Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims as 'Entirely Willing'
vice.com
vice.com
He said this: " Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem [...] Let’s presume that was true [...] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. [...] "
I have no clue how plausible this scenario is, but I don't see any reason to infer anything about the character of Stallman based on him suggesting it.
> 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.
> There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
These are not the types of statements a non pedophile would make. People who are not pedophile's don't randomly argue that pedophilia is not harmful.
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua...
Stallman has (several) pages on his website where he shares his political views and takes.
I think the real mistake here that rms made was to try to apply any form of logic to what is a highly emotionally charged situation, and especially to try to do that in any kind of a shared forum.
And yes, I am fully aware of the irony of my doing the same thing here.
I’ve had my disagreements with rms over the years on certain issues, but frankly, I think he should have been smarter than this.
RMS isn't the Free Software movement, but this still disappoints me.
There's a reason teachers in many states cannot have relations with former students no matter the age of consent and of those involved.
But doesn't using a phrase like this open up the very matter that Stallman is trying to implore the forum to consider? "Standard adults" is not concrete language.
Can someone be a "standard adult" at 17? I don't know. I do know that I (and everyone I know) was having sex at 17. I'm male (and white, and middle-class), so my surface for being victimized in this way is much different from the victim in this case. But I think Stallman's point is that calling this "rape" merely because of the jurisdiction in which it happened serves to trivialize the word "rape" rather than add clarity to Epstein's conduct.
> I do know that I (and everyone I know) was having sex at 17.
Quoting the link:
"There is however a close-in-age exemption that allows minors 16 and 17 years old to consent with someone no more than five years older than themselves and minors 13 to 15 years old to consent with one another, but not with anyone 16 or over"
> Stallman's point is that calling this "rape" merely because of the jurisdiction in which it happened serves to trivialize the word "rape"
The relevant crime is "rape in the second degree", so the term "rape" is the correct description.
Now, Stallman disagrees with that categorization. But without knowing what Stallman's definition of "rape" - and knowing that his description of "sexual assault" doesn't reflect an understanding of the legal definition - it comes across like he is minimizing what "rape" means by rejecting some of its definitions.
It does not appear to me that Stallman is defending what we now know of Epstein's abhorrent conduct. Instead, he's engaging in a very reasonable debate about the terminology of accusations like these.
It's possible that I'm misreading this whole thing - if that's true, please point it out. But the article seems to indicate that the worst of Stallman's remarks are here:
<unknown>: Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands
<Stallman>:
Does it really? 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 the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term ‘sexual assault’ is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
---- On this specific passage (and again, there may be other bad stuff I'm not seeing), I basically agree with Stallman. Rape is a serious, heinous offense to nature. It is morally absurd - and insensitive to victims - to define it as the person to whom Stallman is responding is apparently trying to do.
The USA is a place of rampant sexism and obsession with alcohol (particularly its use as a date-rape drug, although for some reason we don't call it that). Rape is disgustingly commonplace. Talking about the laws of the Virgin Islands as they apply to a 17-year-old is a great example of distraction from this reality.
It is not a reasonable debate about the terminology to throw away all current definitions and create new ones, without at least explaining why the current one is wrong.
1) Stallman states: "The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, Only that they had sex. ... I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
However, "sexual assault" as a legal term includes many examples where there is no use of force or violence. As I pointed out as a generic example.
This was to show that Stallman's definition is wrong in the general sense.
2) Is it rape in the US Virgin Islands?
Yes. The law is 14 V.I.C. § 1702 - https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=... :
> § 1702. Rape in the second degree
> (a) Any person over 18 years of age who perpetrates under circumstances not amounting to rape in the first degree, an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person who is at least 16 years but less than 18 years of age, and the perpetrator is 5 years or older than the victim, is guilty of rape in the second degree and shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years.
That is, while the age of consent in Colorado is 17 (excluding child prostitution, which is until 18), it is 18 in the US V.I.
Stallman doesn't like that US V.I. definition, but since his complaint is 'it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault”', his personal views don't really matter. At best he can say it's morally wrong, according to his own morals.
3) Is rape a form of sexual assault?
Yes. Indeed, many states have replaced their rape laws with sexual assault laws.
I cannot find where "sexual assault" is defined, for purposes of US V.I. law. It is used but not defined.
In general, "sexual assault" is "any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 (34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29)).
Minors under the age of consent are not regarded as being able to consent to having sex, outside of a few limited exceptions (eg, similarity of age, sex with one's spouse).
Thus, Stallman is wrong in saying 'it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation' of an old man having sex with a 17 year old woman in the Virgin Islands.
That's a rather strange comment. Date rape drugging happens without the victim's knowledge or consent. That's markedly different from a person willingly drinking alcohol.
Why do we care what Richard Stallman thinks about Epstein? Why does his experience with GNU and Hurd immediately make him expert about human trafficking?
Be careful before posting a reply to this one... There are many subjects that will naturally devolve into a witch hunt if you go even slightly off script... even if you're just playing devils advocate.
In a company context I would not count on other people to give you the benefit of the doubt for not immediately raising pitch forks when something gets controversial. The needs of the loudest and most upset outweigh the thoughts of the few.
I can see this getting ugly...