4 ms·

It's funny that Stallman is just being Stallman but since the context is suddenly around a word people are sensitive to, it's somehow suddenly not appropriate b

It's funny that Stallman is just being Stallman but since the context is suddenly around a word people are sensitive to, it's somehow suddenly not appropriate behavior. He is just trying to create public conversation about clarification of the term "sexual assault" when it comes to murky areas of consent. If it came out tomorrow that Minsky indeed raped an underage child, Stallman wouldn't deny the truth. The truth is all he's after.

DanBC 7y ago
There's nothing murky around sex with coerced children.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  I agree. There are two issues here, one being Stallman's hesitance regarding the use of the word "child" depending on which country this all took place in, and two being Stallman's comment that there may have not been any coercion at all. While it's vanishingly unlikely the latter was the case, to vilify Stallman for these statements instead of making scientific inquiry is absurdly reactionary and unempathetic towards someone who is very naturally trying to make rationalizations towards the behavior of someone whom they hold in high regard, as is typical in during the doubting stage of grief.
eesmith 7y ago
Then it would be nice if he used the standard legal definition of "sexual assault" rather than use his own definition. 34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29) - "The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 . It does not require 'force or violence', as Stallman implies. Stallman stated: "Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism." How is "sexual assault" not the specific term for sex with a coerced minor? Where is the moral vagueness in the accusation?
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Coercion is one thing, but Stallman is suggesting that, if it were the case that there was no coercion, then the age alone of the person does not make it sexual assault considering the globally varying age of consent. Stallman is understandingly quick to assume there was no coercion given his past with Minsky but was not suggesting that we do not give the case due process. He was just advocating stricter language around the issue.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I believe I understand what Stallman suggests. I'm saying that it has no merit. Do you believe it has any merit? His emails suggest that he doesn't have an idea of what the existing laws regarding consent actually is - even the ones which are not ambiguous. > considering the globally varying age of consent That's why it must be a merit-less argument. 1) It's a distraction because age-of-consent isn't the issue here, it's the inability of minor coerced into sex work to give consent, and 2) there are regional differences in just about every crime, so if Stallman's argument has merit then it means almost no laws are moral, so talking about the morality of laws isn't that meaningful in the first place. > He was just advocating stricter language around the issue. He did not demonstrate that the term was used incorrectly for this case. He made up his own definition, which requires 'force or violence', then asserted that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" ... when people are using the term correctly, in its strict legal definition. Why do you think the use of "sexual assault" for this case is not the correct strict language? BTW, Stallman doesn't seem to know that "no coercion given his past with Minsky" may be irrelevant to the question of if sexual assault occurred. Some sexual assault laws have strict liability. If 73-year-old Prof. X has sex with a seemingly willing person under the age of consent, with no coercion on X's part, then it doesn't matter if X truly believes the underage person is of the age of consent. In most US jurisdiction, "I honestly thought she was old enough" is not a way to avoid a statutory rape conviction. For Stallman's argument about coercion to be effective, he needs either 1) to demonstrate that the the laws regarding the Minsky situation require knowledge on Minsky's part that the sex was coerced - and I don't know the relevant laws, or 2) present a strong argument for why strict liability is wrong for that case. He didn't. I assert it's because he didn't know the basic issues on the topic, but is only arguing what he feels should be the case. Which is not a good basis for complaining that others are being insufficiently strict in their language. (BTW, why does at 73-year old Minsky think that a young woman wants to have sex with him? Did he consider it might be part of a blackmail plot? Or does he thinks he's so famous that of course a teenager wants to have sex with him? We'll never know.)

DanBC 7y ago

There's nothing murky around sex with coerced children.

soulofmischief 7y ago
I agree. There are two issues here, one being Stallman's hesitance regarding the use of the word "child" depending on which country this all took place in, and two being Stallman's comment that there may have not been any coercion at all. While it's vanishingly unlikely the latter was the case, to vilify Stallman for these statements instead of making scientific inquiry is absurdly reactionary and unempathetic towards someone who is very naturally trying to make rationalizations towards the behavior of someone whom they hold in high regard, as is typical in during the doubting stage of grief.

eesmith 7y ago

Then it would be nice if he used the standard legal definition of "sexual assault" rather than use his own definition. 34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29) - "The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 . It does not require 'force or violence', as Stallman implies. Stallman stated: "Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism." How is "sexual assault" not the specific term for sex with a coerced minor? Where is the moral vagueness in the accusation?

soulofmischief 7y ago
Coercion is one thing, but Stallman is suggesting that, if it were the case that there was no coercion, then the age alone of the person does not make it sexual assault considering the globally varying age of consent. Stallman is understandingly quick to assume there was no coercion given his past with Minsky but was not suggesting that we do not give the case due process. He was just advocating stricter language around the issue.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I believe I understand what Stallman suggests. I'm saying that it has no merit. Do you believe it has any merit? His emails suggest that he doesn't have an idea of what the existing laws regarding consent actually is - even the ones which are not ambiguous. > considering the globally varying age of consent That's why it must be a merit-less argument. 1) It's a distraction because age-of-consent isn't the issue here, it's the inability of minor coerced into sex work to give consent, and 2) there are regional differences in just about every crime, so if Stallman's argument has merit then it means almost no laws are moral, so talking about the morality of laws isn't that meaningful in the first place. > He was just advocating stricter language around the issue. He did not demonstrate that the term was used incorrectly for this case. He made up his own definition, which requires 'force or violence', then asserted that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" ... when people are using the term correctly, in its strict legal definition. Why do you think the use of "sexual assault" for this case is not the correct strict language? BTW, Stallman doesn't seem to know that "no coercion given his past with Minsky" may be irrelevant to the question of if sexual assault occurred. Some sexual assault laws have strict liability. If 73-year-old Prof. X has sex with a seemingly willing person under the age of consent, with no coercion on X's part, then it doesn't matter if X truly believes the underage person is of the age of consent. In most US jurisdiction, "I honestly thought she was old enough" is not a way to avoid a statutory rape conviction. For Stallman's argument about coercion to be effective, he needs either 1) to demonstrate that the the laws regarding the Minsky situation require knowledge on Minsky's part that the sex was coerced - and I don't know the relevant laws, or 2) present a strong argument for why strict liability is wrong for that case. He didn't. I assert it's because he didn't know the basic issues on the topic, but is only arguing what he feels should be the case. Which is not a good basis for complaining that others are being insufficiently strict in their language. (BTW, why does at 73-year old Minsky think that a young woman wants to have sex with him? Did he consider it might be part of a blackmail plot? Or does he thinks he's so famous that of course a teenager wants to have sex with him? We'll never know.)