6 ms·

Before jumping to criticize Stallman, be aware: there is a big difference between what today's round of headlines claim Stallman wrote, and what he actually wro

Before jumping to criticize Stallman, be aware: there is a big difference between what today's round of headlines claim Stallman wrote, and what he actually wrote. Given the relatively clear-cut nature of the lies the press has told about him, I think he ought to be suing for libel.

nemothekid 7y ago
What is the counter argument for what Stallman wrote? I've seen that the "press is going too hard on him", but, honestly, I think they were justified. What is the "big difference" to you? If someone, personally, said to me that that someone be absolved of a crime, because the other, coerced, party was "willing" at that moment, I'd seriously question their morals.
- dx87 7y ago
  Even if the person who commited the crime had no knowledge that the other party was coerced? Why are they at fault because they were lied to and tricked into commiting a crime?
  - nemothekid 7y ago
    First, claiming ignorance isn't a strong defense. It wouldn't hold up in any court in America, so I have no reason to buy it as an argument. However, if it did, to be fair, you would have to seriously consider if it is reasonable to assume that person was ignorant. For example, if you know your friend is a drug dealer and he asks you to "drop off a bag at another house", you would get the book thrown at you even if you didn't know they were drugs in the bag.
  - throwaway17746 7y ago
    There are certain crimes for which intent doesn't matter, legally. This is one of them. And likewise from a moral perspective: Minsky did harm her. Regardless of his knowledge of the situation at the time, I would expect him (were he still alive) to apologize and do whatever he could to try and heal the pain he caused. However, I do also think it would reflect much differently on his character if he knew all the details of the situation he was in vs. if he did not. That, from what I've seen, is still unclear. Consequences and intent both matter.
    - bitwize 7y ago
      As of yet I see no reason to disbelieve Gregory Benford's account that Minsky turned her down when she approached. So he did not harm her.
  - azernik 7y ago
    Having sex with a minor is a crime, regardless of coercion, because a minor is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult, because of both cognitive differences and power imbalances. If someone Minsky's age went out and started dating and having sex with high schoolers, he would go to jail. Period. Regardless of the exact social dynamics.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      There's minor, and there's minor. Age of consent differs by state and country, quite a lot, everything from 14 y.o. to 21 y.o. plus special case exceptions by court. Remember that before making absolute statements about mental powers. By the way, coerced sex (sometimes rape, sometimes assault, sometimes pimping, in some places prostitution) is illegal among adults too. You can keep it extra illegal for minors. Minority should not be an absolute but treated as a high bar. (The younger, the higher.) Unfortunately legislatives are black and white in most countries, and people accede to it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- jimrandomh 7y ago
  Stallman 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." Here's the Vice headline (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...): Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing' (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319 ) New York Post (https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-victim-virginia-giuffre-was-entirely-willing-report/ https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-vic...): "MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’: report" Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-associate-entirely-willing https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-ass...): "MIT scientist defended Jeffrey Epstein associate in leaked emails, claimed victims were ‘entirely willing’" These headlines do not match what Stallman wrote. They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't. That's not okay.
  - nemothekid 7y ago
    Stallman conjured up a thought experiment where Minsky is innocent because the minor was "entirely willing." That was the defense Stallman decided, even if those aren't his exact words. His exact words aren't any better then whatever the media decided to run with, at the end of the day his intent was identical. The headline could have been "MIT scientist says you shouldn't get punished for raping minors as long as they present themselves as entirely willing." Do you believe I have gotten that wrong? And if not, can you argue why that is any better than what the media put out? If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.
    - throwaway5849 7y ago
      That’s not his defense. Stallman never disputed the lack of consent of the minor. He’s saying the minor might have been coerced by Epstein to “present herself as entirely willing”, i.e. she _looked like_ she’s willing when she’s really not. Minsky would have no way of knowing.
- ineffectivtopos 7y ago
  I mean, let's put aside whether the person might have reasoned the other party was willing. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If someone appears 100% willing to you, and there's absolutely nothing different from a genuinely willing person, why should you be at fault because somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise). If someone does a 100% legal thing according the information they know, and is not otherwise negligent, there is no crime they should be charged with. As it happens, in the US, statutory rape is the only one I'm aware of that does not follow this criterion; even manslaughter requires negligence (although I'm not making a point about that).
  - lgeorget 7y ago
    > somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise) It's like benefitting from any other kind of traffic, isn't it? If you benefit from a money laundering scheme or a fraud, you'd be charged with complicity, even if you took a lot of care into not inquiring about the provenance of the money. At least, that's how it's be judged in my country (France, and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on that). I can't tell for other countries.
  - drusepth 7y ago
    Another analogy that might work: trying to pay for something at a store with bills you don't know are counterfeit. Do you still go to jail?
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    There are a few other strict liability crimes (crimes where intent to commit the crime is not part of the burden of proof) in the US. They are, for the most part, very minor crimes — things like parking violations.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  I'd say the big difference is that the press is accusing him of defending Epstein when in fact he's defending Minsky. Of course people may think that's still problematic, but that's not what the headlines are accusing him of doing.
- will4274 7y ago
  Mens rea ("guilty mind" aka criminal intent) is an important element for many crimes. People - generally - are inconsistent with regard to how much they think impact matters for a crime and how much they think intent matters. The law is also inconsistent, with itself, and with the opinions of the citizenry. In this case, US law (but not the laws of all countries) makes sex trafficking and statutory rape strict liability laws - only impact matters, not intent. Stallman raised the question of Minsky's mens rea, suggesting that Minsky might not have had any criminal intent at all. To people who feel that mens rea should always be a criteria in criminal and moral judgement (such as myself), the existence or lack of existence of mens rea matters to Minsky's moral culpability. With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction.
  - offtheisland 7y ago
    >With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction. Lots of famous men of all ages are approached by groupies. Some accept their advances, some don't. I've never heard of any of them reporting the fact to the authorities.
    - will4274 7y ago
      Minsky is relatively well known within the field of AI, but he's hardly that famous. Among MIT students - perhaps - but among teenagers in the VI? If elderly fat mildly famous academics get solicited for sex by random teenagers in the VI on a regular basis, I must have missed the memo.
      - 7y ago
troydavis 7y ago
The full thread is public, so folks can read it for themselves: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-resign-in-protest-over-mit-media-labs-ties-to-jeffrey-epstein https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-re... Scroll down to the inline doc reader widget. Background: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  On the same tabloid that blatantly lies on the headline of another article about the same issue? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
  - azernik 7y ago
    Luckily, GP told you how to get to the full, original document so you don't have to trust Vice's reporting.
  - bigbugbag 7y ago
    Yes, and the leak is from the author who first made the public call to remove Stallman while stating that she has no idea who he is. https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
- brianpgordon 7y ago
  Direct link to the document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
wnoise 7y ago
He'd have a very hard time winning. In many jurisdictions there is a "substantial truth" doctrine: if a statement gives an impression that's substantially close to the truth, it's considered OK, even if technically false. Once you add in how many people typically react to this sort of thing... http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth
- miracle2k 7y ago
  The claim "he defended Epstein and says his victims were willing", as for example the Vice article writes, is not substantially close to the truth. It is false absolutely.

nemothekid 7y ago

What is the counter argument for what Stallman wrote? I've seen that the "press is going too hard on him", but, honestly, I think they were justified. What is the "big difference" to you? If someone, personally, said to me that that someone be absolved of a crime, because the other, coerced, party was "willing" at that moment, I'd seriously question their morals.

dx87 7y ago
Even if the person who commited the crime had no knowledge that the other party was coerced? Why are they at fault because they were lied to and tricked into commiting a crime?
- nemothekid 7y ago
  First, claiming ignorance isn't a strong defense. It wouldn't hold up in any court in America, so I have no reason to buy it as an argument. However, if it did, to be fair, you would have to seriously consider if it is reasonable to assume that person was ignorant. For example, if you know your friend is a drug dealer and he asks you to "drop off a bag at another house", you would get the book thrown at you even if you didn't know they were drugs in the bag.
- throwaway17746 7y ago
  There are certain crimes for which intent doesn't matter, legally. This is one of them. And likewise from a moral perspective: Minsky did harm her. Regardless of his knowledge of the situation at the time, I would expect him (were he still alive) to apologize and do whatever he could to try and heal the pain he caused. However, I do also think it would reflect much differently on his character if he knew all the details of the situation he was in vs. if he did not. That, from what I've seen, is still unclear. Consequences and intent both matter.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    As of yet I see no reason to disbelieve Gregory Benford's account that Minsky turned her down when she approached. So he did not harm her.
- azernik 7y ago
  Having sex with a minor is a crime, regardless of coercion, because a minor is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult, because of both cognitive differences and power imbalances. If someone Minsky's age went out and started dating and having sex with high schoolers, he would go to jail. Period. Regardless of the exact social dynamics.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    There's minor, and there's minor. Age of consent differs by state and country, quite a lot, everything from 14 y.o. to 21 y.o. plus special case exceptions by court. Remember that before making absolute statements about mental powers. By the way, coerced sex (sometimes rape, sometimes assault, sometimes pimping, in some places prostitution) is illegal among adults too. You can keep it extra illegal for minors. Minority should not be an absolute but treated as a high bar. (The younger, the higher.) Unfortunately legislatives are black and white in most countries, and people accede to it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jimrandomh 7y ago
Stallman 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." Here's the Vice headline (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...): Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing' (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319 ) New York Post (https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-victim-virginia-giuffre-was-entirely-willing-report/ https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-vic...): "MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’: report" Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-associate-entirely-willing https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-ass...): "MIT scientist defended Jeffrey Epstein associate in leaked emails, claimed victims were ‘entirely willing’" These headlines do not match what Stallman wrote. They wrote awful words, and put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said something which he didn't. That's not okay.
- nemothekid 7y ago
  Stallman conjured up a thought experiment where Minsky is innocent because the minor was "entirely willing." That was the defense Stallman decided, even if those aren't his exact words. His exact words aren't any better then whatever the media decided to run with, at the end of the day his intent was identical. The headline could have been "MIT scientist says you shouldn't get punished for raping minors as long as they present themselves as entirely willing." Do you believe I have gotten that wrong? And if not, can you argue why that is any better than what the media put out? If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.
  - throwaway5849 7y ago
    That’s not his defense. Stallman never disputed the lack of consent of the minor. He’s saying the minor might have been coerced by Epstein to “present herself as entirely willing”, i.e. she _looked like_ she’s willing when she’s really not. Minsky would have no way of knowing.
ineffectivtopos 7y ago
I mean, let's put aside whether the person might have reasoned the other party was willing. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If someone appears 100% willing to you, and there's absolutely nothing different from a genuinely willing person, why should you be at fault because somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise). If someone does a 100% legal thing according the information they know, and is not otherwise negligent, there is no crime they should be charged with. As it happens, in the US, statutory rape is the only one I'm aware of that does not follow this criterion; even manslaughter requires negligence (although I'm not making a point about that).
- lgeorget 7y ago
  > somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise) It's like benefitting from any other kind of traffic, isn't it? If you benefit from a money laundering scheme or a fraud, you'd be charged with complicity, even if you took a lot of care into not inquiring about the provenance of the money. At least, that's how it's be judged in my country (France, and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on that). I can't tell for other countries.
- drusepth 7y ago
  Another analogy that might work: trying to pay for something at a store with bills you don't know are counterfeit. Do you still go to jail?
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  There are a few other strict liability crimes (crimes where intent to commit the crime is not part of the burden of proof) in the US. They are, for the most part, very minor crimes — things like parking violations.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
I'd say the big difference is that the press is accusing him of defending Epstein when in fact he's defending Minsky. Of course people may think that's still problematic, but that's not what the headlines are accusing him of doing.
will4274 7y ago
Mens rea ("guilty mind" aka criminal intent) is an important element for many crimes. People - generally - are inconsistent with regard to how much they think impact matters for a crime and how much they think intent matters. The law is also inconsistent, with itself, and with the opinions of the citizenry. In this case, US law (but not the laws of all countries) makes sex trafficking and statutory rape strict liability laws - only impact matters, not intent. Stallman raised the question of Minsky's mens rea, suggesting that Minsky might not have had any criminal intent at all. To people who feel that mens rea should always be a criteria in criminal and moral judgement (such as myself), the existence or lack of existence of mens rea matters to Minsky's moral culpability. With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction.
- offtheisland 7y ago
  >With all that in mind, I'm dubious that Minsky could have been approached by a young woman and not had some degree of mens rea. At the very least, Minsky must have assumed the woman was a paid sex worker and recognized at least some possibility that she was trafficked and/or underage. I can't abide the notion that a old man would have mistaken the invitations of an uneducated young girl as genuine attraction. Lots of famous men of all ages are approached by groupies. Some accept their advances, some don't. I've never heard of any of them reporting the fact to the authorities.
  - will4274 7y ago
    Minsky is relatively well known within the field of AI, but he's hardly that famous. Among MIT students - perhaps - but among teenagers in the VI? If elderly fat mildly famous academics get solicited for sex by random teenagers in the VI on a regular basis, I must have missed the memo.
    - 7y ago

troydavis 7y ago

The full thread is public, so folks can read it for themselves: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-resign-in-protest-over-mit-media-labs-ties-to-jeffrey-epstein https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-re... Scroll down to the inline doc reader widget. Background: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
On the same tabloid that blatantly lies on the headline of another article about the same issue? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
- azernik 7y ago
  Luckily, GP told you how to get to the full, original document so you don't have to trust Vice's reporting.
- bigbugbag 7y ago
  Yes, and the leak is from the author who first made the public call to remove Stallman while stating that she has no idea who he is. https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
brianpgordon 7y ago
Direct link to the document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

wnoise 7y ago

He'd have a very hard time winning. In many jurisdictions there is a "substantial truth" doctrine: if a statement gives an impression that's substantially close to the truth, it's considered OK, even if technically false. Once you add in how many people typically react to this sort of thing... http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth

miracle2k 7y ago
The claim "he defended Epstein and says his victims were willing", as for example the Vice article writes, is not substantially close to the truth. It is false absolutely.