
Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims as 'Entirely Willing' - bandrami
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
======
nabla9
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.

~~~
gaspoweredcat
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.

------
eesmith
> 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.

~~~
rumanator
> 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.

~~~
eesmith
"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](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...](https://law.justia.com/codes/new-
mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-9/section-30-9-11/) . 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](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.

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

The only jurisdiction which is relevant is that where the accusation was made,
and in this case the crime that matches the accusation is statutory rape.

That's the whole point.

Please don't be disingenuous and cherry-pick jurisdictions that are entirely
unrelated and irrelevant to the discussion just to fabricate substante for
your baseless assertions. If you feel the need to persecute someone, do it
based on what he actually said instead of making up excuses.

~~~
eesmith
Stallman never made that point.

If I am wrong, please quote how Stallman's writings support your statement.

He wrote:

> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is
> absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

This is wrong because there are many jurisdictions where "sexual assault" is
the correct accusation, as defined specifically by law.

The best argument he could make is that "sexual assault" doesn't apply here,
not that is it "absolutely wrong". (I think he's wrong, which I will get to in
a moment.)

That is my point. It is _not_ absolutely wrong. It has a legal definition
which is about as well understood as "copyright."

Remember, he specifically rejected your argument that we need to look to a
specific jurisdiction:

> “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on
> minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18
> years old or 17.”

I have looked for, but failed, to find what "sexual assault" means in the
context of US VI law. It is _used_ in the law but not _defined_.

However, it is defined in US law as "any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed
by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to
consent." \-
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27)
(34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29)).

Second degree rape with a minor who is under the age of consent is therefore
correctly characterized as "sexual assault".

I regard sex with a sex slave to also be sex with someone who cannot consent.
However, I have not looked up that law.

For your argument to be true - as I understand it, you mean that Stallman is
specifically writing about US VI law - do you not assume that Stallman
consulted those legal sources first, before writing his email?

Because I don't believe he did, as what he wrote shows he has no clue about
what "sexual assault" means, both in the general US context and specifically
in the US VI context.

I believe I have cited my sources, both with respect to Stallman and the
relevant US law. Please do the same now and show how your interpretation of
Stallman is backed up by his statements.

On top of that, Stallman presumes the 17 year old was "entirely willing".
However, the law prohibits willingness from being a consideration when
determining some sorts of sexual assault, including second degree rape of a
minor.

For his argument to have merit, he must show that the woman was meaningfully
able to grant consent, and could grant consent. He did not do that, which
supports my belief that he does not understand the relevant law in the way he
would have to be able to make the argument you seem to suggest he's making.

------
merricksb
Earlier submission:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319)

