Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims as 'Entirely Willing'
vice.com
vice.com
RMS is anal about meanings of terms and their use. That's not working well in the current climate where words carry perceived intent. I find myself agreeing with RMS with most of the terminology and it's use in this case.
On the other hand other discussions reveal that RMS has very bad understanding of developmental psychology, sexuality etc. and tries to to figure it out using reasoning which does not work when his model is broken.
The lesson:
If you are figurehead of some big cause, never talk aloud publicly about controversial subjects outside your field. Being a good figurehead means presenting a role to the public. All the stupid and loose talk paints the whole cause.
This though is different from Epstein who was allegedly a much more dangerous predator going after young children who are not considered to be able to consent in any jurisdiction. At some point it's not longer arbitrary and highly wrong, and he was squarely in that camp if the reports and accusations are to be believed.
I rather think people around him should insist on explaining to him that minors can't consent to some things, certainly not sex with adults, trafficking and prostitution, period. The age may be arbitrary but that doesn't make it "absurd". For him to claim otherwise, no matter how benign the intent, isn't something I'd let slip by.
That would be well and good, except that he's talking about terms like "sexual assault" which have well-defined legal terms that fit the case at hand.
Instead, he is re-defining legal terms in a way that don't fit the current actual intent of those terms.
You've got it entirely backwards. The whole point made by RMS is that the accusations do not fit the well-defined legal term, thus he pointed out which crime in fact does fit the accusation: statutory rape.
Here's my citation: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-court-of-appeals/1866619.html (italics added to show the source of the above quote)
> 9. The entry for “sexual assault” in Black's Law Dictionary provides two definitions. First, “sexual assault” means “[s]exual intercourse with another person who does not consent [,]” noting “[s]everal state statutes have abolished the crime of rape and replaced it with the offense of sexual assault. ”Black's Law Dictionary 138 (10th ed. 2014). Second, “sexual assault”means “[o]ffensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape.” Id.
> {22} The first entry in the dictionary narrowly defines sexual assault as intercourse because, as noted, many states used the offense of sexual assault to replace conduct formerly defined as rape. In New Mexico, the crime of rape was not replaced with the offense of sexual assault. State v. Keyonnie, 1977-NMSC-097, ¶ 5, 91 N.M. 146, 571 P.2d 413 (explaining that “[t]he essential elements of the common law crime of rape, from which the statutory offense of criminal sexual penetration was derived,” were carnal knowledge or intercourse). Rather, the crime of rape was replaced with the offense of criminal sexual penetration.
Remember, Stallman argues that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation".
Yet here we see that some jurisdictions use "sexual assault" as a replacement for the term "rape".
And we see jurisdictions (like New Mexico) where "criminal sexual penetration" was used to replace the term "rape". Indeed, here's the law: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/arti... . But are you seriously (outside of a technical and pointless argument) going to say that "rape" and "sexual assault" aren't illegal in New Mexico?
So Stallman is wrong to say that "statutory rape" is the right legal term. At the very least he has to say that "it is not considered sexual assault in the US Virgin Islands" .. except the US V.I. laws do use the term "sexual assault" so then he has to point to the US V.I. definition of "sexual assault" to show that it's the wrong definition. Which he did not.
As another example, we can look at US military law, which distinguishes between "rape" and "sexual assault", at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920 . In that definition, "rape" involves force, or 'threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping' or drugging a person.
While "sexual assault" - contrary to Stallman's "absolute" views - includes things which does not include force, like "inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person" or " without the consent of the other person".
Note that someone under the age of consent (17 in the US V.I., with exceptions for similarity in age and for sex with one's spouse) cannot consent to sex under the law.
In other words, Stallman's definition, which says that sexual assault "presumes that he applied force or violence" is much more aligned with the military's definition of "rape" than the military's definition of "sexual assault."
Making Stallman, again, wrong in saying that "sexual assult" is an "absolutely wrong" term.
The only jurisdiction which is relevant is that where the accusation was made, and in this case the crime that matches the accusation is statutory rape.
That's the whole point.
Please don't be disingenuous and cherry-pick jurisdictions that are entirely unrelated and irrelevant to the discussion just to fabricate substante for your baseless assertions. If you feel the need to persecute someone, do it based on what he actually said instead of making up excuses.
If I am wrong, please quote how Stallman's writings support your statement.
He wrote:
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
This is wrong because there are many jurisdictions where "sexual assault" is the correct accusation, as defined specifically by law.
The best argument he could make is that "sexual assault" doesn't apply here, not that is it "absolutely wrong". (I think he's wrong, which I will get to in a moment.)
That is my point. It is not absolutely wrong. It has a legal definition which is about as well understood as "copyright."
Remember, he specifically rejected your argument that we need to look to a specific jurisdiction:
> “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 have looked for, but failed, to find what "sexual assault" means in the context of US VI law. It is used in the law but not defined.
However, it is defined in US law as "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)).
Second degree rape with a minor who is under the age of consent is therefore correctly characterized as "sexual assault".
I regard sex with a sex slave to also be sex with someone who cannot consent. However, I have not looked up that law.
For your argument to be true - as I understand it, you mean that Stallman is specifically writing about US VI law - do you not assume that Stallman consulted those legal sources first, before writing his email?
Because I don't believe he did, as what he wrote shows he has no clue about what "sexual assault" means, both in the general US context and specifically in the US VI context.
I believe I have cited my sources, both with respect to Stallman and the relevant US law. Please do the same now and show how your interpretation of Stallman is backed up by his statements.
On top of that, Stallman presumes the 17 year old was "entirely willing". However, the law prohibits willingness from being a consideration when determining some sorts of sexual assault, including second degree rape of a minor.
For his argument to have merit, he must show that the woman was meaningfully able to grant consent, and could grant consent. He did not do that, which supports my belief that he does not understand the relevant law in the way he would have to be able to make the argument you seem to suggest he's making.