Stallman:
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
Selam G.
> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.
VICE:
> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.
New York Post:
> MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’
It could be true.
I'm not saying I agree with him or that I would have said the same things (I'm no Stallman, nobody cares about what I say anyway) but what he said was just the result of logical reasoning
For example if you look at the titles it's easy to dismiss RMS as someone who favours rapists, but in the article he's always quoted in full and the things he said are a bit different
For example quoting the VICE article
> RMS: “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.”
And he's not entirely wrong.
Rape in rape even in space at the age of 93.
And that's absurd.
Do we all agree on this?
for different reasons
- 17 years 364 days is any different from 18 years old 0 days?
- Stallman was talking (at the time) about consensual sex, not rape
- Stallman said he found absurd that rape was defined in terms of `minor details` not that rape does not exists. He's not wrong.
> still American moral and culture norms apply.
In USA people should be horrified by Facebook spying kids[1], not about what Stallman thinks
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/
Legal drafting always leads to absurdities. It is not possible to draft laws that don't; the practical need for unambiguous rules combined with complex reality means there are always edge cases.
Illustrating this general fact with the highly specific case of old rich men screwing young, powerless kids is going to cause other people to wonder about why it seems like you're only interested arguing about legal absurdities in this specific context. After all, you could illustrate your point with, say, the catch 22s inherent in the modern debt peonage systems in the US, or how pro-bono plaintiffs are regularly abused for not following rules they have no access to see, or a nearly endless parade of other examples.
Let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on, a lot of folks are going to be less focused on your nuanced legal argumentation.
I tend to agree, and I suspect most people would, including Stallman.
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing but that she was coerced into doing so?
Nor does RMS have an excuse for what he said and now we're finally seeing that the aloof misanthrope schtick only goes so far. Good riddance.
> Computer scientist Richard Stallmann, who defended Jeffrey Epstein...
> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
stop. stop and think about this. you’re telling me that some random person on the internet can sit there and claim, with a straight face, decades removed from the event, and completely unaware of what went down in that room, that “the most plausible scenario” is that she was willing? are you kidding me? how do you know? he wasn’t there. he doesn’t know this person. and why is this so plausible? on what actual basis here is he making this statement? oh, that’s right, nothing except his own prejudices.
he doesn’t know a damned thing about what happened in that room, and for him to jump to the conclusion that, well obviously, she wanted it, is freaking absurd.
he entirely deserves to get pilloried for this statement alone. he had no business jumping into this discussion, he has absolutely no basis on which to make his judgements except his high opinion of himself, and to go out of his way to engage in a public debate about such a highly sensitive subject when he knows jack squat about it shows an incredible lack of judgement.
the media didn’t do this to RMS, he did.
He claimed that she was unwilling, but was coerced by Epstein into pretending otherwise, and that Minsky was deceived.
That is also, technically speaking, the most plausible scenario. Epstine wouldn't have girls going up to people and reading a script like "I don't give consent, I hate you, you have to rape me now" without knowing anything about the prospect. There would have been an element of acting.
No, Stallman did not say that. Selam G and the media said he said it, but he did not say it. Not in spirit, not in words.
Also, he doesn't say that she wanted it, but that she might have lied about whether or not she was there willingly (possibly being coerced into lying).
Paraphrasing "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing": "I have a hard time imagining my late friend willingly raping someone."
Not that I think that, even in that scenario, Minsky would have displayed sound judgement by having sex with her (especially given Epstein's reputation and past conviction).