What stallman pointed out was the inaccurate definition of a specific term and possibly wanting a fair and accurate description of the events of someone he knew. He's previously taken issue with inconsistency which could place and 17 year old in prison on their 18th birthday if they're already in a relationship with someone even born just a few days apart depending on which country they're in. He also stressed that placing Minsky at the same level as Epstien is wrong unless there's evidence Minsky was completely in on the deal (which there seems to be none as far as I'm aware).

The many other things seem to be lacking in evidence. The earlier point of women unwilling to report men in high positions just means a lack of evidence thus no justice can be had. It's the same as not reporting a robbery. Nobody can do anything if nobody knows it ever happened (outside of those involved).

I do agree that there should be some work within helping victims report without feeling as vulnrable to the point of keeping it to themselves but I don't think media outlash is the right tool for this. Nor do I think trying to socially hang those that comment on the topic is the right thing to do. All it does is prevent the much needed discussion around what the terms actually mean and if we can be more accurate in their definitiion to provide a better framework for dealing with such cases.

People have to occasionally talk about difficult issues to find out. There isn't a common moral or legal standard about what either of those words mean on the margins, in globally or in the US.

If people can't voice opinions that are wrong, they have no easy way of finding out why those opinions are wrong.