4 ms·

Another post on this that just says that the other claims are spurious without actually addressing them, equates Stallman and the entire FOSS community, and the

by Latty 6y ago

Another post on this that just says that the other claims are spurious without actually addressing them, equates Stallman and the entire FOSS community, and then says "there is room for difference of opinion". Of course there is, but that room stops when you are in a leadership position at an unwillingness to protect members of the community of from predators. It makes him unsuitable for the role. These posts keep saying there is nothing to it, so here is the bit that convinced me there is: His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.org/archives/2017-sep-dec.html#13_November_2017_(Jelani_Maraj) https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ): > Due to the vagueness of the term "sexual assault" together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, we cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj was found to have committed. So we can't begin to judge whether those acts were wrong. > I see at least three possibilities. Perhaps those acts really constituted rape — it is a possibility. Or perhaps the two had sex willingly, but her parents freaked out and demanded prosecution. Or, intermediate between those two, perhaps he pressured her into having sex, or got her drunk. This is discussing a specific case of statutory rape. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership. It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser. This position of regarding the ability to sleep with under-aged people as more important than defending under-aged people from abusers is one incompatible with keeping a community safe, in my opinion.

krastanov 6y ago
Just a bit of context, because OP did not make it immediately clear: notions worthy of discussion like Romeo-Juliet laws or the fact that the age of consent fluctuates a lot by jurisdiction do not seem to apply here given the age of the alleged victim (11 years old): https://web.archive.org/web/20201109031653/https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/10/nicki-minaj-brother-jelani-maraj-convicted-of-raping-a-child https://web.archive.org/web/20201109031653/https://www.thegu...
stickfigure 6y ago
When I was 16, I was having sex with someone who - according to the laws of the particular state in which I live - was "raping" me. It was awesome. I wish I could have done a lot more of that. I bristle intensely at your suggestion that I was being abused, or that I was incapable of consenting.
- Latty 6y ago
  Legally (at least in a lot of countries), you were incapable of consent. This is a trade off between rights and protecting people, and a reasonable one. The adult you had sex with broke the law, and endangered people. Just because you actually consented doesn't change the fact that minors are easy to abuse and predators can do so easily, and proving that can be very hard. Because of that, we have laws that place the responsibility on adults to not have sex with minors. If they break that, they face the same punishment as an abuser. That's the law, and not following it places minors at risk by giving abusers cover. The person you are talking about was guilty of statutory rape, yes, and they did harm even if it wasn't directly to you.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    > The adult you had sex with broke the law, and endangered people. 16 is the age of consent in the majority of US states. The law in my state is simply wrong. "they did harm even if it wasn't directly to you" - that's rubbish. There were two people involved here, and frankly what they do in private is none of your business. I did not want or need your paternalism. I already have parents. I'm not sure what the proper age of consent is, but I am very comfortable saying that 16 is within safe bounds. We're biologically wired for sex long before then. This puritanical religious drive to "lock up the children" needs to end.
MikeUt 6y ago
> It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser. How right you are. It's similarly dangerous to offer traitors the opportunity to claim they were engaging in protected political speech [1]. Which is why any such acts should be referred to only as "sedition", instead of anything more specific such as "urging resistance to the draft". This way, by re-defining words using legal categories, and resisting any pressure to be more precise, we can make sure the bad guys can't fool us into thinking they're not the vile monsters the prosecution accuses them of being. If a hypothetical law said it's theft, they shouldn't get to claim "it's only copyright infringement" - that would be fundamentally dangerous! At least journalists should be responsible enough not to repeat such claims, and only describe the alleged crime as "theft" or "sedition". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  I hope you're being sarcastic. If you aren't, I can only say you'd be quite at home in Maoist China or the Former Soviet Union. No need to worry about the letter of the law or pesky obstacles like due process.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    That was USA in Vietnam War era.
- Latty 6y ago
  This a false equivalence. Adults in countries with statutory rape laws have a responsibility placed upon them by the law not to have sex with minors, if they do so, they are breaking the law and—at least—endangering minors by giving cover to abusers. Having sex with a child is not equivalent to protected political speech. It is an action we have specifically placed restrictions on because of the potential harm involved. Your response might as well be applied to driving licenses, or basically anything else, to equate all restrictions or responsibilities in the law to censorship. It's absurd.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This is discussing a specific case of statutory rape. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, He has explicitly taken the position (no mere “seeming”) that children are both capable of consent and unharmed by sex with consent.in response to a news article about a Dutch pedophile group seeking to eliminate age of consent entirely, with the first step being reducing it to 13. He did recant this position during the 2019 controversy

by Latty 6y ago

krastanov 6y ago

Just a bit of context, because OP did not make it immediately clear: notions worthy of discussion like Romeo-Juliet laws or the fact that the age of consent fluctuates a lot by jurisdiction do not seem to apply here given the age of the alleged victim (11 years old): https://web.archive.org/web/20201109031653/https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/10/nicki-minaj-brother-jelani-maraj-convicted-of-raping-a-child https://web.archive.org/web/20201109031653/https://www.thegu...

stickfigure 6y ago

When I was 16, I was having sex with someone who - according to the laws of the particular state in which I live - was "raping" me. It was awesome. I wish I could have done a lot more of that. I bristle intensely at your suggestion that I was being abused, or that I was incapable of consenting.

Latty 6y ago
Legally (at least in a lot of countries), you were incapable of consent. This is a trade off between rights and protecting people, and a reasonable one. The adult you had sex with broke the law, and endangered people. Just because you actually consented doesn't change the fact that minors are easy to abuse and predators can do so easily, and proving that can be very hard. Because of that, we have laws that place the responsibility on adults to not have sex with minors. If they break that, they face the same punishment as an abuser. That's the law, and not following it places minors at risk by giving abusers cover. The person you are talking about was guilty of statutory rape, yes, and they did harm even if it wasn't directly to you.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  > The adult you had sex with broke the law, and endangered people. 16 is the age of consent in the majority of US states. The law in my state is simply wrong. "they did harm even if it wasn't directly to you" - that's rubbish. There were two people involved here, and frankly what they do in private is none of your business. I did not want or need your paternalism. I already have parents. I'm not sure what the proper age of consent is, but I am very comfortable saying that 16 is within safe bounds. We're biologically wired for sex long before then. This puritanical religious drive to "lock up the children" needs to end.

MikeUt 6y ago

> It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser. How right you are. It's similarly dangerous to offer traitors the opportunity to claim they were engaging in protected political speech [1]. Which is why any such acts should be referred to only as "sedition", instead of anything more specific such as "urging resistance to the draft". This way, by re-defining words using legal categories, and resisting any pressure to be more precise, we can make sure the bad guys can't fool us into thinking they're not the vile monsters the prosecution accuses them of being. If a hypothetical law said it's theft, they shouldn't get to claim "it's only copyright infringement" - that would be fundamentally dangerous! At least journalists should be responsible enough not to repeat such claims, and only describe the alleged crime as "theft" or "sedition". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Dracophoenix 6y ago
I hope you're being sarcastic. If you aren't, I can only say you'd be quite at home in Maoist China or the Former Soviet Union. No need to worry about the letter of the law or pesky obstacles like due process.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  That was USA in Vietnam War era.
Latty 6y ago
This a false equivalence. Adults in countries with statutory rape laws have a responsibility placed upon them by the law not to have sex with minors, if they do so, they are breaking the law and—at least—endangering minors by giving cover to abusers. Having sex with a child is not equivalent to protected political speech. It is an action we have specifically placed restrictions on because of the potential harm involved. Your response might as well be applied to driving licenses, or basically anything else, to equate all restrictions or responsibilities in the law to censorship. It's absurd.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> This is discussing a specific case of statutory rape. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, He has explicitly taken the position (no mere “seeming”) that children are both capable of consent and unharmed by sex with consent.in response to a news article about a Dutch pedophile group seeking to eliminate age of consent entirely, with the first step being reducing it to 13. He did recant this position during the 2019 controversy