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.