4 ms·

Stallman wasn't defending Minsky, he was explaining why Minsky didn't need any defense with the evidence as presented. That Epstein instructed an underage to ha

Stallman wasn't defending Minsky, he was explaining why Minsky didn't need any defense with the evidence as presented. That Epstein instructed an underage to have sex does not mean that she did. RMS points out that she did not ever say that she and Minksy had sex, although the prosecutor implied it, and there was a witness account that Minsky declined and warned someone else about what happened during the event. Pointing this out should not be a problem. So please look past the media's witch hunt and into what's actually been said.

colechristensen 7y ago
I read it. I saw RMS defending statutory rape by supposing that the young woman would have appeared willing when the perpetrator, his friend, was more than four times her age. Doesn't matter if the accused event happened or not. Defending the hypothetical in that manner gets you fired.
- Allower 7y ago
  Maybe you never noticed but statutory rape is not rape. And its definitely not even statutory rape since he hasn't been convicted yet (innocent until proven guilty ya know..). Who cares if you find it "creepy".. thats not a reason to fire someone.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Read it again. RMS wasn't defending statutory rape, he only wrote to not use the term "sexual assault" when there was no evidence of violence being involved, because words have actual meanings and using wrong words confuses the issue.
  - rhcom2 7y ago
    "sexual assault" doesn't require violence.
    - Anthony-G 7y ago
      The problem is with the ambiguity of the term. From a legal perspective, "sexual assault" doesn't require violence but for ordinary people, use of the term implies some sort of attack or aggression. It's only a few years ago that I learned from online discussions that in some jurisdictions the term "assault" has a specific legal meaning that does not imply violence.
josefx 7y ago
He also redefined the legal term sexual assault in the discussion. According to him Minsky was at the very least innocent of sexual assault because having access to a dictionary let him conclude that assault implied violence[1]. There are winning arguments to be had, unless we adopt GNU/law that isn't one. [1]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...
- mtrower 7y ago
  He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. He brought up the definition of "assault" because, as a component of "sexual assault", it colors the term, shifting connotations towards the side of violence. He didn't redefine the legal term, he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
  - josefx 7y ago
    > He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). That part of my comment was overly sarcastic. I have to apologize for that. > He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. I would say that the term is intentionally broad and vague precisely because violence is only one of many ways to force an unwilling participant and how it was done is mostly irrelevant to the end result. > he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific). As far as I can tell he never actually brought up a more specific term and just disagreed in a rather non constructive fashion against the use of both sexual assault and rape, even when someone explicitly referred to laws.

colechristensen 7y ago

I read it. I saw RMS defending statutory rape by supposing that the young woman would have appeared willing when the perpetrator, his friend, was more than four times her age. Doesn't matter if the accused event happened or not. Defending the hypothetical in that manner gets you fired.

Allower 7y ago
Maybe you never noticed but statutory rape is not rape. And its definitely not even statutory rape since he hasn't been convicted yet (innocent until proven guilty ya know..). Who cares if you find it "creepy".. thats not a reason to fire someone.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Read it again. RMS wasn't defending statutory rape, he only wrote to not use the term "sexual assault" when there was no evidence of violence being involved, because words have actual meanings and using wrong words confuses the issue.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  "sexual assault" doesn't require violence.
  - Anthony-G 7y ago
    The problem is with the ambiguity of the term. From a legal perspective, "sexual assault" doesn't require violence but for ordinary people, use of the term implies some sort of attack or aggression. It's only a few years ago that I learned from online discussions that in some jurisdictions the term "assault" has a specific legal meaning that does not imply violence.

josefx 7y ago

He also redefined the legal term sexual assault in the discussion. According to him Minsky was at the very least innocent of sexual assault because having access to a dictionary let him conclude that assault implied violence[1]. There are winning arguments to be had, unless we adopt GNU/law that isn't one. [1]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...

mtrower 7y ago
He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. He brought up the definition of "assault" because, as a component of "sexual assault", it colors the term, shifting connotations towards the side of violence. He didn't redefine the legal term, he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific).
- josefx 7y ago
  > He did not say Minsky was legally innocent of sexual assault (he in fact gave no opinion of guilt). That part of my comment was overly sarcastic. I have to apologize for that. > He said that sexual assault is a poor term, for reasons of broadness and vagueness, and that we should avoid using such terms in order to avoid ambiguity. I would say that the term is intentionally broad and vague precisely because violence is only one of many ways to force an unwilling participant and how it was done is mostly irrelevant to the end result. > he just (tl;dr) said it sucks and we shouldn't use it (and instead should use something more specific). As far as I can tell he never actually brought up a more specific term and just disagreed in a rather non constructive fashion against the use of both sexual assault and rape, even when someone explicitly referred to laws.