> RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though. What I consider worse is his "but was it really assault" defense. The question itself is

> RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though. What I consider worse is his "but was it really assault" defense. The question itself is framed in a hypothetical world: "Suppose Guiffre was coerced. And suppose that Minsky did in fact sleep with her, but without knowing she was coerced. Is that really so bad?" Well, yes, it would be bad. In the hypothetical situation described, Minsky should have seen lots of red flags. That hypothetical situation is the behavior that Stallman is downplaying. When a person in power makes that kind of defense, it protects sexual predators and silences their victims: it signals that the next time there is this situation, similar behavior will be defended and similar complaints ignored. Regardless of whether or not Minsky slept with Guiffre, Stallman's comments were a harmful thing for someone in his position to have said. And what makes me angry about the "hit pieces" is that this angle is completely lost -- he's being attacked for saying Guiffre was "entirely willing" (which he never said) and for questioning whether 17 is really too young to consent (which apparently all of Europe questions). Nobody is going to learn about how to avoid accidentally using your influence to protect sexual predators; all they're going to learn is not to touch any contentious topic with a barge pole for fear of being heinously misrepresented.