Comment by lucideer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lucideer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> RMS' emails bemoan wishy-washy reporting, and are centered around calls for clarity and precision. With some insensitive words.

The "insensitive words" seem the issue for me, from my reading of his emails, and referring to them as just that seems an understatement.

> The announcement [...] does injustice to Marvin Minsky. The injustice is the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation; [...] The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's harem. [...] The word "assault" presumes that he applied force [...] but the article says no such thing.

Yes the above words are insensitive (calling such accusations "vague and slippery" by definition does a massive injustice to anyone who's ever suffered such a fate), but much more objectively, they're also blindly or wilfully false. The article he links as a reference opens with the following words:

> A victim of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein testified that she was forced to have sex with MIT professor Marvin Minsky

There is no more direct contradiction of RMS' statements than the opening words of the article he links in his email. There's absolutely no question of his communication on this being appropriate.

I've read the same emails and I agree with the previous comment. Despite english not being my mother tongue, it is clear what RMS is saying and there's no room for interpretating his words differently without misinterpreting or changing what he meant.

RMS words can not do massive injustice as they are words not judges, besides his words are actually expressing an attempt to correct a perceived injustice of misqualifying some accusation toward a dead guy that cannot defend himself.

Actually the headlines fits exactly the point RMS is making, that if she was forced, Epstein was the one not Minsky. Then again do not stop at the headline, read the whole article and read the source used for the article, there is no mention of the use of force, the only mentions of her being forced to have sex are with different persons and contradicts her earlier 2011 allegations (page 33). The part mentioning Minsky does not even confirm she actually had sex with him, only that she was sent to by Ms Maxwell (page 182). So I guess you are right there's absolutely no question here, but not in the direction that would fit your narrative and opinion.

> There is no more direct contradiction of RMS' statements than the opening words of the article he links in his email.

It doesn't contradict what RMS is saying.

> The word "assault" presumes that he applied force [...] but the article says no such thing.

"He" here means Marvin Minksy and the part of the article you cited doesn't imply that Minsky forced the victim.

Also I haven't seen sources that claim that the victim had sex with Minsky and seen at least one source that claims that he turned her down [0].

[0]: http://archive.is/nZIjt#selection-269.94-269.136

> at least one source that claims that he turned her down

We're not debating what happened: as far as I know, Minsky is presumed innocent until any potential judgements are delivered. What RMS was debating was not whether Minsky has done anything wrong, but whether he has been accused of doing so.

Minsky was accused of having sex with a girl who was being coerced at the time. Even if one wants to split hairs about Epstein being some kind of enforcer figure of said coercion, I'm pretty surprised that people would somehow believe this would nullify Minsky's alleged act being considered sexual assault?

He may not have done it. He is still only "accused". But the act he is accused of is inarguably assault.

My understanding is that RMS is saying the girl being forced to have sex with Minsky unknowingly to Minsky !== Minsky assaulted them. The person who forced them did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com