Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims as 'Entirely Willing'

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing

by bandrami • 7 years ago

10 10 7 years ago

vice.com

nabla9• 7 years ago

RMS has called himself "borderline autistic". I don't disagree. His socially clueless black and white thinking makes it look like he is far in the spectrum. On the other hand it's also his superpower. He does not care about social norms.

RMS is anal about meanings of terms and their use. That's not working well in the current climate where words carry perceived intent. I find myself agreeing with RMS with most of the terminology and it's use in this case.

On the other hand other discussions reveal that RMS has very bad understanding of developmental psychology, sexuality etc. and tries to to figure it out using reasoning which does not work when his model is broken.

The lesson:

If you are figurehead of some big cause, never talk aloud publicly about controversial subjects outside your field. Being a good figurehead means presenting a role to the public. All the stupid and loose talk paints the whole cause.

devoply• 7 years ago

Well he's right that the legal fiction that a minor below the age of 18 in some countries and 17 and 16 in other countries can not consent is arbitrary. And that logically taken at face value the only way to consistently justify the gap between different legal systems to acknowledge that they are in fact legal fictions and if the lesser of those ages can consent in some jurisdictions and it's acceptable then it should be the case that anyone that age or older can consent. But we don't live in that world, we live in a world of legal fictions which are then used to punish those that transgress against the laws. At the end of the day all of this drama is about money and power and its distribution among the rich who exploit and the poor who are exploited and feel that they deserve a greater piece than they got.

This though is different from Epstein who was allegedly a much more dangerous predator going after young children who are not considered to be able to consent in any jurisdiction. At some point it's not longer arbitrary and highly wrong, and he was squarely in that camp if the reports and accusations are to be believed.

PavlovsCat• 7 years ago

If you are figurehead of some big cause, never talk aloud publicly about controversial subjects outside your field.

I rather think people around him should insist on explaining to him that minors can't consent to some things, certainly not sex with adults, trafficking and prostitution, period. The age may be arbitrary but that doesn't make it "absurd". For him to claim otherwise, no matter how benign the intent, isn't something I'd let slip by.

gaspoweredcat• 7 years ago

im very similar in that regard (i have ASD myself) socially inept, pedantic about terminology etc, but i learned to shut up and keep my opinions to myself as they often dont go down too well, challenging the social norms really does not sit right with a lot of people.

merricksb• 7 years ago

Earlier submission:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319

eesmith3• 7 years ago

RMS is anal about meanings of terms and their use. That's not working well in the current climate where words carry perceived intent

That would be well and good, except that he's talking about terms like "sexual assault" which have well-defined legal terms that fit the case at hand.

Instead, he is re-defining legal terms in a way that don't fit the current actual intent of those terms.

rumanator2• 7 years ago

That would be well and good, except that he's talking about terms like "sexual assault" which have well-defined legal terms that fit the case at hand.

You've got it entirely backwards. The whole point made by RMS is that the accusations do not fit the well-defined legal term, thus he pointed out which crime in fact does fit the accusation: statutory rape.

eesmith3• 7 years ago

"Many states used the offense of sexual assault to replace conduct formerly defined as rape", ergo, Stallman is wrong.

Here's my citation: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-court-of-appeals/1866619.html (italics added to show the source of the above quote)

9. The entry for “sexual assault” in Black's Law Dictionary provides two definitions. First, “sexual assault” means “[s]exual intercourse with another person who does not consent [,]” noting “[s]everal state statutes have abolished the crime of rape and replaced it with the offense of sexual assault. ”Black's Law Dictionary 138 (10th ed. 2014). Second, “sexual assault”means “[o]ffensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape.” Id.
{22} The first entry in the dictionary narrowly defines sexual assault as intercourse because, as noted, many states used the offense of sexual assault to replace conduct formerly defined as rape. In New Mexico, the crime of rape was not replaced with the offense of sexual assault. State v. Keyonnie, 1977-NMSC-097, ¶ 5, 91 N.M. 146, 571 P.2d 413 (explaining that “[t]he essential elements of the common law crime of rape, from which the statutory offense of criminal sexual penetration was derived,” were carnal knowledge or intercourse). Rather, the crime of rape was replaced with the offense of criminal sexual penetration.

Remember, Stallman argues that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation".

Yet here we see that some jurisdictions use "sexual assault" as a replacement for the term "rape".

And we see jurisdictions (like New Mexico) where "criminal sexual penetration" was used to replace the term "rape". Indeed, here's the law: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/arti... . But are you seriously (outside of a technical and pointless argument) going to say that "rape" and "sexual assault" aren't illegal in New Mexico?

So Stallman is wrong to say that "statutory rape" is the right legal term. At the very least he has to say that "it is not considered sexual assault in the US Virgin Islands" .. except the US V.I. laws do use the term "sexual assault" so then he has to point to the US V.I. definition of "sexual assault" to show that it's the wrong definition. Which he did not.

As another example, we can look at US military law, which distinguishes between "rape" and "sexual assault", at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920 . In that definition, "rape" involves force, or 'threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping' or drugging a person.

While "sexual assault" - contrary to Stallman's "absolute" views - includes things which does not include force, like "inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person" or " without the consent of the other person".

Note that someone under the age of consent (17 in the US V.I., with exceptions for similarity in age and for sex with one's spouse) cannot consent to sex under the law.

In other words, Stallman's definition, which says that sexual assault "presumes that he applied force or violence" is much more aligned with the military's definition of "rape" than the military's definition of "sexual assault."

Making Stallman, again, wrong in saying that "sexual assult" is an "absolutely wrong" term.

Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims as 'Entirely Willing'

Related Stories