3 ms·

Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking vict

Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-mit-after-comments-about-epstein-scandal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...

smsm42 7y ago
He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
So are you saying that somebody who willfully rapes a kid is no worse than somebody who thinks they're enjoying the services of a prostitute? You're a monster.
- F-0X 7y ago
  That's not what was said _at all_. You simply have not read the post correctly, and worse, your phrasing exaggerates the actual situation.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    So what are you saying? He agrees with Stallman? That’s even worse!
zajio1am 7y ago
Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  It is not true where the alleged act took place.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime. But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime). Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly). Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition. (With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault. But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex). Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.

smsm42 7y ago

He did not claim that and did not insinuate that. It's like saying that person that doesn't believe we should use term "piracy" to describe copying software without obtaining license, because piracy implies violent robbery, thinks that violating copyright is OK. It's a total non-sequitur and failure of reading comprehension to the point of functional illiteracy.

SamReidHughes 7y ago

So are you saying that somebody who willfully rapes a kid is no worse than somebody who thinks they're enjoying the services of a prostitute? You're a monster.

F-0X 7y ago
That's not what was said _at all_. You simply have not read the post correctly, and worse, your phrasing exaggerates the actual situation.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  So what are you saying? He agrees with Stallman? That’s even worse!

zajio1am 7y ago

Which is AFAIK true in my jurisdiction. While he could be prosecuted for child abuse (if the victim is minor), but not for sexual assault or rape, as that requires mens rea, which is not here if the victim presented herself as 'entirely willing'.

pseudalopex 7y ago
It is not true where the alleged act took place.
bscphil 7y ago
Maybe. In many US states it's a strict liability crime. But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime). Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly). Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition. (With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
  - bscphil 7y ago
    > If i remember correctly, Stallman made semantic argument, not legal argument. I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault. But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex). Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.