Hacker News Reader

Comment by kstenerud | Hacker News Reader

It's unfortunate that scarlet letter offences are still alive and well in today's culture.

Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so.

But when a "scarlet letter" offence is involved, we jump straight to the punishment phase, removing the person outright with no judicial process. This is completely backwards, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. It brings a chilling effect on everyone, because suddenly people start to realize that they're living under the Sword of Damocles, which could destroy them at any moment without warning. You can never be sure if something you say or do is going to get you publicly pilloried in future, and destroy your career, friendships, and reputation in the blink of an eye. Far better to just sit quiet and never say anything that might offend someone. Far better not to participate at all.

Mob justice always turns ugly in the end. That's why we have courts.

View on HN

I'm normally 100% on board with condemning this Malthusian environment that has sprung up in the last couple years, but I don't believe that Richard Stallman is a complete victim in this scenario.

He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him!

His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein.

For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.

"His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein."

Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology.

And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.

>Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology.

Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life?

If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers.

Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.

Because mobs are horrific and that's what you get when people base punishments on speculation.

> Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.

Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.

>That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.

I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching.

As far as watching what you say, that is the world:

1. As it has always existed.

2. It exists today.

3. Will always exist until the end of time itself.

And that will never, ever, change.

Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.

They used to accuse people of being communists, thus landing them on a blacklist and unable to find work.

I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.

>I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.

Many people seem to be complaining about this.

As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying:

"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “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.”and he should face no consequences."

"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “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.” and he should face no consequences."

Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".

It seems perfectly consistent to me that someone worried about people being fired for controversial opinions would not give such an opinion non-anonymously. I don't see what point you're making.

I think the user you are responding to is attempting to undermine anything that can loosely be construed as a defense of Stallman. A bit of a dirty tactic, IMO, but the lines of battle have clearly been drawn.

Yeah this is like the authoritarians who claim that if Snowden really feared for his safety as a whistleblower, then he would be happy to be renditioned to a secret blacksite dungeon for punishment by the TLAs he has offended. Does not compute...

Give free speech and it will happen.

Moral authoritarianism is quite the dangerous thing. It is at the root of every single 'evil' of times past. One has to keep in mind that these evils of times past of course did not see themselves, in general, as evils. Instead they were simply enforcing their world view which, from their perspective, was the 'right' one. It's much easier to do awful things to people when you convince yourself they deserve it.

To take one of the more innocuous examples from the past consider the Red Scares. It was fundamentally driven by people believing that they have the moral high ground against a certain view. Communism is bad and therefore it was okay to do bad things to people who held positive views of such. And it was simply 'common sense' that supporting communism in any way, shape, or form was an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. And I use that as an example only to avoid any rousing of emotion but the exact same logic drove the KKK, Nazis, and nearly every group, sinner and saint alike, throughout time. Moral authoritarianism is again, a very dangerous thing.

And I certainly do not agree with you on this was or will be the way of society. Words and actions are distinct. I think an ideal society would have no tolerance for intolerant actions but an unlimited tolerance of words. Indeed this is even what the actual quote, often egregiously bastardized and misused by the most intolerant of today's society, on the 'paradox of tolerance' fundamentally suggests. Even looking back now at the Red Scare we can generally see how quaint our intolerance was. There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter. And if it does become supported by enough of society? Then we try it, almost certainly fail, and continue on our disjointed path "forwards" as always.

> There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

As Scott points out in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-... censorship is mostly used against groups we think are dangerous (mostly because they actually have a fairly large amount of support). Someone advocating that going to church should be mandatory and divorce and blasphemy should be illegal will get eye rolls, not anger.

> Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life?

Because IRL there's no attorney of defense.

You can just throw accusation in the air and somebody else get hurt.

Feel free to believe anyone you meet, or merely hear about, is a jerk.

The question is--should being a jerk be a fireable offense?

"should being a jerk be a fireable offense?"

On its face... yes???

Here's another pro-tip: If you make dishonest or negligent accusations about another person, such that said person suffers materially you can probably* sued for defamation.

*IANAL

> Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law,

Prosecution: "We think he knew this person was subject to coercion and we say this because X, Y, Z".

Defence: "We think he did not know this person was subject to coercion and we say this because we interpret X, Y, and Z differently."

These involve speculation about the mental state of the accused.

> who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him!

Is there any evidence of this? There is a big difference between the place he works at taking money and him taking money.

I don't think its right to hold an employee responsible for their employers actions.

>He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions,

How often does he bring it up and how often is it in response to someone else saying something that is technically wrong?

Who jumped straight to the punishment phase? What punishment was doled out? "Removed outright" from what? MIT?

RMS chose to step down himself. That was his decision. Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob".

Furthermore, stepping down from MIT is not destruction you're playing it up as being. People have done similar (and of course, worse!) things and, after being the subject of some number of embarrassing articles on the web and some larger number of angry tweets, are currently living their lives with new jobs just fine. RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy.

If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake, like the US-Mexico border or Hong Kong.

>Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob".

The mob pressured MIT and the FSF to remove him from his positions. It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats.

>RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake...

You could just easily say "Hong Kong doesn't have it that bad, they have food and shelter. Focus on conditions that are actually bad, like starving child soldiers in Africa."

This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.

It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats.

If you think the brass at MIT are in any physical danger from a bunch of angry tweeters, I don't know what to tell you.

This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.

No, that's a deflection. Someone choosing to step down from their job is not an issue that can, as the parent post puts it, "destroy them at any moment without warning". Being a starving child soldier in Africa is, being locked in a cage in a foreign land is.

I think he's trying to say that coercion is involved.

What leverage does an unorganized group of nobodies have over MIT and the FSF?

They all simultaneously call his employer and demand that he gets fired.

Signficant leverage in the realm of reputation and public perception which is quite important to large instituations?

Yup. There are many things I disagree with Stallman on, but I still can’t get behind mob mentality accusations and indictments. But in this day and age people want instant retribution for wrongs as well as perceived wrongs and are perfectly willing to bypass due process. Just fire them! Now! Someone said they said something bad!

On the other hand even with this resignation he doesn't appologize for anything. He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appologize, but didn't.

Kevin Hart apologized for some offensive jokes, he apologized as advised by the academy, and still got cancelled. Apologizing only serves to augment the conviction of a mob intent on finding fault.

No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once.

Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.

There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.

Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs.

—Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes.

[1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers.

[1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...

For any English people reading this in England: this advice is both wrong and harmful. If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. You're not admitting liability and it doesn't open you up to further legal action. Not apologising may in fact increase damages against you.

I don't know how other jurisdictions handle this.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2

> Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress

> An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.

This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.

> If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise.

mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?

You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel, another film called Fatherhood and has been in commercials since the Oscars.

It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.

Cancel culture may be running out of steam, but did Kevin Hart or whomever else know ex ante (meaning right after the scandal outbreak) what they were going to face.

As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention.

And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.

> And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.

He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime

(Sarcasm.)

> You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel

> "got cancelled"

> Jumanji sequel

A part on the sequel to a reboot of a mediocre 90s movie? WOOO living the dream!

The reboot made 960 million dollars. You could argue about artistic merit of reboots and sequels, but he'll be getting a hefty paycheck for these.

Indeed. Those who apologize must submit to a struggle session.

"Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding."

https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

That's a "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Which is not an apology at all.

Stallman decided it was a great idea to, in the wrong place at the wrong time and in response to a protest regarding someone he knew (Minsky, not Epstein), construct a hypothetical that exonerated Minsky and then judge that protest, again publicly, through that hypothetical. That's not a "believe he said" thing. That's what he did. He got tossed out on his ear for that and that's a thing he did.

Just so you know, the central victim of this scandal did not (to my knowledge) actually accuse Minsky of having sex with her - only that she was coerced by Epstein to make the offer. An offer which another witness testified was turned down. If true then the protest against Minsky has no basis (or at least much less).

Now, RMS then did construct a hypothetical based on his knowledge of Minsky's character. Note that nowhere in his hypothetical did he either defend Epstein or assert that the victim was in fact willing - both of which were things that he was accused of doing. He then insisted that people be more precise in their speech, which is exactly what you should do if you want actual justice.

http://simon-mcav.blogspot.com/2016/05/im-sorry-you-feel-tha...

> When a person tells someone else "I'm sorry that you feel that way", they are not acknowledging the potential role they might have played in making them feel this way. Instead, it is more like they are absolving themselves of responsibility, and are showing apparent sympathy that the person who is complaining might be upset for some abstract, and potentially irrational reason. It not only fails to acknowledge the potential role played by the speaker (or who they might represent), but this phrase is actually used to position the speaker as an innocent actor who has had little or no influence over the current situation.

> He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appologize, but didn't.

> feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.

The statement that RMS did not attempt to make an apology even one that is a false apology is 100% made up, he did in fact make a false apology.

My point is that like many people on here the person making the argument believes RMS did wrong and they are now inventing reasons to justify their belief, its not an honest argument.

You are ignoring or not reading the argument I was responding to which establishes the honesty of an apology as irrelevant. This is another example of a dishonest argument because it is moving the goal posts of the argument again to justify your prior beliefs.

I didn't see/find his post. Thanks for that.

> he did in fact make a false apology

No he didn't. Making a false apology requires some form of deception or misdirection whereby it isn't obvious that you are denying any responsibility.

For example "I'm sorry you feel that way - but I'm not at fault!" Is not a false apology, since it is very clear that you are denying responsibility, despite that fact that it contains the triggering substring "I'm sorry you feel that way".

> who has had little or no influence over the current situation.

Stallman had no control over being misquoted.

He also didn't say "I'm sorry that you feel that way" - He specifically mentions he was misquoted, leaving no doubt that he is not apologizing for the cause of the offense - People were offended by the misquotes, not the original statements.

> but didn't.

So he's being punished for thinking out loud and not apoligising for thinking out loud?

It wasn't a misunderstanding caused by his poor wording; It was caused by poor (and possibly malicious) misquoting.

He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say:

> I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.

This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible.

Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.

For a little cultural orientation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter

While redemption is one of the themes in the book sadly the internet has not quite developed that level of sophistication so we are stuck with denouncement/punishment.

These days you might as well become a hermit or kill yourself because there is no penance great enough to be accepted by some people.

You are forgetting who is President of the United States. The third choice is to go all-in.

I support a theory that cases such as this are one of the main reason Trump got elected - some voters were just fed up. I also think that he'll get elected again, cause Dems are concentrating on impeachment instead of trying to understand & connect with his deplorable voters.

By summer 2017, it was clear that RussiaRussiaRussia was all they had in store for the next several years. At that point, I knew Trump would be reelected. This is a fairly awful person who has actually done a number of impeachable things, many of them after he took office. Yet, they chose to dwell on something that was obviously false to the average voter. Why would they do that? I think the answer to that is related to the fact that Biden is the current pick. If in 2016 we had made a (short) list of candidates likely to lose to Trump, Biden and HRC would have vied closely for the top choice.

The redemption in the book is only for Dimmesdale, as his last dying act. For Hester, the recipient of the scarlet letter, there is no respite.

The point of the Scarlet Letter is that its victims are forever oppressed by the masses, and those near to the victim are made guilty by association.

It doesn't matter what the crime is; forever punishments are unjust, and prone to abuse.

RMS is not encountering any judicial or criminal sanction.

He is merely encountering actual consequences for saying absurd, indefensible things -- and, likely, also finally encountering consequences for being a well-known source of creepy behavior towards women for a very long time. People lose jobs all the time for less.

Yeah, he's done some good things. And maybe (MAYBE) he's actually not neurotypical. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being a creep forever.

Do you not think people have tried to get RMS to stop talking about how injust statory rape is, or that he should probably stop talking about how child porn is ok?

This isn't a one off and he's one of the least likely people to mend his ways.

The censorship of ideas the majority dislikes is pretty repulsive.

This is one of the reasons it took so long for homosexuality to become accepted.

Can you explain how he's being censored? This event has caused his comments to be circulated more than ever.

Free speech is a right, but it's not a shield. He can continue to express his opinions, and the public will continue to have the right to object to them. If public opinion on a person is negative, companies will not want to associate with that person. That's the way society has been and will continue to be. This isn't inherently good, as seen with things like race/sexuality--but conflating the long struggle of the LGBT community with one man's archaic thoughts on pedophilia is frankly disgusting.

Censorship isn't just done by stopping someone broadcasting a view, it is also done by punishing those you express that view as a deterrant to any others out there who would want to promote or broadcast that view.

Censorship can be done by governments, institutions, individuals or society as a whole.

I'm not really conflating the LGBT history with RMS views, merely noting that attempting to surpress non-majority views can be bad by using them as an example.

>> "Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so."

How many years and incidents is enough to move to removal?

People make it sound like Stallman never did offensive or questionable things. This was the veritable "straw".

The challenge is: there is ample evidence that misogyny (and similar offenses) has been unacceptable for years, but it continues. Part of the me-to movement, the election of Trump, ( and the Epstein blowback) is that we need to just stop. And that's why the pressure is there if people can't understand that this sort of behavior in unacceptable in 2019, they need to GTFO.

In which case, it's on MIT and the FSF to stand up and take charge, saying "You either change your ways and apologize, or else you're out."

But what we've seen instead is cowardly throwing someone to the baying crowd.

The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia. Is it so hard to not endorse pedophilla? Can't that just be the one thing everybody agrees on?

Do you have citing for this? Very easy to make a wide claim like this and go on a witch hunt.

I don’t know the guy but that’s a big accusation.

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#25%20May%202... (second item at that date)

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...

http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20...

First link is not about this topic i believe.

For the other statements, I dont think he's "endorsing" it, he's raising questions. I'm not AT ALL on the same boat as him wrt this topic, but I dont mind a discussion on this topic. I consider that the basis of democracy.

Also, from this recent interview on the register it shows he changed his mind on this topic: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...

I respect that people openly change their views.

People can and do change their views, certainly.

But when a 66 year old man says that he has now learned that sex with children is wrong, do you just wipe the past clean and forget that anything ever happened? Would it be wrong for those past views to have any effect, now that he's changed his mind?

I dont know what his age has to do with it.

And yes, I think we should not dig up old statements once he has announced he has changed his views: that's why I commented.

I understand those past views will linger on, I just dont think they are protayed fairly, nor that it is adequately considered that he has changed.

There is a comment of his talking about "voluntary pedophilia." This is likely (very likely) a misuse of terms, though -- having had this discussion with others on the Internet, they do not usually intend pedophilia, which is an attraction to the prepubescent. Prepubescent children have no sex drive and their interest in sex is usually taken to be a sign of sexual abuse. Consequently it is hard to see voluntary pedophilia as something that can happen.

He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question.

There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.

He knows what pedophilia means.[1]

[1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...

See this recent interview with him, he addresses this topic and shows he changed his mind.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...

> The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia.

This is a big accusation, do you have source to back this up?

As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter?

I agree with the principle of people being able to change their minds and we should accommodate that, but I also have a hard time giving a huge credit when a 66 year old man says that contrary to everything he's written on the subject, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong.

>As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter?

If changing doesn't have any benefits, would anyone change?

I'm not saying there should be no lasting repurcussions for such behavior, but when someone admits they are wrong, it should matter.

If admitting they were wrong doesn't matter, then it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.

I agree, it should always matter. How much it matters would certainly depend on things like that. So on that scale, it would take a lot more than "I've now learned that sex with children is actually wrong" before I consider that person redeemed. But that's just me.

> The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia

Among the many things one can say about RMS, this is not one of them.

This is just slander.

> The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

he's saying that it should be legal at the very least.

Well, there is big difference between 'saying it should be legal' and endorsing.

For example, i think that drinking alcohol and smoking pot should be legal, but also think it is stupid thing to do and definitely would not endorse that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com