How about not alleging dead people are violent child rapists without any evidence, and then, when being called out on your false allegations, create a media storm of manufactured outrage to punish the person who called you out on them?
I don't think anyone is defending child rape, but rather questioning what even constitutes "child rape." There's obviously a difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old, and using one term (child) to describe both cases seems strange.
Really? You don't think anyone is defending sex with minors?
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
This is not an issue of "staying woke". Arguing that statutory rape is "absurd" is not "staying woke". Stallman said some things that were deeply troubling to a lot of people, myself included. That aside...
His judgement in making these statements, in a public way, was extremely poor. As a representative of FSF and MIT, he stepped far out of the boundary of what's considered reasonable. Leadership means knowing how to lead, and that includes not demoralizing your organization with controversy.
He didn't step down. He was fired with the option of keeping his dignity.
It's in fact morally absurd to have it be statutory rape in one jurisdiction and not in another, depending on age. That's a fact, if you don't like it you can kindly go bury you head in the woke sand.
It's "morally absurd" for different jurisdictions to self-govern?
Or for them to disagree with each other?
What universal age do you think everyone in all jurisdictions should be forced to accept, and how do you intend to enforce your moral superiority on them?
Taken logically some jurisdictions have legislation and legislators that allows for and perhaps it could be argued support rape according to other jurisdictions. Given this is the case how does such a rape supporting jurisdiction have any legal authority whatsoever to for instance compel another jurisdiction to turn over people guilty of other crimes say murder? And vice versa, according to the rape supporting jurisdiction how can one which supports imprisoning innocent people for things which are not criminal have any legal relationship to the other?
There's no real age where you can put a cutoff. The prosecution though is allowed no discretion.
Judge is neither.
Juries are supposed to use the very harsh letter of the law, no exceptions.
These laws are bad and should be reformulated to handle real life, which has corner cases (e.g. interstate romance between minors, what about it?) and where prosecution could cause more damage than it helps.
You just completely ignored the roles of Attorneys General, District Attorneys, Governors who can pardon, Jury Nullification, judges who are not constrained by mandatory sentences... Probably more.
People deserve to have a clear law.
Everyone always hates thresholds. That's just a fact of life.
These laws are good. If you can't wait for someone to be legal, then you shouldn't be having sex with them in the first place. Find a different partner.
> prosecution could cause more damage than it helps
How about no. It's already incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape, because consent comes down to he-said / she-said. Keeping statutory rape on the books makes it much easier to convict people who went after children, at least.
PS, I am not a lawyer, or a child psychologist, and I highly doubt you are, either.
Is someone who follows the herd or is afraid to state an unpopular opinion on a contentious topic your idea of a leader? I don't think so, in fact I think they're the exact opposite. This world needs people who are willing to go to the mat for their contentious ideas, regardless of how misguided they may appear to be so long as there's evidence of reasoning. Otherwise how do we progress? A lot of today's mainstream thought was once contentious, even illegal. I really don't understand this attitude at all.
Like it or not, "political capital" is a real thing. It can be spent and depleted, leaving you no more to use on the things you care about. The leader of an organization advocating for a particular cause (free software, in this case) should not go wasting political capital on rants about how "there's no evidence pedophilia harms children". Even if you completely ignore the problematic morality of such statements (which, to be clear, you absolutely should not do), they obviously undermined the mission of the FSF and Stallman should leave on that basis alone.
Lost in this discussion is RMS was defending Marvin Minsky, not Jeffrey Epstein. That was unequivocally clear in RMS' public statements. Why step into the fray and defend Marvin Minsky? For starters Minsky is dead and as such is unable to defend himself. Is it still not considered poor form to attack dead people? Especially prominent, accomplished dead persons such as Marvin Minsky? Who also happens to have been a lifelong friend and mentor of RMS, someone whom RMS looked up to? The way I see it RMS was correct to spend his political capital defending his late friend Marvin Minsky. If only everybody had a friend like that.
We speak ill of dead people all the time. We've been speaking ill of the dead for a long time. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."
Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook murderer. He can't speak for himself. Is that not an attack on his moral character?
Omitting the bad things someone did, to only look at the good, whitewashes history.
RMS was absolutely correct to spend as much political capital as he wants to defend Minsky. In this case though, that political capital was also being used to keep his position at MIT and at the FSF. Once spent, he no longer had the support.
He tried to say that assault shouldn't be called assault if it didn't involve force, because assault requires force.
That's a definition of assault that is incorrect in English usage and incorrect in law. Assault does not require use of force.
30 seconds of web searching, or reading a dictionary, would have told him this.
If this was the only time he'd said something fucking idiotic about sexual violence maybe he'd have got away with it, but it isn't, is it? He keeps on saying stupid shit about abuse of children.
When it comes to sexual abuse against women and children he doesn't know what he's talking about; he knows he doesn't know what he's talking about; but he keeps doing it.
Except he wasn't talking about Jeffrey Epstein, he was talking about Marvin Minsky. He was trying to portray a scenario where Jeffrey Epstein would have been committing a crime while Marvin Minsky was not. Minsky's presumed guilt is predicated on two things:
1. His knowing what Epstein was doing, i.e. knowing these were sex slaves
2. The girl was under age
RMS defended Minsky against (2) by stating it's morally absurd having a law differing in different jurisdictions by age. There are many places in the civilized world where (2) wouldn't apply due to the girl's age.
With regards to (1) all RMS mused was what if the girl presented herself willingly? How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability? Too bad he's dead and can't defend himself.
In the end RMS was painting a picture where Epstein is a monster, the girl was a victim, and Minsky was innocent. The media completely misrepresented this portraiture.
But while trying to make that argument, his messed up on basic definitions.
"Sexual assault" as is generally understood does not mean that violence was necessarily involved, while Stallman said it was required. He further went on to say that it was "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", and said that people should use more precise terms. However, "sexual assault" is the precise term, or at the very least the encompassing term for a sexual act with someone unable to give consent.
I don't think it's a misrepresentation to say Stallman doesn't understand what people mean by "sexual assault", as its generally legally defined.
With regards to (1), we also don't if Minksy thought she was a prostitute that Epstein got <wink>, <wink> for him, or why Minsky didn't think he was being set up for blackmail. Commercial sex with a minor is different from consensual non-commercial sex with a minor. Why did 73-year-old Minksy think that a teenager wanted to have sex with him?
We don't know. He can't defend himself. Stallman doesn't either. But he presents only one possible scenario - the one which puts Minksy in the best light.
Minsky also can't be hurt, so, why waste any social capital on this topic?
There are many age-related laws which differ around the world (drinking, driving age, and more). His complaint about the lack of world-wide agreement doesn't just make it "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", which is what he (wrongly) asserts. It makes it absolutely wrong to use any legal term. Which is absurd.
Seeing as how being branded a pedophile makes you a pariah you would think we'd have come to some consensus as to what exactly pedophilia is. Seeing as how reasonable people around the world have been unable to agree upon such a definition then we should be careful before applying that label. If truth and morals are things that actually exist and are discernible then we should be able to figure this out. Discussions such as this are the means for how we go about that.
Epstein clearly wasn't treated as pariah even after a pedophile conviction so your statement is not always correct. Ditto Roman Polanski.
Kissinger is a war criminal. He's not treated as such. Truth and morals therefore aren't the only factors in the political-legal system.
I still want there to be a definition of war criminal, even if there isn't an agreement. Ditto for pedophile.
Discussions are worthless if people don't don't listen. Stallman wasn't listening to the existing discussion when he made up his definition of what "sexual assault" means.
There's a bunch of people across these threads saying "he wasn't talking about Epstein" as if that excuses what he was saying.
> How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability?
If you're a 70 year old man you should understand that a 17 year old girl is not going to want to have sex with you. He was at the minimum hugely reckless.
> In the end RMS was painting a picture where [...] Minsky was innocent.
Yes, I know, and this is enough for most people to realise that RMS is not a suitable figurehead for any project.
The presumption is Minsky wouldn't have known she was 17 and with regards to your other point - you know many men have been having affairs with girls 40 to 50 years their junior. Pablo Picasso was the first to come to mind. There have been many others. I presume they feel flattered rather than suspicious.
> Stallman’s second argument, points out the inconsistencies regarding the age of consent, as the victim was 17, many countries and states within the U.S. have an age of consent ranging from 16 to 18. Stallman is merely pointing out how the same act can be legal or illegal in a span of a few miles.
"is merely pointing out"? No. That is completely inaccurate.
He's saying it is "morally absurd" to have such a law:
> I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
>He's saying it is "morally absurd" to have such a law:
>> I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
That's not the impression I got when reading that quote. I don't think when he says "define rape", he was talking about the legal point of view.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Again, not sure how that supports your original comment. He says he's skeptical whether it's harmful. It's reasonable interpret that as him disapproving of such laws, on the basis that there isn't enough evidence. However, I'm not sure how that supports the claim he thinks such laws are "morally absurd".
My impression was that Stallman wasn't making a clear distinction between what was legal and what was moral; and that he was primarily focused on people's moral outrage. He seems less concerned with whether what Minsky did was a crime, and more concerned with Minsky's portrayal as a sexual predator.
In countries such as France or Germany -- hardly barbaric backwaters -- it seems it's perfectly legal to have consensual sex with 15-year-olds[1]. So maybe he does think that America's laws are "absurdly" strict; in which case most of Europe would agree with him. Or maybe he's just making the point that this is an area where many reasonable people come to different conclusions, and so it's absurd to be so outraged about it.
I mean, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could think a 15-year-old can possibly be considered to consent to have sex with someone in their 20's. But obviously a lot of Europe thinks differently; if you're going to cut off ties with Stallman for his view on the matter, you'd better cut off ties with all of Europe too.
We're not talking about Minsky; we're talking about a hit piece on Richard Stallman, which brings up his opinion on the morality of sleeping with 17-year-olds as a reason to revile him.
The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16. Should we ask Linus Torvalds what his opinions on the matter are, and force him to step down if he disagrees? The age of consent in Italy is apparently 14 (!). I know a number of Italians prominently involved in the kernel community; shall we ask them what their opinions are?
It's important that we distinguish exactly what it is that we're accusing someone of, and make sure that each individual element is true, for two reasons.
One is just plain justice sake: it's not right to railroad someone and force them to step down from the organization they founded based on bad logic and twisted facts.
The second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history.
His "but is it really assault" defense of Minsky is definitely problematic given his position and the situation. And apparently he's had a long history of "creepy" behavior, along with a long history of people telling him he needs to change. Those are good reasons to ask him to step down.
But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing"; that is just a lie, and covers up the real problems Stallman had. And regarding his question about whether a 17-year-old can give consent -- be consistent: either drop this issue, or take it up with every European in our community.
We are talking about Minsky, because it's Stallman's comments about Minsky that are the problem.
> The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16.
1) Not for Americans visiting Finland.
2) Not for prostitutes in Finland.
> But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing";
I haven't said this. I'm focussing on the things that Stallman actually said. You yourself agree that these are enough to ask Stallman to step down.
> he second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history.
Yes, this is entirely the point. We don't want powerful men to make public comments saying that fucking children is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing. We don't want powerful men saying that "voluntary" child sexual abuse isn't harmful for those children.
> is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing
Stallman never said "it's fine", He called Epstein a rapist - i.e. indicated it was whoever did the brutalising who is to blame. Also, it was a 17 year old, not a child.
Minsky didn't have sex at all with Guiffre. The various hitpieces on Minsky were all based on vague court documents by her, where she described that she was asked to approach him. Amongst others.
We have an eyewitness, who testified that she indeed approached him at the island, and that Minsky turned her down. That should have been the end of the story, but the various hitpieces on Minsky didn't stop. http://archive.is/nZIjt
The particular crime in question is called slander, nor rape.
RMS made too liberal comments about the age of consent rule though.
> 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.
I think his past comments make his position clear:
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
I'm pretty sure that anyone who's actually dealt with children who have engaged in sexual experiences with adults will say it's harmful. I'm not a psychologist, but I think the burden of proof is on people who think it may be safe to show that it is safe, not the other way around.
But to understand a bit why: I think this is a bit like asking, "Is it really always harmful for professors to sleep with their (adult) students, or managers to sleep with their employees?"
The answer to that is, sure, you can imagine that this or that particular relationship might never be any hint of coercion or favoritism, and be considered afterwards a positive experience for all parties involved (including the professors other students / the rest of the manager's company). But we still universally say these relationships are wrong, because there's no way to tell in advance whether that will be the case; the risk is just too high.
I think it's the same for paedophilia. Children know so little, are so dependent on the adults around them for so many things -- including basic things like "what's normal" -- that it is simply not possible to ensure that there is no element of coercion.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but my understanding of his position is that he doesn't believe the word 'rape' should be used for having sex with someone younger than the age of consent, when that age varies around the world. In other words, having consensual sex with a 16 year old in one country (or state) could be called rape, but move a short distance to another country or state and it's perfectly legal and acceptable. My interpretation of his opinions based on what I've read, is that the word rape should be only used for nonconsensual sexual assault, regardless of the age.
Some further reading on the age of consent in different countries around the world: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/age-of-consent-around-th...
"The legal age of consent in most of the countries is 16 years or above, as individuals of this age are considered to be mature and capable of making informed decisions."
I don't believe he's arguing about the word. I think he's arguing whether it should be illegal.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
This specific point was discussed to death in several threads yesterday. And why does the title call out "the media" instead of VICE? Or even just Edward Ongweso Jr.? It's trying to frame this as two sides in a fight where one side is lying. It dismisses the decades of Stallman's abuse of his positions at FSF and MIT which are the real reason he should have been removed.
Because it's the absolute laziness of other media companies that see articles posted on other journalism sites and blindly copy-paste it instead of doing their own investigation. It ends up most of the time causing witchhunts and it turns out we're making mountains out of mole hills.
> it turns out we're making mountains out of mole hills.
Except we're not, are we?
We're talking about RMS's firmly held, often repeated, views on child sexual abuse. He keeps saying that it's not that harmful; that images are fine; that coercion isn't force.
This latest episode, where he interjects his "well actually" to say that assault is the wrong word (because he mistakenly thinks assault requires use of force) is yet another example where he could have said nothing, or he could have done a little bit of research before speaking. Instead chose to deliver his weird definition of assault in a thread to defend the actions of Minsky.
>I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.
Then, later,
> “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.”
Look at what he says here. Words like "willing" and "voluntary". This is a normalisation of child sexual abuse.
About Minsky:
> The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
> Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
Here he is clearly saying that "assault" requires use of force, and using this misinterpretation of the word to defend Minsky's actions.
He's wrong about the word assault. It does not require force or violence.
You can find your own Stallman quotes about child sexual abuse and bestiality.
Care to provide example of "that images are fine"?
> Words like "willing" and "voluntary"
Maybe look at the other words around those words for context.
> This is a normalisation of...
This is the infantilisation of language. Certain word "normalize" something, therefore adults are no longer allowed to be subjected to them. Language policing at its finest.
> using this misinterpretation of the word
Says who? Many people would assume the same. Should that be ignored because the legal definition, only fully understood by lawyers, differs? In terms of Minsky's reputation, it matters more what regular people think it means, than what definitions exist in law.
The common misconception wrt what "sexual assault" implies is often utilised by malicious publications and prosecutions - maybe it's time to clean up the language.
> It dismisses the decades of Stallman's abuse of his positions at FSF and MIT
Does this extend beyond hearsay and having a "Knight for Justice (also: hot ladies)" sign on his door?
Also, where do these "decades" suddenly come from? His most vociferous accusers on social media wouldn't have been alive, or at least far too young to have attended MIT.
> which are the real reason he should have been removed from power.
Power? Exactly what power can a "visiting scientist"--a made-up quirky title, wield?
Or do you mean his power to travel around the world and talk about Free Software?
Just for curiosity/entertainment: hearsay is evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay Most are first-person accounts so they're not actually hearsay. And anyway what kind of thing were you looking for? Some kind of physical artifact? A confession written by RMS personally?
An article, a conversation, anything of the actual public past. Name a forum, scan a newspaper clipping or artifact. Twitter posts from not even a week ago should not have this kind of authority. Or have you considered it ever happening to you?
His own website about an incident in 1988? https://web.archive.org/web/20020204031846/http://www.stallm... I'm assuming you've seen by now the door with the "hot ladies" sign, and the times he mentioned pedophilia and necrophilia on his website because those got mentioned a lot more.
Everyone knows RMS is an eccentric, that he hates all things closed source even when it is silly. That eccentric people are also very lonely is easy to understand as I can identify with that. Some have compared him to a Diogenes type character. Apparently the twitter posts are enough to make him drink the hemlock. Just know it can happen to anyone. Even you.
His fight for free software is a part of his character. he was doing it for all these years with high motivation because it wasn't just idealistic, it was personal. A specific brand of proprietary software made his happy hippie coding youth end, took away his friends, etc. - you probably heard the story a million times. Most people would just give up and go on, but he decided to choose Don Quixote's way.
Nobody believed he would succeed, it was a lost fight by a lunatic. But it was this weird obsession that kept him motivated over the years. The appearance of Linux was both a success (the world finally got a complete operating system) and a failure (it forgot about GNU and focused on Linux). Then it turned out that proprietary software is not the only danger coming from greedy corporations: DRM, vendor lock-in, etc. RMS predicted many of these and was actively fighting against them. Whereas on a personal level he was the same Don Quixote as in the after-Symbolics period. Many people hated him for all possible reasons, and are celebrating now. What a sad time.
If it weren't for Stallman there would be no free software. So if you are cool with that you best cease using all free software. Also I see no evidence of "decades of bad behavior". All I see is he was a jerk to people because of closed source software. One of the articles was a woman's article about him being a jerk to. So the lesson is, avoid women at all costs. Just don't talk to them. Because if you do, and give the wrong impression, you get the RMS treatment (among many others). Its open season on all geeks, nerds, and dorks now I see.
So what is your next step with me? Are you going to try to dox me and try to get me fired from my employer?
Thomas Jefferson was one of the founders of my country. I enjoy some of his writings, including on the separation of church and state.
I also point out he was a slaveowner who had forced sex with his slaves.
I'm not going to turn around and say we need an official US church because I'm against his slaving and raping. Nor am I going to ignore his actual history.
Okay, as you say, "he was a jerk".
We shouldn't have a jerk as the head of the FSF. Kick him out for being a jerk.
It's not like I haven't heard stories about his creepy behavior for decades.
How come Guido van Rossum (to pick one) doesn't avoid women at all costs, yet doesn't have same treatment? I propose it's because what you describe isn't actually the issue.
I'm as much a RMS booster as you'll find, but he dug his own grave here. At a point in history when we're finally realizing that the kind of deeply sexist culture among our elites (i.e. one where male billionaire sex peddlers drive opinions among exclusively male elites by trading their harem of more-or-less-plausibly-consenting-maybe nubile girls) is toxic, Stallman walked right in with a "well, you know, this wasn't technically sexual assault".
I mean, he's not wrong. But he's missing the point, ethically. And given that his whole schtick is an ethical position... I dunno. It's time to step aside. Free Software can find better evangelists.
>He's being "attacked" by FSF board members and employees, other free software foundations, and FLOSS advocates.
Source on this? The only articles/blogs I've seen on this are from Vice, Selam G. (MIT alumni, unclear what her other affiliations are), and the Gnome foundation.
The fact that he thought it smart to step forward illustrates that he is not so smart when it comes to these types of social issues. Someone as high profile as him commenting on a friend's situation only brings more attention to his friend. It's likely that without the comments of RMS his friend would have received far less publicity.
Has his late friend actually received increased publicity from this? Most of the stories and social media commentary I've seen don't mention Minksy at all, instead claiming that Stallman defended Epstein.
What is puzzling about the media lying to you, either directly or indirectly? Do you really think professional journalists and editors did not know those headlines would be confusing, they have intentionally conflated him speaking in support of a personal friend and defending the ring leader who he never met, that is intentional on the part of those publications, they know what they are doing. The implication of the headline being Stallman supports Minksy, Minsky was allegedly associated with Epstein so RMS defends Epstein, I'm not sure if that is considered a strawman or an abuse of modus ponens but I'm sure there is some term for that sort of misleading statement.
In truth, I am not as puzzled as I claimed. However I've found that on HN there is a pathological obsession with giving people and organizations the benefit of the doubt, even when they don't deserve it. Consequently I sometimes understatement matters dramatically instead of saying what I really think.
Eh. I don't think it's necessarily so much giving people the benefit of a doubt rather than being extremely sensitive to the niggling details, and being dead set in the route of "if you're going to ruin another person's life/reputation over it, it had better damn well be consistent in the face of even modest levels of scrutiny".
It's fine to haul injustice into the light of day to be dealt with. It isn't okay to maliciously interpret/misrepresent things because you think someone is weird, or they make you uncomfortable, or because you're getting carried away with the political cause of the week.
>GP: abuse of modus ponens
Abuse of Transitivity would be closer to the mark I think.
Just because the law is different somewhere else doesn't mean the law here is invalid. Stallman lives in the US, and should be help to US standards.
People use the 'legal in europe' reasoning to justify many things. My parents used it to give me alcohol as a child. Did that make it right? No, it didn't. Should europe change? That's up to them. We are all still evolving. Some do it at a different pace.
92 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadWhen you dig into every case where you see this, there's almost always reasonable context.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
His judgement in making these statements, in a public way, was extremely poor. As a representative of FSF and MIT, he stepped far out of the boundary of what's considered reasonable. Leadership means knowing how to lead, and that includes not demoralizing your organization with controversy.
He didn't step down. He was fired with the option of keeping his dignity.
Or for them to disagree with each other?
What universal age do you think everyone in all jurisdictions should be forced to accept, and how do you intend to enforce your moral superiority on them?
Legitimately, what age do you think should be the limit in the jurisdiction you live in? Before you make any compromises. How old?
Juries are supposed to use the very harsh letter of the law, no exceptions.
These laws are bad and should be reformulated to handle real life, which has corner cases (e.g. interstate romance between minors, what about it?) and where prosecution could cause more damage than it helps.
People deserve to have a clear law.
Everyone always hates thresholds. That's just a fact of life.
These laws are good. If you can't wait for someone to be legal, then you shouldn't be having sex with them in the first place. Find a different partner.
> prosecution could cause more damage than it helps
How about no. It's already incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape, because consent comes down to he-said / she-said. Keeping statutory rape on the books makes it much easier to convict people who went after children, at least.
PS, I am not a lawyer, or a child psychologist, and I highly doubt you are, either.
We speak ill of dead people all the time. We've been speaking ill of the dead for a long time. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."
Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook murderer. He can't speak for himself. Is that not an attack on his moral character?
Omitting the bad things someone did, to only look at the good, whitewashes history.
RMS was absolutely correct to spend as much political capital as he wants to defend Minsky. In this case though, that political capital was also being used to keep his position at MIT and at the FSF. Once spent, he no longer had the support.
He tried to say that assault shouldn't be called assault if it didn't involve force, because assault requires force.
That's a definition of assault that is incorrect in English usage and incorrect in law. Assault does not require use of force.
30 seconds of web searching, or reading a dictionary, would have told him this.
If this was the only time he'd said something fucking idiotic about sexual violence maybe he'd have got away with it, but it isn't, is it? He keeps on saying stupid shit about abuse of children.
When it comes to sexual abuse against women and children he doesn't know what he's talking about; he knows he doesn't know what he's talking about; but he keeps doing it.
1. His knowing what Epstein was doing, i.e. knowing these were sex slaves
2. The girl was under age
RMS defended Minsky against (2) by stating it's morally absurd having a law differing in different jurisdictions by age. There are many places in the civilized world where (2) wouldn't apply due to the girl's age.
With regards to (1) all RMS mused was what if the girl presented herself willingly? How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability? Too bad he's dead and can't defend himself.
In the end RMS was painting a picture where Epstein is a monster, the girl was a victim, and Minsky was innocent. The media completely misrepresented this portraiture.
"Sexual assault" as is generally understood does not mean that violence was necessarily involved, while Stallman said it was required. He further went on to say that it was "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", and said that people should use more precise terms. However, "sexual assault" is the precise term, or at the very least the encompassing term for a sexual act with someone unable to give consent.
I don't think it's a misrepresentation to say Stallman doesn't understand what people mean by "sexual assault", as its generally legally defined.
With regards to (1), we also don't if Minksy thought she was a prostitute that Epstein got <wink>, <wink> for him, or why Minsky didn't think he was being set up for blackmail. Commercial sex with a minor is different from consensual non-commercial sex with a minor. Why did 73-year-old Minksy think that a teenager wanted to have sex with him?
We don't know. He can't defend himself. Stallman doesn't either. But he presents only one possible scenario - the one which puts Minksy in the best light.
Minsky also can't be hurt, so, why waste any social capital on this topic?
There are many age-related laws which differ around the world (drinking, driving age, and more). His complaint about the lack of world-wide agreement doesn't just make it "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", which is what he (wrongly) asserts. It makes it absolutely wrong to use any legal term. Which is absurd.
Kissinger is a war criminal. He's not treated as such. Truth and morals therefore aren't the only factors in the political-legal system.
I still want there to be a definition of war criminal, even if there isn't an agreement. Ditto for pedophile.
Discussions are worthless if people don't don't listen. Stallman wasn't listening to the existing discussion when he made up his definition of what "sexual assault" means.
There's a bunch of people across these threads saying "he wasn't talking about Epstein" as if that excuses what he was saying.
> How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability?
If you're a 70 year old man you should understand that a 17 year old girl is not going to want to have sex with you. He was at the minimum hugely reckless.
> In the end RMS was painting a picture where [...] Minsky was innocent.
Yes, I know, and this is enough for most people to realise that RMS is not a suitable figurehead for any project.
"is merely pointing out"? No. That is completely inaccurate.
He's saying it is "morally absurd" to have such a law:
> I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
>> I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
That's not the impression I got when reading that quote. I don't think when he says "define rape", he was talking about the legal point of view.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
Is the alternate interpretation not plausible? After all, there's a reason why in such cases it's called "statutory rape" rather than just "rape".
>https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20....
Again, not sure how that supports your original comment. He says he's skeptical whether it's harmful. It's reasonable interpret that as him disapproving of such laws, on the basis that there isn't enough evidence. However, I'm not sure how that supports the claim he thinks such laws are "morally absurd".
This allows the use of name rape for additionally making cases harsher when abuse or coercion was present.
And in Poland, there's also modifier "with extreme cruelty" on top, generally involving physical violence.
In countries such as France or Germany -- hardly barbaric backwaters -- it seems it's perfectly legal to have consensual sex with 15-year-olds[1]. So maybe he does think that America's laws are "absurdly" strict; in which case most of Europe would agree with him. Or maybe he's just making the point that this is an area where many reasonable people come to different conclusions, and so it's absurd to be so outraged about it.
I mean, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could think a 15-year-old can possibly be considered to consent to have sex with someone in their 20's. But obviously a lot of Europe thinks differently; if you're going to cut off ties with Stallman for his view on the matter, you'd better cut off ties with all of Europe too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe
edit: Forgot the reference
Age of sexual consent isn't relevant here. We need to legal age for prostitution. Does any US state or any EU country set that below 18?
But also, it doesn't matter. US federal law makes it a crime to travel abroad to have sex with people under 18.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede...
The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16. Should we ask Linus Torvalds what his opinions on the matter are, and force him to step down if he disagrees? The age of consent in Italy is apparently 14 (!). I know a number of Italians prominently involved in the kernel community; shall we ask them what their opinions are?
It's important that we distinguish exactly what it is that we're accusing someone of, and make sure that each individual element is true, for two reasons.
One is just plain justice sake: it's not right to railroad someone and force them to step down from the organization they founded based on bad logic and twisted facts.
The second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history.
His "but is it really assault" defense of Minsky is definitely problematic given his position and the situation. And apparently he's had a long history of "creepy" behavior, along with a long history of people telling him he needs to change. Those are good reasons to ask him to step down.
But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing"; that is just a lie, and covers up the real problems Stallman had. And regarding his question about whether a 17-year-old can give consent -- be consistent: either drop this issue, or take it up with every European in our community.
> The age of consent in Finland is apparently 16.
1) Not for Americans visiting Finland.
2) Not for prostitutes in Finland.
> But it is not true that Richard Stallman said the girl was "entirely willing";
I haven't said this. I'm focussing on the things that Stallman actually said. You yourself agree that these are enough to ask Stallman to step down.
> he second is, Stallman is not the only target here: everyone else is looking at this and deciding how they need to act in response. If what the average guy sees is "he expressed a minority viewpoint and he was lynched", then they'll learn to simply not express minority viewpoints; they won't see what was really problematic about either the current behavior, or Stallman's history.
Yes, this is entirely the point. We don't want powerful men to make public comments saying that fucking children is fine so long as those children have been brutalised into looking willing. We don't want powerful men saying that "voluntary" child sexual abuse isn't harmful for those children.
Stallman never said "it's fine", He called Epstein a rapist - i.e. indicated it was whoever did the brutalising who is to blame. Also, it was a 17 year old, not a child.
The particular crime in question is called slander, nor rape.
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.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
But to understand a bit why: I think this is a bit like asking, "Is it really always harmful for professors to sleep with their (adult) students, or managers to sleep with their employees?"
The answer to that is, sure, you can imagine that this or that particular relationship might never be any hint of coercion or favoritism, and be considered afterwards a positive experience for all parties involved (including the professors other students / the rest of the manager's company). But we still universally say these relationships are wrong, because there's no way to tell in advance whether that will be the case; the risk is just too high.
I think it's the same for paedophilia. Children know so little, are so dependent on the adults around them for so many things -- including basic things like "what's normal" -- that it is simply not possible to ensure that there is no element of coercion.
Some further reading on the age of consent in different countries around the world: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/age-of-consent-around-th... "The legal age of consent in most of the countries is 16 years or above, as individuals of this age are considered to be mature and capable of making informed decisions."
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
That said, Stallman decided later nobody should still do it.
Perhaps though scorched earth prosecution is not the best in some cases. Judges understand this in EU countries, juries often don't.
This does not include Epstein or even Minsky.
Yep. this
edit: what's up with the downvotes
Except we're not, are we?
We're talking about RMS's firmly held, often repeated, views on child sexual abuse. He keeps saying that it's not that harmful; that images are fine; that coercion isn't force.
This latest episode, where he interjects his "well actually" to say that assault is the wrong word (because he mistakenly thinks assault requires use of force) is yet another example where he could have said nothing, or he could have done a little bit of research before speaking. Instead chose to deliver his weird definition of assault in a thread to defend the actions of Minsky.
That's a lie on your part isn't it?
There are very grave points to make about rms's statements but you are doing no one any favors with these statements and merely muddying the waters.
It would probably be a good idea to knock it off.
>I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.
Then, later,
> “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realise they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.”
Look at what he says here. Words like "willing" and "voluntary". This is a normalisation of child sexual abuse.
About Minsky:
> The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
> The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...)
> Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
Here he is clearly saying that "assault" requires use of force, and using this misinterpretation of the word to defend Minsky's actions.
He's wrong about the word assault. It does not require force or violence.
You can find your own Stallman quotes about child sexual abuse and bestiality.
Care to provide example of "that images are fine"?
> Words like "willing" and "voluntary"
Maybe look at the other words around those words for context.
> This is a normalisation of...
This is the infantilisation of language. Certain word "normalize" something, therefore adults are no longer allowed to be subjected to them. Language policing at its finest.
> using this misinterpretation of the word
Says who? Many people would assume the same. Should that be ignored because the legal definition, only fully understood by lawyers, differs? In terms of Minsky's reputation, it matters more what regular people think it means, than what definitions exist in law.
The common misconception wrt what "sexual assault" implies is often utilised by malicious publications and prosecutions - maybe it's time to clean up the language.
Does this extend beyond hearsay and having a "Knight for Justice (also: hot ladies)" sign on his door?
Also, where do these "decades" suddenly come from? His most vociferous accusers on social media wouldn't have been alive, or at least far too young to have attended MIT.
> which are the real reason he should have been removed from power.
Power? Exactly what power can a "visiting scientist"--a made-up quirky title, wield?
Or do you mean his power to travel around the world and talk about Free Software?
Do you even know who he is?
A published book from 2002? https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch14.html (The interview at the bottom.)
His own website about an incident in 1988? https://web.archive.org/web/20020204031846/http://www.stallm... I'm assuming you've seen by now the door with the "hot ladies" sign, and the times he mentioned pedophilia and necrophilia on his website because those got mentioned a lot more.
Nobody believed he would succeed, it was a lost fight by a lunatic. But it was this weird obsession that kept him motivated over the years. The appearance of Linux was both a success (the world finally got a complete operating system) and a failure (it forgot about GNU and focused on Linux). Then it turned out that proprietary software is not the only danger coming from greedy corporations: DRM, vendor lock-in, etc. RMS predicted many of these and was actively fighting against them. Whereas on a personal level he was the same Don Quixote as in the after-Symbolics period. Many people hated him for all possible reasons, and are celebrating now. What a sad time.
So what is your next step with me? Are you going to try to dox me and try to get me fired from my employer?
I also point out he was a slaveowner who had forced sex with his slaves.
I'm not going to turn around and say we need an official US church because I'm against his slaving and raping. Nor am I going to ignore his actual history.
Okay, as you say, "he was a jerk".
We shouldn't have a jerk as the head of the FSF. Kick him out for being a jerk.
It's not like I haven't heard stories about his creepy behavior for decades.
How come Guido van Rossum (to pick one) doesn't avoid women at all costs, yet doesn't have same treatment? I propose it's because what you describe isn't actually the issue.
Words matter, even if you can't feel bothered to motivate them, which is the problem in a nutshell in the first place.
I mean, he's not wrong. But he's missing the point, ethically. And given that his whole schtick is an ethical position... I dunno. It's time to step aside. Free Software can find better evangelists.
Source on this? The only articles/blogs I've seen on this are from Vice, Selam G. (MIT alumni, unclear what her other affiliations are), and the Gnome foundation.
Founder of FSF's GPL Compliance Labs https://twitter.com/NovalisDMT/status/1172573166956437505
Former FSF staff https://twitter.com/georgialyle/status/1173788445732462593
FSF member since 2004 https://twitter.com/downey/status/1172328679889756162 Other members https://twitter.com/dustyweb/status/1173690170090168320 & https://twitter.com/j00bar/status/1172309099410669568
Free Software Conservancy https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-spea...
Senior staff technologist at EFF https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173789555993956352
Forbes writer and "FOSS advocate" https://twitter.com/killyourfm/status/1173014344973598722
Director of community for DIAL Community (part of the Open Source Center at the UN Foundation) https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173789555993956352
Tech author https://twitter.com/mwlauthor/status/1173690259277848576
[Not sure how to describe Sarah Jeong briefly] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/561785170538553344
Here are the emails. Read em.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
It's fine to haul injustice into the light of day to be dealt with. It isn't okay to maliciously interpret/misrepresent things because you think someone is weird, or they make you uncomfortable, or because you're getting carried away with the political cause of the week.
>GP: abuse of modus ponens Abuse of Transitivity would be closer to the mark I think.
take it easy on the antisemitism
He has access to some very good lawyers and can allege both lots of income and reputation, with damages.
People use the 'legal in europe' reasoning to justify many things. My parents used it to give me alcohol as a child. Did that make it right? No, it didn't. Should europe change? That's up to them. We are all still evolving. Some do it at a different pace.