There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky.
The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing.
This isn't us vs. them.
This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch.
I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, in a situation like this, but fired is over the top.
Stallman said “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.”
It's pretty clear with the age difference being what it is, this is exactly what statutory rape laws are for. But it is also incongruous that somehow if she was a year older it would be ok. It's also fucked up that if Minsky were 19, the consequences would be the same. Maybe there's a better law to be had here, but how would we ever know if you can't even have the discussion?
I'm appalled by how free speech is under attack lately by the outrage machine.
I agree with this statement.
Stallman has been a problematic person for a long time. I'm no fan of his. If after a while the university had said, "Enough is enough, Richard, you need to shape up or get out." I would have understood that.
However, that's not what I think happened. What happened was he shared an opinion on a hot-button issue, pedantic and maybe gross, and unfortunately had that go viral and was so hounded out of his position.
If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. If his opinion is so problematic that it makes him a real liability for the university, his removal should come after a period of deliberation, not after a flash of public outrage.
I can understand arguments that Stallman's position is a questionable hill to die on regarding the Epstein revelations, that even choosing to weigh in on this makes it seem like his priorities are out of order. I can also understand the argument that the email list he was arguing on was the wrong location to voice his opinions and he was making students uncomfortable. I also understand the idea that he should have been corrected by the university, either for this event or for his past behavior.
But what I don't understand, is this idea that firing people in response to media shit-storms is somehow something to be applauded.
Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.
I don't take "free speech" to mean anyone can say anything without consequence. The government has a whole lot of power and it comes with limits like free speech.
That doesn't mean that people in my employ can say awful things and I should just ignore it.
Free speech doesn't extend to being protected from consequences for how you express yourself.
There are clearly mob reactions to things, but there are also clearly inappropriate speech that should have consequences.
What he said here wasn’t in isolation as some idle musing. context matters. He wasn’t talking about the theoretical of a 19 year old. He was talking about this in context of Minsky being a 74 year old man with a 17 year old girl. Maybe he wasn’t aware of the impact of his words, but that shouldn’t get him a free pass.
First, "lynch mob" is inappropriate and irrelevant. Given Stallman's statements, in the forum in which they were made, many reasonable employers would have fired him, with or without some "lynch mob."
Second, Stallman didn't express his views in private conversation, but rather in a forum where those views would have made it very hard for colleagues to continue working with him. If I'm X and you tell me or to Y in private conversation, "X is an idiot" or something of the sort, then that's one thing. If you say so in a forum where others can read it, then you're showing public disrespect towards colleagues, which is a fireable offense.
Here's what he could have said instead: "Have we seen evidence that Minsky himself engaged in illegal activity?" That's it. It would have expressed his point just as well, and would not have shown disrespect toward colleagues.
So is Stallman's speech in question here odious? At first glance, not really. But when you put it in context:
The entire brouhaha starts with a sexual predator whose actions are known to but ignored by associates because money (or equivalently, power). Stallman is defending an associate of his who is tainted by association with Epstein. In the kinder light, this defense is essentially pedantry (just rape, not sexual assault). In the harsher light, this defense is "there's nothing inherently wrong with the entire situation here."
In this situation, I think the harsher light is closer to RMS's intent. He has made statements in the past saying that he believes there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex with children (although he has now walked back those statements). In addition, he appears to have acquired a reputation as a sexual harasser among women at MIT over the past few decades.
With that context, it does look like Stallman shares a lot of attributes with "prominent people whose sexual harassment has been ignored because they're powerful people, and who is not sorry about it." And pushing him out of leadership positions because of those views is acceptable consequences in my opinion. More so because it appears to me that he doesn't appreciate how power differential may affect the ability of people to give consent, he is in a position of power, and he appears to desire consent that may be unwilling.
I bet everyone here has one opinion that can definitely and very quickly destroy their lives. Let people be wrong, let them speak, let them think ... We can then convince and converge into a common good. Cancelling the guy that gave his life for the cause is appalling and is showing how evil social media is.
It probably wouldn't be okay. She was coerced and trafficked, and many laws exist to make having sex with those people illegal.
In some places it's illegal even if you don't know they were coerced or trafficked.
I'm not saying I agree with Eich - far from it. Seeing as an awful lot of people on this very thread were outraged by his behaviour, it strikes me as being contrary to be more understanding towards RMS for what is arguably far more heinous simply because they admire him more. Both Gates and Jobs are/were relentlessly and repeatedly pilloried for their "immoral" approach to business and freedom, but to question what constitutes rape or a suggestion that paedophilia is harmless is forgiven readily, because the individual "likes" the perpetrator is abhorrent.
Now if he was a pedophile, he should be in jail. But he is not, he is exersizing free speech, no matter how disgusting it is, he is entitled to it. Should Nabokov have been made unemployable too for writing Lolita?
You are free to say what you like, but the rest of us are free to take actions in response to that so long as those actions don't violate your constitutional rights.
There's no constitutional right to a job or a board membership.
The way I look at this is through responsibility. It's like what we learned in Spiderman, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
So it's not that Stallman can't have this conversation anywhere. It's that when he has it so publicly, it makes people question whether he is wielding his power well.
Sometimes responsibility means not saying anything at all. Presumably, Stallman is at MIT for computer science and free software. Why is he speaking off topic to MIT students and alum? Presumably he could develop non-MIT relationships and have whatever crazy conversations he wanted.
More often, I think the responsibility is just to do a lot more work. If you're famous and you speak off the cuff on topics that you haven't researched, then your comments get a reach that's undeserved. It's a misapplication of your fame.
I thought that about PGs most recent luggage comments. This is something that had an answer that he could look up and share with people. Or if that's too hard, he could have gotten a thorough answer privately. Seeing him be so willfully and publicly ignorant made me question whether he deserved the power that comes with fame. Laziness like that is diminishing and eventually it gets to the point where people are so diminished that they should lose their jobs and/or positions of authority.
In that context, fired is more than fair. His image being linked with pedophilia (on top of the other issues he has) makes him a really bad choice for the public face of a movement/foundation.
If he was, say, a lead engineer whose work was not tied to his image, we could have an argument - but that's quite clearly not the case.
Can you provide some examples of people who have been made "completely unemployable" by the twitter lynch mob?
The FSF is even worse because he's supposed to be in a position of leadership there and represents the organisation. And they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to decide whether to support some controversial statement about age of consent laws just because one of their leaders decided to stick up for one of his friends. It's just not worth it.
Just ask James Damore and his memo on a certain ideological echo chamber. I read his document, and found his view point to be sadly misinformed; yet his right to speech wasn't protected. He was fired.
That was the moment I realized free speech isn't really a thing any more if it touched certain topics. Yes constitutionally we still do, but we can easily lose everything that matters to us even if we win the court battle.
There's a hundred years of history explaining why the balance point between freedom of speech and freedom from fear has been calibrated thusly.
The man has no understanding of the concept of consent, and why a child is unable to grant it. He can have whatever opinions he wants, but as a spokesperson for the FSF, he sure as shit shouldn't be broadcasting that one.
This isn't some rando who works for an organization being punished for airing their opinion. This is someone whose job is public speaking, speaking in a way that actively harms any organization he is associated with.
I generally don't see the hacker community jump to the defense of someone who has so colossally mucked up at his one job, but here we are, turning ourselves in knots in the defense of the right of a public speaker to remain employed when his speech is actively harming his employer.
It should also be noted, without the faintest shred of irony that the man consented to resign. I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of it...
Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritans being opposed to self determination shaming others into conformism? Its not like the US where you cant drink until you are 21, but get to join the army with 18, where sex ed is often reduced to abstinence only, where the government does its best to infringe into womens right to get abortions, where you can be prosecuted for sexting as a minor and lets not forgett where sex workers are almost across the country criminalized has any moral high ground on the topic what so ever.
But thats besides the point. First the MIT donation and now this stuff over 3 corners. How about we focus on what actually is the problem here? How many people from both parties had connections to not a brothel owner but someone involved in human trafficking and coercing minors into sexwork? How he got away with this this despite being brought infront of a judge for it? Or why they were on that island in the first place and why Eppstein apparently invited so many people. The word compromat comes to mind. But these politicians arent so easy targets, people like Stallman or the guy at MIT are. The mob wants blood and it doesnt seem to matter whos. I would recommend checking your moral compass if you are at threat of being sued for slander after the discussion here.
It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation.
Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral.
That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy that hates fun.
That is empathy to the all too common situation of young vulnerable women being used for pleasure.
In what insane hypothetical does a 17 year old girl have consensual sex with a 74 year old man on a billionaire's island? At best it's prostitution, c'mon.
Yes, it was rape and trafficking - that's terrible enough as it is, no need to make it look worse than it is. This is essentially diluting the most terrible crime of abusing young children.
You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.
Here's a counter. You're ascribing intent to one's writing, and unless you have a special relationship with Mr. Stallman - you don't know anything.
Because of a radical, illiberal mob, Stallman's life's work has been taken from him.
Few years ago I had had a Junior engineer on my team begin telling me how he finds certain speech so intolerable that he feels he has the right to assault someone for saying it. This is the reasoning behind these kinds of mob justices.
So now I see a mob hurting yet another life, not because of real-world conduct, but because of speech. I see real-world destruction wrought because of speech.
What never occurred to this young man was that there exist people who find the suppression of speech to be what is truly intolerable in this world. That this form of group-think is truly destructive, that actions are of consequence, not speech.
Do pray the pendulum never swings in your direction.
This isn't a one-time thing where he never did a bad thing in his life and now is suddenly attacked by a mob. He has been an awful person for a long, long time, and now he is suddenly facing actual consequences.
Most people feel this way. Not with nearly as much speech as your junior did, but there are certain forms of speech we are so against we have written exceptions into law and the Supreme Court even used concepts such as obscenity to empower these laws to ignore even the First Amendment.
Is it really surprising a generation or two later people are now seeking to have even more speech fall under such bans?
I yell fire in a crowded theatre, that’s ok it wasn’t my intent to cause panic.
Should we highly value the idea of free speech? I believe we should. But we should also recognize that there's no such thing as "just speech". What we say matters, particularly if, like Dr. Stallman in this case, we are public figures speaking in what (given the number and types of people involved) is a semi-public forum.
There are two well know aphorisms: "the pen is mightier than the sword" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". But if one recalls the last is derived from a line in the Bible that says in whole: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Sometimes, we should put the pen back in its place, lest we kill or die by it in our hubris.
Supposing intent behind them isn't necessary.
What they say is damning regardless of intent.
And the intent was pretty obvious.
So, yeah, now it's catching up to him, for something nobody in his right mind every does in a corporate environment: giving his opinion on the moral definition of rape. Fucking come on man, how can you defend this moron, who does that ?
You see yourself tomorrow, in charge of the education of students, writing around to your colleagues about what is or is not a rape, for all to record and copy paste to newspapers ? At least do it on skype and add a smiley...
You're justifying the actions a lynch mob. Why does anyone need to provide a counter point? The onus is on you to explain why you think a mob taking justice into their own hands is okay. The only justification I can find is that he said something inappropriate. Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
Completely missing the point of the outrage.
It's the chilling effect of people silencing views they don't like that really freaks people out, pisses them off and makes them mad. The actual views in play are irrelevant - the issue is that some person was uncomfortable at something some other person said, so they silenced the man's ability to say it. Not just that, they took away his vitality and ability to support himself. Anyone with any kind of functional critical reasoning facilities can instantly understand why this is scary.
It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions. If you think the wrong way, the progressive mob will make you seem unemployable. Because you had the audacity to say something "inappropriate," (oh also the mob determines what's appropriate and inappropriate on the fly).
No I'm not. I also don't think the outcome had anything to do with the mob. There were plenty of people even before the mob knew anything, who took strong exception to what RMS was saying.
> Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
I'm not. MIT decided what was appropriate for their organization and the moral behavior of its employee and associate.
I am making what I think is a pretty universal moral statement in that old men taking advantage of young women for sexual pleasure is very wrong.
> It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions.
These aren't just "non-mainstream opinions" he was defending actions which most western societies consider rape. This isn't some slippery slope where people can't say anything nonconformist, this is a situation where people don't want to be associated with you when you publicly defend taking advantage of vulnerable, abused young women.
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
This is a man who said something mildly inappropriate in a forum, as is his wont.
> He deserved it.
A completely appropriate and reasonable verdict, no doubt. Doubts are for unreasonable people, of which one you are not.
> I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
Somehow I doubt that.
But, he wasn't?
1. "Minsky has been accused of assault"
2. RMS: "you shouldn't call it assault - might give people the wrong idea"
3. "It would have been literally rape in the relevant territory, 'assault' is a fine word for it"
4. RMS: "ok, even if it's legally rape, it shouldn't morally be considered rape, so don't call it assault if it was 'just' statutory rape."
What inaccuracies did he point out? I see that he expressed his opinion that 'assault' is too strong a word for some cases of rape, but what inaccuracy was there in the original statement regarding the allegations about minsky?
>When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community. Regardless of intent, this thread reads as "grasping at straws to defend our friends" around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn't a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.
What do you think as an administrator if you see a comment like that about one of your prominent employees?
Seriously, what is it with all those people discussing in corporate and public function their stupid opinion of the moral definition of rape. Let justice speak, and you, speak privately. For someone lauded as a genius of some sort, he could have maybe understood what you can say where.
It's the accused that is the problem with this. He isn't defending the proven actions of a pervert, he is defending the memory of a dead friend, suggesting that his friend was incapable of the crime of which he is accused. If defending an accused friend is now itself punishable by excision from society, then the effect of an accusation alone becomes immediate isolation. The presumption of innocence, not only in court, but in public discourse, is a vital component of a genuinely free society. I will not support people who reject it.
There are good reasons that our legal systems favor the accused -- ones that I _fully_ support -- but it is an unreasonably high epistemic standard for us to operate under in our daily lives.
If I don't want to associate with someone because they're an asshole, I'm under no obligation to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. My freedom of association is more fundamental.
He was defending statutory rape and taking advantage of vulnerable young women - it does not matter whether the actual event happened or not. RMS was defending rape in a very public forum and got fired.
He took a position in a discussion you disagree with, so you're OK with him being removed from his organizations and his name dragged through the mud. Your argument stands for a world where people deserve to be stripped of their position because they expressed an opinion you disagree with.
Even if you're completely 100% right, how do 'indefensible opinions' get challenged if they cannot be expressed? How do any of us learn or improve?
Has anyone taken a moment to think, what comes next now that he's gone? I hope for your sake and mine that the accomplishments of the GNU and FSF will be enough to keep us free.
Plenty of criminals take objection to their crimes being described as crimes, but “men should be allowed to have sex with underaged girls” is a particularly self-serving and gross position for a man in a position of power over young women to take.
There is another aspect of his emails - he also wrote that she presented herself as willing and that was entirely misquoted as 'she was willing', which was unfair. Stallman's point was that it is a bit misleading to characterise the act as 'assault' if it was she who sought out Minsky and he was not aware of the fact that she was coerced by Epstein. This is a bit insensitive splitting hair - but the misquoting was really mean.
Now, most people would mount a defense along the lines of "I don't believe Minsky would have sex with trafficked girls". RMS, always with the innovative methods, decided "Maybe it's not so bad to have sex with trafficked underage girls".
But, like it or not, he was clearly capable of making that defense. So I don't know where "can't defend" is coming from.
Many people, including you, have lost their grasp for the concept of different moral attitudes. The above is just your opinion, not mine. I do not agree with it and find it irritating that you consider your moral judgement an argument that requires to be countered.
In my opinion, you are conflating inappropriate statements with statements to which you disagree.
The university campus is where minds should go to get challenged by different and somewhat uncomfortable opinions. RMS presents different and uncomfortable opinions in spades. But he does not present them in an inappropriate way. The thread RMS was responding to was explicitly political and opinion based. It was absolutely fair game for his response.
As an example, when I attended university, I took a class (Anthro 2A) where the material presented pedophilia as normal behavior in the context of certain cultural customs. I personally disagree with that research, but I didn't call for the instructor to be fired. Cultural relativism is an important concept that should be thought about even if one disagrees.
But the actual Stallman/MIT kerfluffle is actually not that big a deal IMO.
The bigger deal is the mob acting on deceptive reporting by Vice & DailyBeast. It's one thing to say that Stallman's factual statements on Minsky were inappropriate. It's another to conflate them with statements on Epstein. The vast majority of the outrage is based on the reporting that makes Stallman appear sympathetic to Epstein which is a complete fabrication. It is literally 'fake news'.
So what? Lawyers do this all the time. Is it really important that the person accused was Stallman's friend?
Also, what's exactly wrong with an argument that one should not conflate "having sex with Bob" with "sexually assaulting Bob"?
Everyone is allowed to believe anything they damn well please. They are even allowed to state it. There should not be a viewpoint holding which makes one unemployable. because as soon as that exists, there is no freedom of speech, only a caricature of it.
freedom of speech is not about saying things that everyone agrees with. It is about saying things everyone disagrees with. and yes, speech comes with consequences. But those should be doled out logically, not by an angry mob forcing an institution's hand.
The common argument that I hear is that free speech does not come free of consequences. Fine. But those should be clear and well defined. Not decided by a mob at any given moment. If you want to clearly state that you will not employ anyone who holds the following views, that is okay with me. But firing somebody because the mob demanded it, is against the very idea of freedom of speech
The issue is not voicing an opinion in private -- it's voicing it on an institutional mailing list in his capacity as a member of that institution.
Yes, this bashing is totally unreasonable, he expressed an opinion that the charge against Minsky is not valid. One party makes an accusation, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for the other party to counter it. Accusation is not the same thing as proof. There is a category of accusations these days that are just the same as a jury sentence, if you're labeled, then you're done. No evidence, witness saying this didn't happen ? Still guilty.
> Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned.
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
I do not think this changes everything, but if this is indeed his honest opinion, then I do feel that he might have simply communicated his opinions very poorly.
I got your back: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
It's the PDF of the email thread (sigh) at the end of the article.
(Not gonna make any comments because of the mob roaming around.)
> "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation."
Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
[and in my opinion: it's the last sentence that made his statement wildly inappropriate. It's one thing if he wanted to raise the possibility that Minsky was deceived, and while incorrect it would be excusable, but his last sentence is a belligerent assumption of bad faith, and it is highly inappropriate for him to use such absolute language in denying sexual assault]
It's not plausible that an 17 year old would be propositioning old men without any external influence in this situation. I think he's strongly implying this and that's part of what got the strong reaction.
I'd suggest due to that, the statement is dodgy even before you get to the bit you highlight.
I don’t think what he said was wildly inappropriate for the forum. It’s an open discussion forum. People not understanding and being offended is not something that RMS or a reasonable poster could predict or prevent.
I read through the entire thread and it’s not as bad as people are interpreting. I think people are inferring intent and meaning that just isn’t there.
I’m pretty disappointed in FSF.
In a country where the current president was elected on a platform of "grab them by the pussy"? Ha.
Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.
How about a rational debate concerning factual things? I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened.
edit: so apparently all of it started with this:
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before. She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it
Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion.
If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options:
1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship.
2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized.
3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially.
Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?
That's totally bogus, and I think you should consider the consequences that your speech is already having on the people around you.
Who owned the island is not relevant, how much money they make is not relevant, and whether they're Stallman's friend is not relevant to either the morality or legality of the matter. Being wealthy or old is not a crime.
Stallman's controversial comment was:
> “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.”
Whether you agree or disagree that is a reasonable statement to make.
That said, I don't really see how this is grounds for termination. Again, I am not defending the guy or his utterly bizarre opinion on the matter. He had a disagreeable personal opinion and wrote it out load... so what? He wasn't advocating for harm of any person, persons, or group.
People are way too sensitive and we are giving away far too much to save face among people who aren't worth the effort. If I were king for a day and ran some kind of public facing organization here is how I would manage these things:
1. Anybody who communicates or advocates harm to any person, persons, or group gets a naughty warning. On the second offense they are permanently banned, terminated, or what ever.
2. Anybody who communicates offense or defensive language (cry babies) gets their post flagged (suppressed and locked). Sad people feed trolls. They are not hostile, but they are still part of the problem. I am sure they have all kinds of wonderful justifications, but I don't care.
This would allow people to disagree within bounds of acceptable behavior while also preventing mass hysteria and echo chamber insanity.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioVcs/status/11714435848069939...
That's not what happened.
Minsky was accused, and those are the details.
It doesn't matter if it didn't happen, RMS was defending Minsky in the situation that it did by saying the girl who was less than a quarter of his age would have appeared willing.
That gets you fired. Even if it is entirely hypothetical.
The discussion is between free speech and appropriate speech. Which is both sides have tribes supporting them Libertarian vs SJW. You might not see the divide but every one else does and you can see that.
> The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other"
You might not agree with or recognise the tribes but they exist.
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
MIT is a university its a public place where adults go to seek truth, if this is an inappropriate place for adults to discuss adult subjects then where is?
I get the argument it's not "public" because the land is privately owned but it is a place where the public gather. While I frequently see this argument it is never accompanied with what would be an appropriate public venue for adults to discuss inappropriate things.
