If you can’t see the problem with making such arguments, you don’t belong in a leadership position, period.
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.
When 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.