> 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.
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 (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.
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.