
Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims as 'Entirely Willing' - jchallis
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
======
devit
I think his words are being misrepresented.

He said this: " Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem [...] Let’s presume
that was true [...] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible
scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming
she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her
to conceal that from most of his associates. [...] "

I have no clue how plausible this scenario is, but I don't see any reason to
infer anything about the character of Stallman based on him suggesting it.

~~~
notus
Well you can infer things about his character based on his support of
pedophilia in general.

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The
> arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't
> voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea
> that their little baby is maturing.

> There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing
> participation in pedophilia hurts children.

These are not the types of statements a non pedophile would make. People who
are not pedophile's don't randomly argue that pedophilia is not harmful.

~~~
mpfundstein
where the hell did he make those statements?

~~~
noirscape
[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20Jun...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-
aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29)

[https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_Janua...](https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-
feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29)

Stallman has (several) pages on his website where he shares his political
views and takes.

------
bradknowles
IMO, all aspects of this subject are FUBAR beyond belief. Anyone who touches
it from any side is unlikely to have any positive results.

I think the real mistake here that rms made was to try to apply any form of
logic to what is a highly emotionally charged situation, and especially to try
to do that in any kind of a shared forum.

And yes, I am fully aware of the irony of my doing the same thing here.

I’ve had my disagreements with rms over the years on certain issues, but
frankly, I think he should have been smarter than this.

~~~
mav3rick
His applying logic clearly revealed his appalling views on the matter.

------
mieseratte
I suppose Mr. Stallman has never heard of "grooming." It's entirely possible
they were "willing" in an denotative sense of the word, but given maleability
of the young mind it's not exactly informed and willing consent as between two
standard adults.

There's a reason teachers in many states cannot have relations with former
students no matter the age of consent and of those involved.

~~~
jMyles
> two standard adults

But doesn't using a phrase like this open up the very matter that Stallman is
trying to implore the forum to consider? "Standard adults" is not concrete
language.

Can someone be a "standard adult" at 17? I don't know. I do know that I (and
everyone I know) was having sex at 17. I'm male (and white, and middle-class),
so my surface for being victimized in this way is much different from the
victim in this case. But I think Stallman's point is that calling this "rape"
merely because of the jurisdiction in which it happened serves to trivialize
the word "rape" rather than add clarity to Epstein's conduct.

~~~
eesmith
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_Ameri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Virgin_Islands_\(United_States\))
says that a 17 year old is not a "standard adult" when it comes to sex.

> I do know that I (and everyone I know) was having sex at 17.

Quoting the link:

"There is however a close-in-age exemption that allows minors 16 and 17 years
old to consent with someone no more than five years older than themselves and
minors 13 to 15 years old to consent with one another, but not with anyone 16
or over"

> Stallman's point is that calling this "rape" merely because of the
> jurisdiction in which it happened serves to trivialize the word "rape"

The relevant crime is "rape in the second degree", so the term "rape" is the
correct description.

Now, Stallman disagrees with that categorization. But without knowing what
Stallman's definition of "rape" \- and knowing that his description of "sexual
assault" doesn't reflect an understanding of the legal definition - it comes
across like he is minimizing what "rape" means by rejecting some of its
definitions.

------
jMyles
Treading carefully here...

It does not appear to me that Stallman is defending what we now know of
Epstein's abhorrent conduct. Instead, he's engaging in a very reasonable
debate about the terminology of accusations like these.

It's possible that I'm misreading this whole thing - if that's true, please
point it out. But the article seems to indicate that the worst of Stallman's
remarks are here:

<unknown>: Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin
Islands

<Stallman>:

Does it really? 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 think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term
‘sexual assault’ is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when
accusing anyone.

\---- On this specific passage (and again, there may be other bad stuff I'm
not seeing), I basically agree with Stallman. Rape is a serious, heinous
offense to nature. It is morally absurd - and insensitive to victims - to
define it as the person to whom Stallman is responding is apparently trying to
do.

The USA is a place of rampant sexism and obsession with alcohol (particularly
its use as a date-rape drug, although for some reason we don't call it that).
Rape is disgustingly commonplace. Talking about the laws of the Virgin Islands
as they apply to a 17-year-old is a great example of distraction from this
reality.

~~~
eesmith
His definition of "sexual assault" doesn't match with the legal definition.
Not by a long shot.

It is not a reasonable debate about the terminology to throw away all current
definitions and create new ones, without at least explaining why the current
one is wrong.

~~~
tastroder
I don't even follow the internal logic of that message. It's a reply to
somebody applying a legal term and pointing out alleged specifics that seem to
match with it's definition. And his rebuttal is an outright refusal of two of
the main criteria in the legal sense (IANAL but victim's age and location of
the alleged crime seem to be pretty relevant), mixed with a switch to a
"dispute" about the definition of another term that a bygone generation takes
issue with.

~~~
DanBC
I agree. There's a bunch of people who don't seem to know what the word
"assault" actually means, and who think it means "violent force is used".

~~~
curlypaul924
This is likely because the word "assault" is often used in conjunction with
"battery", so there is a very understandable mental association.

------
bb88
I always find it weird that we care about what software engineers think about
things completely unrelated to software engineers.

Why do we care what Richard Stallman thinks about Epstein? Why does his
experience with GNU and Hurd immediately make him expert about human
trafficking?

~~~
epakai
This wasn't about Epstein. It was about Marvin Minsky who was a director of
the MIT AI lab where Stallman started his ideas about software freedom.

------
Uptrenda
That's a hard yikes from me.

Be careful before posting a reply to this one... There are many subjects that
will naturally devolve into a witch hunt if you go even slightly off script...
even if you're just playing devils advocate.

In a company context I would not count on other people to give you the benefit
of the doubt for not immediately raising pitch forks when something gets
controversial. The needs of the loudest and most upset outweigh the thoughts
of the few.

I can see this getting ugly...

------
bonerman69
Woke af

