, I literally don't know), however, I hate the witch hunt against people who do not wish to pillory others without understanding the situation first. Having said that, like I said, it was stupid of Stallman to wade into this. He's got a big target on his back and there are people who will take every opportunity to lob something at him.