I'm really not complaining. It's just that cute that someone is so loyal to Stallman that they feel the need to do this.
Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault; I know that at least in some states, sexual assault of a minor is a strict liability offense, similar to possessing child porn. I also know that in other countries this isn't necessarily the case(e.g. in the UK there's strict liability only for ages under 13), so it is a contentious issue. Stepping away from the legality, there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be made about handling such horrific situations as child sex trafficking vs the obvious downsides of ignoring the lack of criminal intent.
I don't need to make "progress" from my initial point, because my initial point was simple (and correct), and no one in this thread has bothered responding to it. Stallman said what he said in very simple terms. I made a claim that Stallman said what he in fact said, and this whole thread has been full of trolls claiming he did not say what he patently did say. I'm not sure what "progress" I could possibly make from that. Hell, I'm the only person in this chain of comments who bothered quoting Stallman and commenting on it. It's pretty telling that the comment in which I actually quoted Stallman's words is the most downvoted in the thread - the truth hurts - and that's the point I was making with the follow-up comment..
> I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes.
I explicitly said, in the damn comment itself, that I wasn't complaining about the downvotes. I genuinely do think it's hilarious that a simple statement about what Stallman did in fact actually say has brought so many trolls out of the woodwork who have no ability whatsoever to defend their "position".
>Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault
And this is how I know that you're here to troll too, because I have been extraordinarily clear about the fact that I'm not arguing with anyone about this. The only thing I'm interested in defending is that Stallman said that Minsky couldn't have committed sexual assault if we assume that his victim "presented herself as willing".
Stallman said that. You can't get out of that. Frankly, in this comment, you didn't even try.
Actually, the terminology he used was not simple. For example:
"Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it)."
He's not saying he believes Minsky had sex with the girl; he's granting that it's possible, absent any contrary evidence, for the purposes of argument. That type of reasoning is called a hypothetical argument; the words "Let's presume" are the clue.
And indeed there is contrary evidence, of which RMS was aware: an eye-witness has stated that he saw Minsky being propositioned, and that Minsky rejected the advance.
So RMS adopted, for the purpose of defending his friend (a man who could not defend himself), an unsubstantiated hypothesis which he knew was contradicted by other evidence. Is this what you are calling "very simple terms"? It's actually a sophisticated bit of reasoning, and it's easy to misunderstand it if you don't read carefully. Note that it was addressed to a bunch of very clever people - people who can be expected to be able to parse such an argument - the subscribers to the CSAIL list. It was not addressed to the general public, nor the readership of pop-tech websites like Vice and TechCrunch.
Nothing about what I said is even remotely related to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. You don't need to be condescending and pretend to tell me what a hypothetical argument. I know what a hypothetical argument is.
What I am claiming is that RMS said that (given Minsky did have sex with her), if she presented herself as willing, then Minsky did not commit sexual assault. I have been clear about this from the very first comment (please take a second to go back and re-read it). Whether he actually had sex with her is irrelevant. My claim is about what RMS said about assault.
Do you deny that RMS said this?
FWIW, he evidently said that he thinks it's wrong to use the word "assault" when no coercion is involved. I think he may be wrong about that, if the word is being used as part of a term of art in law. It might also be something that depends on jurisdiction. RMS is instead complaining that the use of the term "assault" to refer to an act that (if it occurred at all) Minsky believed to be consensual, is prejudicial and unfair.
I was once told that in Common Law, "assault" occurs when you ball your fist and wave it in someone's face; "battery" occurs when you hit them with it. So in common language, assault means a physical threat of force. In the context of sexual assault, however, things look different. If you fiddle sexually with a three-year-old, you commit a serious sexual assault, even though no threat might have been involved.
OK, sure? I guess in that case I'm just confused about why you replied to the comment you did. My comment was that what RMS said [about assault] was simple and straightforward. You replied, saying, "it's actually not so simple". If you weren't actually disputing my claims about RMS, I guess I'm just totally lost on the point of what you were replying to in my comment.
You are being a little bit slippery, though. RMSs entire post to the CSAIL list concerned his objections to the accusations levelled against his late friend and colleague. He specifically objected to the use of the word "assault".
You said that RMS had expressed his defence "in simple terms"; I questioned that, pointing out that his post was sophisticated, and required a close reading. Now you are saying I have denied things that I have not denied; and asking me to re-read your posts, as if I have mis-read your remarks; but I have not.
Well, your initial argument was different (and nonsensical, which is why I tried to reinterpret it). I quote:
> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
The determination whether something was rape is intrinsically linked to whether something is a sexual assault(since rape is a kind of sexual assault...). If using legal terminology, your interpretation is just plainly incoherent. Otherwise, this kind of sloppy usage of terminology is exactly what Stallman was arguing against. The words "sexual assault" and "rape", outside their legal definitions, evoke quote Stallman: "moral vagueness of the nature of the criticism". This is quite clearly demonstrated by the myriad of commentary on the issue, which would blame Minsky for:
- this was strictly rape, it doesn't matter whether he knew or not
- he was recklessly careless, given the oddity of the situation, he should have done more due diligence
- he was creepy for accepting the proposal from the girl
This "accusation inflation", as Stallman puts it, leads to a classic motte-and-bailey doctrine, where one presents the strongest accusation, and when challenged, falls back to the lesser offenses, which can garner much more support. As soon as the challenger disappears, the accuser usually reverts back to the strongest accusation. I believe this is what Stallman was arguing against - if you dislike Minsky's conduct, be explicit in what you dislike about it.
Once you put both "sexual assault" and "rape" on the same side in Stallman's argument, it becomes much less controversial. Yet you characterized it as: "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse"
How can it possibly be "so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse" if it is the legal reality in a notable number of states and many countries? This was even brought up in the mailing list, I paraphrase: "if he had sex with her, and she was a minor, it was rape - that's the law". To give examples, in Massachusetts, the age of consent is 16; in California, there is no strict liability; in the UK, there is only strict liability for children under 13.
I can imagine reasonable arguments for or against strict liability(as I already mentioned earlier), but what I can't imagine is categorically declaring that this is "beyond the pale of responsible discourse". None of your replies expanded on this point.
>> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
Well, first of all, this is a factual claim I'm making on the basis of evidence, not an "argument". Either RMS said it or he didn't. I'm describing it as rape because that's what it legally is, and that's also what I believe it is ethically, but that's actually irrelevant to the point about RMS. If you insist, you can read my statement as "the people who had sex with her did not commit sexual assault".
If you want to get technical, "who raped her" is a clarifying statement of fact (which "people"? those who raped her), not a claim about what RMS thinks. Obviously he doesn't think Minsky raped her, because he thinks (it's plausible that) Minsky did not even sexually assault her. That is, I'm saying RMS said the people [the ones who raped her] did not commit sexual assault, not RMS said "the people who raped her didn't commit sexual assault." (I think I was a good bit more clear than this in the OP, but I'm doing my best to draw out the ambiguity here.)
>I believe this is what Stallman was arguing against - if you dislike Minsky's conduct, be explicit in what you dislike about it.
Well, as I've pointed out so many times already in this thread (not exasperated at you specifically, but the piling on and trollery is getting quite old), my point is not about whether Stallman's claims are correct or not. The point is that I claimed in my OP that Stallman said P. A hundred people have come out of the woodwork to tell me he did not say P, but have consistently provided zero evidence, while I've been quite clear, providing links and analysis of his actual statements. And I've been downvoted to hell for saying these things about a community hero.
For the last time, to be as clear as possible, the only thing I want to defend in this thread is that RMS made this argument:
1. If X has sex with Y, but X does not coerce Y to have sex, X does not sexually assault Y.
2. (Assume) M had sex with Y, but Y presented herself as entirely willing to M.
C. M did not sexually assault Y.
So it's a defense that even if Minsky had sex with her, he (probably) didn't assault her, because she (probably) presented herself as willing.
That is what RMS said. That's also what I said he said. It's something many people think is a very offensive and false statement (which is why he was fired), though I'm not really interested in defending the fact that it's offensive and false. (I said I thought this was irrelevant in my OP, go check.) I'm only interested in defending the fact that this is what he said.
(You've been downvoted, but not by me, you can't downvote replies. This thread is toxic as hell, but someone will probably be along to upvote you shortly.)
From what I can see, it would be an admissable defense in the Virgin Islands(strict liability for only under 13), and irrelevent in Massachusets(age of consent > 16), etc. But I don't mean to wade too deply in the legal correctness - it's quite possible I'm wrong(not a lawyer), my point simply being that I can't see how this argument is out of line, given the controversial[1] nature of strict liability, and the differing statutes from state to state and country to country.
[1] - Here's a quote demonstrating its controversial status:
> The Supreme Court proclaimed that "[t]he contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by [mens rea] is no provincial or transient notion. It is ... universal and persistent in mature systems of law ...." Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952). See also United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 98 S. Ct. 2864, 57 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1978) (offenses that do not contain a mens rea element have a "generally disfavored status").
(Taken from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2336454/francis-v-gove...)
As I said in the OP, I wanted to make a fairly simple point about RMS's leadership of GNU. My claim that it was beyond the pale was something that I explicitly said is "not really relevant for this particular thread".
Maybe a reasonable debate could be had on this point, but it wasn't one that I was interested in having when I wrote the OP (and I said as much), and I definitely don't feel like getting into it now after hours of this miserable slog of a thread. It's also worth pointing out that you're the first person (I think) to debate this point: most comments (go through and read them!) are denying that RMS said these things.
Thank you for at least saying you agree with my interpretation.