That is what he was defending. The intellectual quibbles about this and that he was bringing up are irrelevant when faced with the above fact.
That isn't about political correctness, it isn't a "witch hunt". RMS did something incredibly inappropriate in an incredibly inappropriate place and was fired. He deserved it.
The thing about accusations is that being accused of something doesn't mean the thing happened. There is a pretty plausible line of evidence that Minsky kept his hands to himself when confronted by a 17 year old on a private island. It is an excellent time to try and defend a dead friend when such doubts are present.
And as a particularly important point - there are no charges so horrible that people shouldn't be defended against them. That is one of the best principles we have in the Western intellectual tradition. "He's defending someone from something serious" is not a respectable counter; you should rethink your arguments.
RMS has been a force that has driven people away for a long time. He may be good as a thinker and coder, but he is fucking awful at being in a leadership position.
The issue was him defending statutory rape by saying the victim would have seemed willing.
The cirumstances around that hypothetical (17, 73, billionare's island) solidify the problem.
It isn't intellectual disagreement. It's defending rape, real or imagined, by saying the victim seemed willing.
RMS also defended the view that declaring every sexual act of an adult with a 17 year old as statutory rape is morally questionable. That's a legitimate viewpoint that has been discussed extensively by lawmakers and legal scholars. Again, whether you like his opinion or not is not important. What's important is that it is ridiculous to insinuate in any way that discussing these matters is somehow morally reprehensible, especially when they concern accusations of a good friend who - for all you know and believe - is innocent.
You are being very dishonest in your posts by distorting the actual situation and what actually happened. I've personally met a guy who lost his job and all of his reputation for a similar matter - every single accusation was ruled out and disproved in court, even with direct video evidence contradicting the accuser's testimony, yet his life remains in shambles.
You can only hope that you will never become the victim of such a witch hunt yourself.
(1) They have committed statutory rape
(2) Their position is morally defensible, although a bit creepy for an old man.
He probably didn't know she was 17. Why on earth would Minsky be risking the law by sleeping with a 17 year old girl when he could just sleep with an 18 or 19 year old? Presumably Epstein had all sorts on tap. It is very likely he wasn't told she was 17 and quite likely that if asked she had been coerced into lying. Stallman has a point here.
And to top it off even if he is wrong it is not such a critical fact that he needs to resign over it. Even if I accept tomorrow that everything I typed today so far was wrong; this is still not an important enough point to resign over anything. It is a moral hypothetical. It is no relevant to my, or Stallman's, daily personal or professional life.
Finally, your use of the word "rape" is wrong anyway. Having sex with a minor isn't "rape", it's "statutory rape", and that's only in the US. US laws do not apply worldwide. The age of consent varies from place to place, and according to UK residents on this forum, it's only 15 or 16 there. So are you going to tell me that everyone in the UK that has sex with someone that young is a "rapist"? Sorry, no.
Where I live (the UK), that is perfectly legal and I believe any man would jump at the chance to do the same with a willing 17 year old.
Your repetitive statements of fact in this thread look like nothing more than jealousy to me.
His statement was that we should use proper names for crimes.
If I were to accuse Epstein of genocide and you reply "That is not genocide, he was a sex-trafficking pedophile that used minors as blackmailing pawns and more" would that be a defense? It does not look like a defense to me.
But he was wrong about English usage and about legal usage of the word "assault".
When we're talking about a child who has been trafficked and coerced into sex it's weird to "well actually, is it really assault?" into the conversation, especially if that's based on his misunderstanding of what the word means.
And the effect of his interject was to defend Minsky. When hundreds of people misinterpret him the blame lies with his poor communication, not their lack of comprehension.
According to the quote I read of RMS (I did not read the original email fully) the salient part is his discussion where he claims that "sexual assault" as an expression (at least colloquially) implies the use of force/violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/etc. by Minsky.
He claims that given the official report as true and taking the the claim of the victim as correct none of those (force/violence/aggression/intimidation/coercion/etc.) were likely.
This is independent on whether Minsky committed a crime or not. This is simply trying to properly understand what the accusations are. I honestly have no idea whether this would constitute rape/statutory rape/assault or any other crime, taking in goodwill what I have read it is likely that whatever happened (other witnesses claim to have seen Minsky decline the advances and the report does not claim any sexual encounter, "just" that Epstein instructed her to) Minsky did not use violence.
I actually believe I misrepresented RMS words here, as he truly only said that the violence implied by the word assault was unlikely.
(Also given that by other reports one of Epstein tactics was to lure guests into having sex with minors to blackmail them)
For example, people will call it "rape" when it's someone underage no matter the circumstance. Having willful sex with someone underage vs. physical forcing them to have sex with you are two very different things. Yet in (most?) people's minds they just call it rape, under the context that someone underage can't properly consent. Ok, but physical forcing yourself on someone vs willingly are still different things. I don't know what to call them, but calling them the same thing is completely disingenuous to the crime.
I'm guessing this is what he was going after? Maybe because when we think of "assault" we generally think it's the physical act of assault, not an emotional or control one...
