[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
But you'll notice that nothing about my point hinges on whether RMS was right or wrong. My claim was about what RMS said (which you seem to grant), not about whether he was correct in saying it.
There are at least three levels of analysis - semantic (which are proper words describing the act), descriptive legal (whether the commited act is crime) and normative legal (whether the commited act should be crime).
Note that the law does not prescribe language (if the law defines some crime named XYZ mean it overrides common language meaning of XYZ). It is the other way - criminal law defines which classes of acts are crimes and then uses common language names for them (which may or may not fits perfectly).
Stallman first made semantic algument about 'sexual assault' and later later did semantic or perhaps normative legal argument about rape definition.
(With second reading, the rape definition comment was also clearly semantic.)
I agree! Stallman's claim was (at least mostly) semantic. Specifically, it hinges on the claim that sexual assault means something that involves coercion on the part of the assaulter. He adds to this a factual argument that (assuming Minsky did have sex with her), he was probably unaware of the fact that she did not consent. Therefore (he concludes), Minsky probably did not commit sexual assault.
But ... you'll notice that this is exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread. RMS is defending Minsky against the charge of sexual assault by saying that she probably pretended to consent (which means he probably didn't physically force her to have sex).
Maybe you want to defend this claim. I'm not here to argue for or against it. The simple statement that I made in the OP was that this is what Stallman said, and the rest of the thread has basically been trolls claiming he didn't say it with no evidence.
Therefore, your original post could be read as misinterpretation of Stallman semantic argument as legal argument.
Also your original claim "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions" would IMHO make more sense when your post is read as Stallman making (wrong) legal argument.
Everyone is entitled about per opinion on proper usage of language so it does not make sense why a semantic argument in general or this one in particular would be 'far beyond the pale', considering that his semantic argument makes (IMHO) perfect sense.
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of "assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition of assault too!
I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for yourself.
Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated".
But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent comes across at best, even under the kindest interpretation, as a really weird point to make. It's incorrect to say that you can't assault someone if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about.
As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP, actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to) is the claim that he actually said these things.