"nonforcible" is 100% bullshit in this context. A university professor in his 70s with liver spots on his bald pate who is "approached" by a 17 year old girl for sex on his rich buddy's island is knowingly participating in rape, full stop.
I obviously can't speak for Stallman, but I don't think he was trying to make the case that the guy was innocent, I think he was arguing that what he did may be okay in other jurisdictions and that it isn't technically assault. That's it.
Stallman is usually very precise in his speech and doesn't go out of his way to counter potential misunderstandings of what says. I see that as a problem, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
What makes you think that? For all we know he might have thought that said girl was 18 or 25. But even if he thought that she was a 17 years old prostitute I can't see how it would be rape.
And that's the type of hair splitting that RMS does, and he needs to be more careful about it. He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.
According to Wikipedia, sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.
Minors arguably cannot give consent. A lack of consent is all that is needed to meet this definition. It doesn't matter that Epstein enslaved her first. Unless Stallman wants to argue that Minsky had no idea she was under age, his argument is dead in the water.
It's not the same, or else they would use the same terms, do you agree?
Thing is, definition of crimes are better left to experts, I.E. Lawyers. It's not an easy task in any way as you can see.
> He's not wrong in what he said, but he could be wrong for saying it.
You can never be wrong by speaking the truth. And this is what RMS did.
> An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. > > ... > > Traditionally, common law legal systems had separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery refers to the actual bodily contact, whereas assault refers to a credible threat or attempt to cause battery.
So, to prove assault, you need to prove that the victim didn't want the physical contact.
Rape usually involves assault (in fact, it's defined as a type of "sexual assault"), but statutory rape is a bit different because it essentially says that an individual cannot consent under a certain age and is defined as not involving force. So, I think it's fair to say that statutory rape is a special case of rape that doesn't involve assault. Some jurisdictions use the term "assault" to describe statutory rape as well, but I personally think that's unhelpful because we want statutory rape to include cases where the victim made every indication that they wanted the encounter (they're below the age of consent, after all), so using the term assault just confuses the term.
And that brings us to force. A rape can happen where physical force isn't involved, but it can involve other types of force, like intimidation or other types of manipulation (e.g. encouraging use of drugs to reduce inhibitions). I think nonphysical assault still involves force at some level (again, maybe not physical force), so I would say rape requires force.
If you're going to claim that someone is guilty of assault, I think you need to prove some use of force, physical or otherwise. I believe that statutory rape does not necessarily involve assault, at least not in the sense that we use it for people over the age of consent. Sex with someone under the age of consent may be considered rape even if the exact same set of circumstances above the age of consent wouldn't be treated as such. Therefore I don't think we can automatically assume assault from a statutory rape case.
A real dictionary (Chambers) says this:
Assault:
1) violent physical or verbal attack
2) any act that causes someone to feel physically threatened, which is considered reckless or intentional, and which need not necessarily involve any physical violence
3) rape or attempted rape
Stallman is attempting to use human language like a programming language, but it does not work like that. That's not a problem with humans or other people: it's a deficit that Stallman has. Stallman is also claiming to ignore the legal definitions of technical words, while relying on those legal definitions when they support his points. This is an inconsistency in his argument.
Wikipedia has a strong Americo-centric world view and that sucks when we're discussing rape because in some states an act doesn't count as rape unless the victim uses physical force to fight off an attacker. That's a pretty terrible definition.
True, and that's one of many reasons why it's necessary to be precise. Otherwise it leads to confusion and uncertainty, just because of vague definitions.