3 ms·

RMS's "correctly argumented defense" was that the underage women under Epstein's employ "presented themselves as entirely willing", so Minsky is in the clear be

RMS's "correctly argumented defense" was that the underage women under Epstein's employ "presented themselves as entirely willing", so Minsky is in the clear because the accusations are moot. I would like to see your definition of "correct", and I hope you do not work in public relations.

adrian_b 2y ago
You probably have not read the various texts written by Stallman about this subject, as the main arguments were different. I have searched now for your quote, and it is extracted from a context where its meaning was different. In that context, Stallman was replying to a newspaper article that had accused Minsky of "sexual assault" against an underage woman. Stallman was arguing that even if it were true that Minsky had intimate relationships with an underage woman, then the term "sexual assault" would still be inappropriate, because Epstein's employee must have presented herself, as instructed by her boss, "as entirely willing". So this was not an argument about whether Minsky was guilty or not of something, but it was only an argument against a journalist using the hyperbolic term "sexual assault", without having any evidence backing it up. As we now know, the newspaper article was even more baseless, because there has never been any evidence that Minsky had any relationship with an underage woman or that he knew that such a woman had received the suggestion to please him, among other eligible guests. Stallman's position was right, because true sexual assault must be clearly distinguished of statutory rape, exactly like armed robbery must be clearly distinguished of fraud, even if all are crimes that must be punished. True sexual assault and armed robbery are felonies everywhere. On the other hand, whether something is statutory rape or fraud or it is not punishable, that depends on the jurisdiction, as the laws are very different from place to place.

adrian_b 2y ago

You probably have not read the various texts written by Stallman about this subject, as the main arguments were different. I have searched now for your quote, and it is extracted from a context where its meaning was different. In that context, Stallman was replying to a newspaper article that had accused Minsky of "sexual assault" against an underage woman. Stallman was arguing that even if it were true that Minsky had intimate relationships with an underage woman, then the term "sexual assault" would still be inappropriate, because Epstein's employee must have presented herself, as instructed by her boss, "as entirely willing". So this was not an argument about whether Minsky was guilty or not of something, but it was only an argument against a journalist using the hyperbolic term "sexual assault", without having any evidence backing it up. As we now know, the newspaper article was even more baseless, because there has never been any evidence that Minsky had any relationship with an underage woman or that he knew that such a woman had received the suggestion to please him, among other eligible guests. Stallman's position was right, because true sexual assault must be clearly distinguished of statutory rape, exactly like armed robbery must be clearly distinguished of fraud, even if all are crimes that must be punished. True sexual assault and armed robbery are felonies everywhere. On the other hand, whether something is statutory rape or fraud or it is not punishable, that depends on the jurisdiction, as the laws are very different from place to place.