There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky.
The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing.
This isn't us vs. them.
This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch.
I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your discussions to a non company venue, in a situation like this, but fired is over the top.
Stallman said “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.”
It's pretty clear with the age difference being what it is, this is exactly what statutory rape laws are for. But it is also incongruous that somehow if she was a year older it would be ok. It's also fucked up that if Minsky were 19, the consequences would be the same. Maybe there's a better law to be had here, but how would we ever know if you can't even have the discussion?
I'm appalled by how free speech is under attack lately by the outrage machine.
I agree with this statement.
Stallman has been a problematic person for a long time. I'm no fan of his. If after a while the university had said, "Enough is enough, Richard, you need to shape up or get out." I would have understood that.
However, that's not what I think happened. What happened was he shared an opinion on a hot-button issue, pedantic and maybe gross, and unfortunately had that go viral and was so hounded out of his position.
If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. If his opinion is so problematic that it makes him a real liability for the university, his removal should come after a period of deliberation, not after a flash of public outrage.
I can understand arguments that Stallman's position is a questionable hill to die on regarding the Epstein revelations, that even choosing to weigh in on this makes it seem like his priorities are out of order. I can also understand the argument that the email list he was arguing on was the wrong location to voice his opinions and he was making students uncomfortable. I also understand the idea that he should have been corrected by the university, either for this event or for his past behavior.
But what I don't understand, is this idea that firing people in response to media shit-storms is somehow something to be applauded.
I share this frustration, unfortunately with many HN discussions as well.
When someone states a position that the majority finds repugnant, IMHO the most productive (long-term) approach is this:
Step 1. Identify where the minority and majority views diverge in terms of logical justification. With majority-repugnant views, this may require going back to very basic assumptions. E.g., rape is morally wrong, it's appropriate public policy to prevent moral wrongs, etc.
Step 2. Starting from there, try to understand why the views diverge, and debate which side (if either) has better justification.
I think this approach fails at least half the times I try it, though. A few guesses why:
- During Step 1, people jump to the assumption that I'm advocating the majority-repugnant position, rather than working within this two-step process. Once my character / motives are impugned, reasoned discussion seems to end.
- Many people are unable to engage in logical debate regarding ethics. And in frustration, or to subconsciously avoid having to accept that gaps exist in their ability to logically debate some topics, they are unwilling to engage in proper debate.
- Something in my mannerism is off-putting, or I'm in a forum where few people are willing to engage in a debate lasting more than several minutes :(
The point of this is that as people start to integrate political views into themselves (as opposed to just a view - something that's subject to change as the evidence does) it makes debate difficult. In many ways we're becoming more akin to religious nations. You're unlikely to find a nice healthy debate about the value, worth, and viability of Islam in most Islamic Nations. It is because such values have been integrated into the individuals themselves instead of being kept at arm's length.
And as a tangent one thing I would add is that it obviously was not always this way. During the Islamic Golden Age Islamic nations were world leaders in learning, education, and the collection of wisdom. We still retain fragments of this time in our language today. For instance Algebra, from the title of Ilm al-jabr wa'l-muḳābala by al-Khwarizmi around 800AD. During this time of growth and learning all things were open to question, including Islam itself. And then along came a lovely man by the name of Al-Ghazali [2].
In response to religious skepticism, which Al-Ghazali was unable to effectively combat on direct logical grounds, he chose to develop a new philosophy. And in his new philosophy he preempted skepticism by suggesting that there were no natural laws at all. When a leaf catches fire it is not because it was exposed to a fire or because it reached a certain level of heat but because, and only because, God willed it happen at that exact moment. And so the study of 'natural laws' is nonsensical, as detailed in his work 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers.'
And that idea, enabling one to revoke all logic and criticism and simply adopt the dogma without question or concern, was met with resounding praise and endorsement. That was 900 years ago, but this ideology remains a key component of Islam to this day. At the same time this was happening a lust for learning was just starting to take off in Europe... Kind of interesting to imagine that we could be on another precipice of change when 200 years from now e.g. China has become the world leader in education and people ponder the decline of the anglosphere.
Or this could be little more than the regular waxing and waning of insanity that in 20 years, perhaps sooner, will feel as distant as parachute pants.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/is...
He's clearly a freethinker, and we have all gotten a lot of advantages from his courage doing his thing and making his vision for FOSS a reality.
Now he's said his thoughts on this too... it's legitimate for him to do so and "problematic" everyone is in a huge panic to punish him in case the mob should get set on them.
He was a terrible human being, and surely not very aware of how to treat other humans. He had no place in a research institution, or getting paid to pretend to be relevant on free software.
Good riddance, whatever reason we can find in his statements (yeah sure, I was 18 when my wife was 17, it wasn't rape, surely... but is that really the point people were making about his nice friend of Epstein ?).
People aren't for free speech, at all and anywhere: they are for people having the same opinion as them or follow an official line. He didn't do either, now he pays. For a genius like him, it should have been easy to understand you have to adapt if you want to lead, or you shut up if you see you can't lead.
According to the Register, this is the position of both the SFC and GNOME
> On Monday, the Software Freedom Conservancy called for his resignation. "When considered with other reprehensible comments he has published over the years, these incidents form a pattern of behavior that is incompatible with the goals of the free software movement," the group said in a blog post. "We call for Stallman to step down from positions of leadership in our movement."
> So did the GNOME Foundation's executive director Neil McGovern, who said Stallman's Minksy defense email was "the straw that broke the camel’s back."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
TBH I wouldn't expect that if they did for it to be public knowledge. In fact I'd assume that has happened.
1. RMS wasn't just some random guy in the foundation, he was supposed to be a leader which means he should be held to a higher standard. Firing someone who doesn't meet that standard means your organisation has integrity which is important and should be applauded.
2. The downsides for keeping him around, especially since RMS didn't seem to be all that apologetic, are also important. The goals of the FSF are not advanced by being pushed into this media storm.
If FSF didn't do something, they would have been forced to answer alot of questions in the media about how they actually feel about age of consent laws, whether they took any money from Epstein and/or Minsky, how they felt about Epstein and/or Minsky, etc., and would then have had to give a number of awkward statements about this mess. Then they would have also had to answer many of those same questions from their donors. And likely if the controversy gained traction, their largest donors may have then been forced to answer their own set of awkward questions from the media about this whole mess. Especially if those donors also had ties to MIT. At some point, many of them would have also reconsidered whether they wanted to donate money to FSF, which would also be bad for the organisation.
All of which is to say that it's not about free speech, it's about protecting the organisation.
Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not what is happening here.
This has also been said before, but free speech specifically includes the right of others to dissociate from you because of your speech, as a central aspect of their freedom of speech, and in fact such dissociation is a central part of the concept of the marketplace of ideas supported by free speech.
> the idea that someone's livelihood is under threat due to their speech can be just as coercive as threatening a fine or jail for their speech
Yes, the fact that our society doesn't provide a minimal non-market guarantee of livelihood makes free interaction coercive economically coercive for many people. The problem is not with free interaction, however.
If people don't want to associate with a person who says awful things, it's not a violation of their freedom of speech to disassociate with them.
Neither MIT or FSF should be required to continue to associate with RMS if his views are repugnant to their organizational core.
I don't think the distinction between government and private institutions is that meaningful though. When a constitution is preventing the government from infringing upon a right it's usually a good idea if that right is protected against other people as well. In fact freedom of speech is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly wasn't intended to only protect people against their own governments.
That's why it's called the court of public opinion.
If Mr.Stallman were to be in Epstein's Island well that is whole level of any issue.
Committing Rape and Questioning the logic behind defining the "act" of rape are not the same.
Basically, looks like this situation was a long time coming.
Source: http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/2012/03/instrumental...
An example of the concept being applied to quasi-public entities, with enough generality for the legal realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
I don't take "free speech" to mean anyone can say anything without consequence. The government has a whole lot of power and it comes with limits like free speech.
That doesn't mean that people in my employ can say awful things and I should just ignore it.
Free speech doesn't extend to being protected from consequences for how you express yourself.
It's atrocious that our academic institutions, which used to be a bulwark of free-speech are leading the charge here.
Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum, but the consequences here are way out of proportion to the "crime".
You've been throwing a lot of stones here, but I'm sure you've held or expressed viewpoints just as questionable at some time in your life. I know I have. Should you now be denied the right to make a living if they come to light?
But at this moment in time, they've intersected with the real-world activities of organizations that he has considerable influence over. He seems to have prioritized theoretical point-making over the organizational necessity of addressing people's concerns.
Running things and debating things are two different activities, and for Stallman those things are currently in conflict. Maybe he's tempermentally incapable of dealing with conflicting imperatives; in any case he seems to have taken the absolute route to resignation.
What exactly is it that we're trying to "express ourselves" about here? what "progress" are we trying to make on old men having sex with young girls?
If there's change to be made, then someone is going to have to weather the cultural storm that speaking out about it brings in order to bring change. If it's not worth weathering that storm, then maybe it's not worth having that discussion in the first place.
This was not just a "work forum", it was a mailing list containing thousands of people in the MIT computer science community, including professors, researchers, administrative assistants, graduate students, and hundreds of undergraduates.
This isn't just a matter of his comments being inappropriate, it's also about him arguing them in an effectively public forum.
Look, that's the reason he's gone. So you said it yourself. That was his decision.
These problematic statements were made in the context of someone who has a long, long history of upsetting, angering and offending people with bad behaviour. People in CSAIL kept plants around them because Stallman hates plants and it functioned like garlic to a vampire.
Firing him may be disproportionate to the moment, but it's overdue given the history. The guy who fired him literally said "straw that broke the camel's back."
In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in political dialogue; in so far as he was speculating about Minsky or the situation in question he was not.
To say that we can exercise speech but must face the “consequences” is just begging the question — what “consequences” are compatible with a free society? If my boss says it would be a great thing if California secedes from the Union, and I say I doubt that would go well, we rely so much on other states for water, &c, &c ... I may definitely offend him. How acceptable is it that a person be fired in that situation?
In my country it's illegal to fire people for their political views even if the employer finds them immoral and incompatible with the culture they want to foster. It's part of legal and social framework to protect freedom of expression. Freedom of expression neither starts nor end with what The Constitution says about it.
There are clearly mob reactions to things, but there are also clearly inappropriate speech that should have consequences.
What he said here wasn’t in isolation as some idle musing. context matters. He wasn’t talking about the theoretical of a 19 year old. He was talking about this in context of Minsky being a 74 year old man with a 17 year old girl. Maybe he wasn’t aware of the impact of his words, but that shouldn’t get him a free pass.
That's what Joe McCarthy and the House Committee for Un-American Activities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) said to leftists, union organizers, communists, and others in the 1950s. Is that the kind of company progressives prefer to keep, intellectually speaking?
Apparently the only difference between progressives and conservatives is which sacred cows that they're willing to mob you for for insulting. Fellow liberals, I beg of you, take heed; progressives are not our friends.
First, "lynch mob" is inappropriate and irrelevant. Given Stallman's statements, in the forum in which they were made, many reasonable employers would have fired him, with or without some "lynch mob."
Second, Stallman didn't express his views in private conversation, but rather in a forum where those views would have made it very hard for colleagues to continue working with him. If I'm X and you tell me or to Y in private conversation, "X is an idiot" or something of the sort, then that's one thing. If you say so in a forum where others can read it, then you're showing public disrespect towards colleagues, which is a fireable offense.
Here's what he could have said instead: "Have we seen evidence that Minsky himself engaged in illegal activity?" That's it. It would have expressed his point just as well, and would not have shown disrespect toward colleagues.
Media are trash. Cancel culture steamrolls everything, there is no way to avoid being their target other than complete submission. You can word what you say as carefully as you like, but if they perceive that you're a good target, it won't matter one bit.
It's not about what is said, this is simply a war.
But I agree it's a war. It's a war that's been waged for centuries and even millennia between the hegemony and the margins, and it's a war we'll win, because we always have (well, it's complicated, but if you want to speak in those terms, that's fine by me).
So is Stallman's speech in question here odious? At first glance, not really. But when you put it in context:
The entire brouhaha starts with a sexual predator whose actions are known to but ignored by associates because money (or equivalently, power). Stallman is defending an associate of his who is tainted by association with Epstein. In the kinder light, this defense is essentially pedantry (just rape, not sexual assault). In the harsher light, this defense is "there's nothing inherently wrong with the entire situation here."
In this situation, I think the harsher light is closer to RMS's intent. He has made statements in the past saying that he believes there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex with children (although he has now walked back those statements). In addition, he appears to have acquired a reputation as a sexual harasser among women at MIT over the past few decades.
With that context, it does look like Stallman shares a lot of attributes with "prominent people whose sexual harassment has been ignored because they're powerful people, and who is not sorry about it." And pushing him out of leadership positions because of those views is acceptable consequences in my opinion. More so because it appears to me that he doesn't appreciate how power differential may affect the ability of people to give consent, he is in a position of power, and he appears to desire consent that may be unwilling.
I bet everyone here has one opinion that can definitely and very quickly destroy their lives. Let people be wrong, let them speak, let them think ... We can then convince and converge into a common good. Cancelling the guy that gave his life for the cause is appalling and is showing how evil social media is.
Where and by whom is appropriateness and timeliness determined?
It probably wouldn't be okay. She was coerced and trafficked, and many laws exist to make having sex with those people illegal.
In some places it's illegal even if you don't know they were coerced or trafficked.
I'm not saying I agree with Eich - far from it. Seeing as an awful lot of people on this very thread were outraged by his behaviour, it strikes me as being contrary to be more understanding towards RMS for what is arguably far more heinous simply because they admire him more. Both Gates and Jobs are/were relentlessly and repeatedly pilloried for their "immoral" approach to business and freedom, but to question what constitutes rape or a suggestion that paedophilia is harmless is forgiven readily, because the individual "likes" the perpetrator is abhorrent.
I can't speak for everyone, but while I strongly disagree with his (implicit) views on gay marriage (I even protested against Prop 8 leading up to it passing, though I unfortunately wasn't quite old enough to vote against it at the time), I also was - and still am - pretty harshly critical of him being pressured to resign from the organization he co-founded solely because of his political leanings. He was the right leader for Mozilla, despite his politics; while it's possible that maybe he was some raging egotist bringing down Mozilla and running counter to its mission, I've yet to see a whole lot of evidence for that.
Meanwhile, Stallman is well-documented to be abrasive, uncooperative, and egotistical even to the people who supported him, and while this specific incident was rather benign, I can understand it as a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. His dogmatic views - while sometimes absolutely spot-on - were also often at the detriment of the free software movement (e.g. the hard stance against OpenBSD's "blobs", and the hard-line stances against non-FOSS programs on FOSS operating systems despite multiple GNU subprojects releasing supported builds for Windows).
Stallman, in other words, was to the FSF as Ballmer was to Microsoft in the sense of being both passionate about their organizations and also being the reasons why their organizations were hemorrhaging influence. Ballmer's departure allowed Microsoft to regain its footing, shake off some of its more toxic dogmas, and become actually decent(-ish; shoving ads down the throats of paying Windows users is pretty scummy, but other parts of Microsoft have actually started to be better members of the broader tech ecosystem). Hopefully Stallman's departure will have a similar effect for the FSF.
https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...
Brendan Eich is a shill controlled by Google and US goverment agencies. The social media mob attack on him was actually a planned marketing campaign with aim to create an image of an independent, anti-establishment and alternative leader.
His actual goal is to create a "controlled opposition" for Google Chrome and a replacement for Tor Browser. Brave project is needed by Google in order to avoid antitrust charges from the EU when Chrome reaches ~90% market share. It will be still selling user data to Google and it will contain TOR backdoors known only to the US agencies (which will be easier to hide in proprietary browser).
The “selling user data” line betrays ignorance of how data is valued. Google doesn’t sell bulk data to advertisers, it gives API access to ad exchange operations that leak data but not the whole user profile, especially not the valuable correlations, brand loyalties, and shopping searches that run for weeks in case of cars or other major purchases.
Brave builds client only alternatives for anonymous donations and private ads that pay the user 70% of gross. We are making this verifiable on chain in the next stage of our BAT roadmap. If we defected and stole money or data, we would thus be caught and roasted into the ground by our lead users. This is by design.
Last thing: I am hardly an anti establishment leader. I am too busy running a startup, trying to get revenue to cross over based on flat and small/standard fees that leave the big fee to the user.
If you want to find controlled opposition, ask to see the terms of Google’s search deals with other browsers, especially the ones that have been slow and weak on tracking protection that is on by default. A Microsoft contact last year said he suspected those terms include proscription of tracking protection that is on by default, or at least that impairs Google search ads confirmation.
Now if he was a pedophile, he should be in jail. But he is not, he is exersizing free speech, no matter how disgusting it is, he is entitled to it. Should Nabokov have been made unemployable too for writing Lolita?
You are free to say what you like, but the rest of us are free to take actions in response to that so long as those actions don't violate your constitutional rights.
There's no constitutional right to a job or a board membership.
The way I look at this is through responsibility. It's like what we learned in Spiderman, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
So it's not that Stallman can't have this conversation anywhere. It's that when he has it so publicly, it makes people question whether he is wielding his power well.
Sometimes responsibility means not saying anything at all. Presumably, Stallman is at MIT for computer science and free software. Why is he speaking off topic to MIT students and alum? Presumably he could develop non-MIT relationships and have whatever crazy conversations he wanted.
More often, I think the responsibility is just to do a lot more work. If you're famous and you speak off the cuff on topics that you haven't researched, then your comments get a reach that's undeserved. It's a misapplication of your fame.
I thought that about PGs most recent luggage comments. This is something that had an answer that he could look up and share with people. Or if that's too hard, he could have gotten a thorough answer privately. Seeing him be so willfully and publicly ignorant made me question whether he deserved the power that comes with fame. Laziness like that is diminishing and eventually it gets to the point where people are so diminished that they should lose their jobs and/or positions of authority.
In that context, fired is more than fair. His image being linked with pedophilia (on top of the other issues he has) makes him a really bad choice for the public face of a movement/foundation.
If he was, say, a lead engineer whose work was not tied to his image, we could have an argument - but that's quite clearly not the case.
Can you provide some examples of people who have been made "completely unemployable" by the twitter lynch mob?
The FSF is even worse because he's supposed to be in a position of leadership there and represents the organisation. And they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to decide whether to support some controversial statement about age of consent laws just because one of their leaders decided to stick up for one of his friends. It's just not worth it.
Just ask James Damore and his memo on a certain ideological echo chamber. I read his document, and found his view point to be sadly misinformed; yet his right to speech wasn't protected. He was fired.
That was the moment I realized free speech isn't really a thing any more if it touched certain topics. Yes constitutionally we still do, but we can easily lose everything that matters to us even if we win the court battle.
There's a hundred years of history explaining why the balance point between freedom of speech and freedom from fear has been calibrated thusly.
The man has no understanding of the concept of consent, and why a child is unable to grant it. He can have whatever opinions he wants, but as a spokesperson for the FSF, he sure as shit shouldn't be broadcasting that one.
This isn't some rando who works for an organization being punished for airing their opinion. This is someone whose job is public speaking, speaking in a way that actively harms any organization he is associated with.
I generally don't see the hacker community jump to the defense of someone who has so colossally mucked up at his one job, but here we are, turning ourselves in knots in the defense of the right of a public speaker to remain employed when his speech is actively harming his employer.
It should also be noted, without the faintest shred of irony that the man consented to resign. I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal out of it...
Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritans being opposed to self determination shaming others into conformism? Its not like the US where you cant drink until you are 21, but get to join the army with 18, where sex ed is often reduced to abstinence only, where the government does its best to infringe into womens right to get abortions, where you can be prosecuted for sexting as a minor and lets not forgett where sex workers are almost across the country criminalized has any moral high ground on the topic what so ever.
But thats besides the point. First the MIT donation and now this stuff over 3 corners. How about we focus on what actually is the problem here? How many people from both parties had connections to not a brothel owner but someone involved in human trafficking and coercing minors into sexwork? How he got away with this this despite being brought infront of a judge for it? Or why they were on that island in the first place and why Eppstein apparently invited so many people. The word compromat comes to mind. But these politicians arent so easy targets, people like Stallman or the guy at MIT are. The mob wants blood and it doesnt seem to matter whos. I would recommend checking your moral compass if you are at threat of being sued for slander after the discussion here.
It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation.
Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral.
That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy that hates fun.
That is empathy to the all too common situation of young vulnerable women being used for pleasure.
In the end its weighing off protecting people from a presumed risk against infringing on their self determination. The question is clear cut when it comes to kids as we as a society accepted that their self determination isnt that great and infringing on it is fine most of the time. They have to brush their teeth, they dont get to drink alcohol and they cant work in a brothel.
The question here is does the same rule for a 8 year old apply for a 17 year old. Most European societies see a huge difference when it comes to age and that the ways in which the self determination of a 17 year old can be restricted are a lot more limited. In the end infringing on someones self determination is just too grave of a violation to do it unless its absolutely necessary.
What is instead illegal is not the action of the person presumed to be needing protection but make sure that exploiting that person is illegal. The Switzerland example still had it illegal to encourage or coerce girls to work in a brothel, which in practice means there was no one willing to risk running such a brothel.
And again, this discussion misses the point. Its not why did Eppstein run a brothel on an island but how come he was able to engage in sex trafficking, coercing of minors and all of that under the nose of quite a lot of politicians.
This idea is counter-intuitive to me. When I was 17 my religious convictions prevented me from having sex with anyone, but I imagine that without those beliefs I would have at least put _some_ dollar figure on the price for me having sex with a 74 year old woman, and I certainly didn't have any history of abuse or desperation.
Definitely morally dubious, especially in his case. It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances.
I don't imagine there are any 17 year old girls having sex with 74 year old men who see a distinction between those two things.
How about, if the old person would be mick jagger? I could imagine, he still has his charms to some. Also I have seen young attractive women aproaching old yoga gurus for example ..
But yeah, the old guy wasn't mick jagger, nor a yoga master and at best he did assume the girl was a 18+ old prostitue doing it willingly for money and power.
It's so hard to imagine the origins of the Playboy-era now. But it was dominant among the educated classes through the 80s or 90s. The change is mostly for the better. I suppose the pendulum will swing again some day, but likely not in my lifetime.
The only issue here is the age of the girl involved.
In what insane hypothetical does a 17 year old girl have consensual sex with a 74 year old man on a billionaire's island? At best it's prostitution, c'mon.
I'm with you on prostitution in general, but Epstein was a sleazebag and we know exactly what sort of girls he was grooming. There is no moral avenue that leads to sex with a 17 year old prostitute.
There's something beyond slavery and prostitution, there's willing exploitation of the old guy for money, beyond the sexual service. If it was a young stud with an old lady, you'd think twice before saying the old lady is a dirty pervert, right :D
But that's never been the point: the point is you and me can debate to no end about bullshit like that with half information and no legal culture, but Stallman, as a member of faculty, has 0 legitimacy doing it on faculty mail.
Are you saying that this kind of legal and cultural discussion should not take place in academia?
Yes, it was rape and trafficking - that's terrible enough as it is, no need to make it look worse than it is. This is essentially diluting the most terrible crime of abusing young children.
A lot of the Epstein drama seems to be driven by two pieces, political connections to Trump and Clinton (so it touches "both" sides if you will) and the reaction of this changing definition of childhood to the exploitation of these teens at the hand of Epstein and the perspectives of people either older or from countries with different ideas of the propriety of the sexuality of teenagers. The changing range of who is a child is why what rms said so digusting, because it is considered in kind with say, rape of a toddler or a preteen in the popular mind as the social definitions are shifting.
The problem of course is this is very US centric, and there are of course people just living in different cultures and attitudes elsewhere. I have friends abroad were actually confused about the Epstein drama when they first read about it because to them, it was salacious but not as creepy as Americans think it is.
I assume that's the whole point of the law in many US states and countries - it recognizes the biological reality that teens will have sex.
I've also seen that some EU countries allow teens to sext with each-other (boyfriend/girlfriend exception) without having them fall afoul of the otherwise clear laws against child pornography. This is unlike the US and also seems sensible.
That is: it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not someone is old enough to give informed consent if there's no actually consistent definition of what "old enough" actually means.
I personally consider 20 to be that age (with some lenience for situations where both parties were/are underage at the start of the intimate relationship), but that's based more on the typical "half plus 7" rule than anything particularly concrete.
You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.
No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?
Here's a counter. You're ascribing intent to one's writing, and unless you have a special relationship with Mr. Stallman - you don't know anything.
Because of a radical, illiberal mob, Stallman's life's work has been taken from him.
Few years ago I had had a Junior engineer on my team begin telling me how he finds certain speech so intolerable that he feels he has the right to assault someone for saying it. This is the reasoning behind these kinds of mob justices.
So now I see a mob hurting yet another life, not because of real-world conduct, but because of speech. I see real-world destruction wrought because of speech.
What never occurred to this young man was that there exist people who find the suppression of speech to be what is truly intolerable in this world. That this form of group-think is truly destructive, that actions are of consequence, not speech.
Do pray the pendulum never swings in your direction.
This isn't a one-time thing where he never did a bad thing in his life and now is suddenly attacked by a mob. He has been an awful person for a long, long time, and now he is suddenly facing actual consequences.
Most people feel this way. Not with nearly as much speech as your junior did, but there are certain forms of speech we are so against we have written exceptions into law and the Supreme Court even used concepts such as obscenity to empower these laws to ignore even the First Amendment.
Is it really surprising a generation or two later people are now seeking to have even more speech fall under such bans?
I yell fire in a crowded theatre, that’s ok it wasn’t my intent to cause panic.
The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy was coined by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States.[1] Holmes used that analogy to send a Schenck to prison for protesting the draft in WWI.
Should we highly value the idea of free speech? I believe we should. But we should also recognize that there's no such thing as "just speech". What we say matters, particularly if, like Dr. Stallman in this case, we are public figures speaking in what (given the number and types of people involved) is a semi-public forum.
There are two well know aphorisms: "the pen is mightier than the sword" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". But if one recalls the last is derived from a line in the Bible that says in whole: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Sometimes, we should put the pen back in its place, lest we kill or die by it in our hubris.
Generally both are judged.
You can have the intent to commit murder, but if you bungle it and the person is still living (i.e., no impact), then you're still in trouble.
If impact caused harm then that’s another story.
There are laws for libel, slander, harassment, threat. Let’s use those laws and prosecute people.
Supposing intent behind them isn't necessary.
What they say is damning regardless of intent.
And the intent was pretty obvious.
So, yeah, now it's catching up to him, for something nobody in his right mind every does in a corporate environment: giving his opinion on the moral definition of rape. Fucking come on man, how can you defend this moron, who does that ?
You see yourself tomorrow, in charge of the education of students, writing around to your colleagues about what is or is not a rape, for all to record and copy paste to newspapers ? At least do it on skype and add a smiley...
You're justifying the actions a lynch mob. Why does anyone need to provide a counter point? The onus is on you to explain why you think a mob taking justice into their own hands is okay. The only justification I can find is that he said something inappropriate. Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.
Completely missing the point of the outrage.
It's the chilling effect of people silencing views they don't like that really freaks people out, pisses them off and makes them mad. The actual views in play are irrelevant - the issue is that some person was uncomfortable at something some other person said, so they silenced the man's ability to say it. Not just that, they took away his vitality and ability to support himself. Anyone with any kind of functional critical reasoning facilities can instantly understand why this is scary.
It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions. If you think the wrong way, the progressive mob will make you seem unemployable. Because you had the audacity to say something "inappropriate," (oh also the mob determines what's appropriate and inappropriate on the fly).
No I'm not. I also don't think the outcome had anything to do with the mob. There were plenty of people even before the mob knew anything, who took strong exception to what RMS was saying.
> Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?
I'm not. MIT decided what was appropriate for their organization and the moral behavior of its employee and associate.
I am making what I think is a pretty universal moral statement in that old men taking advantage of young women for sexual pleasure is very wrong.
> It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions.
These aren't just "non-mainstream opinions" he was defending actions which most western societies consider rape. This isn't some slippery slope where people can't say anything nonconformist, this is a situation where people don't want to be associated with you when you publicly defend taking advantage of vulnerable, abused young women.
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
This is a man who said something mildly inappropriate in a forum, as is his wont.
> He deserved it.
A completely appropriate and reasonable verdict, no doubt. Doubts are for unreasonable people, of which one you are not.
> I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.
Somehow I doubt that.
But, he wasn't?
1. "Minsky has been accused of assault"
2. RMS: "you shouldn't call it assault - might give people the wrong idea"
3. "It would have been literally rape in the relevant territory, 'assault' is a fine word for it"
4. RMS: "ok, even if it's legally rape, it shouldn't morally be considered rape, so don't call it assault if it was 'just' statutory rape."
What inaccuracies did he point out? I see that he expressed his opinion that 'assault' is too strong a word for some cases of rape, but what inaccuracy was there in the original statement regarding the allegations about minsky?
>When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community. Regardless of intent, this thread reads as "grasping at straws to defend our friends" around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn't a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.
What do you think as an administrator if you see a comment like that about one of your prominent employees?
Seriously, what is it with all those people discussing in corporate and public function their stupid opinion of the moral definition of rape. Let justice speak, and you, speak privately. For someone lauded as a genius of some sort, he could have maybe understood what you can say where.
It's the accused that is the problem with this. He isn't defending the proven actions of a pervert, he is defending the memory of a dead friend, suggesting that his friend was incapable of the crime of which he is accused. If defending an accused friend is now itself punishable by excision from society, then the effect of an accusation alone becomes immediate isolation. The presumption of innocence, not only in court, but in public discourse, is a vital component of a genuinely free society. I will not support people who reject it.
There are good reasons that our legal systems favor the accused -- ones that I _fully_ support -- but it is an unreasonably high epistemic standard for us to operate under in our daily lives.
If I don't want to associate with someone because they're an asshole, I'm under no obligation to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. My freedom of association is more fundamental.
He was defending statutory rape and taking advantage of vulnerable young women - it does not matter whether the actual event happened or not. RMS was defending rape in a very public forum and got fired.
He took a position in a discussion you disagree with, so you're OK with him being removed from his organizations and his name dragged through the mud. Your argument stands for a world where people deserve to be stripped of their position because they expressed an opinion you disagree with.
Even if you're completely 100% right, how do 'indefensible opinions' get challenged if they cannot be expressed? How do any of us learn or improve?
Has anyone taken a moment to think, what comes next now that he's gone? I hope for your sake and mine that the accomplishments of the GNU and FSF will be enough to keep us free.
Plenty of criminals take objection to their crimes being described as crimes, but “men should be allowed to have sex with underaged girls” is a particularly self-serving and gross position for a man in a position of power over young women to take.
That "and" is pretty disingenuous here, turning the sentence from accurate to grossly misleading. RMS took objection to the act being characterized as assault. Not as crime. And the truth is, it does matter what crime was committed, not only that a crime was (allegedly, as it turns out). It would matter to you if your deceased friend was accused posthumously that their record is at least kept accurate, if it isn't straight.
He can hold an opinion about the moral definition of rape, sure, but why express it so widely in a corporate environment, it blows my mind.
It’s not the same as a rapist saying “it wasn’t rape, she didn’t say no” especially since he wasn’t the implicated party.
In fact I don’t see him not stating it’s not a crime or not morally bankrupt by itself either.
Assaulted does carry a particular connotation does it not? Assaulted meaning, in the biblical sense: attacked.
Thank you for reminding us of this. The man was a noted stickler for language. In fact many ppl only know him via the GNU/Linux interject meme.
Some(?) European countries do legally differentiate between children and teens and that seems reasonable bases on what we know about biological and developmental differences.
I also regrettably used "child sex abuse" inaccurately before when referring to Epstein. This reflects the legal status in the US I believe, but paints the wrong picture of actual children instead of teens being harmed. It pays to be accurate, because discussions around this topic are completely hysterical as it is.
Not defending it, but characterizing his words correctly in context.
There is no age of consent in France. (However there are aggravating thresholds if there was a crime: under 18 if committed by someone with authority over the victim, under 15 for other cases.)
There is another aspect of his emails - he also wrote that she presented herself as willing and that was entirely misquoted as 'she was willing', which was unfair. Stallman's point was that it is a bit misleading to characterise the act as 'assault' if it was she who sought out Minsky and he was not aware of the fact that she was coerced by Epstein. This is a bit insensitive splitting hair - but the misquoting was really mean.
Now, most people would mount a defense along the lines of "I don't believe Minsky would have sex with trafficked girls". RMS, always with the innovative methods, decided "Maybe it's not so bad to have sex with trafficked underage girls".
But, like it or not, he was clearly capable of making that defense. So I don't know where "can't defend" is coming from.
"RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.
There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend Minsky. ... The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists, zealots, or some other kind of witch."
As if it was enough to defend someone accused of some crime to be guilty as well. This is clearly absurd - so I am trying to get the author to explain what he really meant.
RMS can (could) make his defense, nobody stopped him, sreened or censored the posts, his opinions are legal.
RMS can't (couldn't) make some of the statements he made and keep his prominent positions.
The issue at hand is not that he was defending his deceased friend. Indeed I think it is very possible that the actual situation was that Minsky was there and declined the sexual advances. That is a story which is out there, I'm not here to judge if it's true or not.
It was the way RMS was defending. Those specific statements are things you "can't" do and - qualifying here - keep a prominent public position, especially when you are making them in a prominent forum in that institution.
RMS shouldn't be charged with a crime, but he did make a whole lot of people not want to work with or be associated with him.
Many people, including you, have lost their grasp for the concept of different moral attitudes. The above is just your opinion, not mine. I do not agree with it and find it irritating that you consider your moral judgement an argument that requires to be countered.
In my opinion, you are conflating inappropriate statements with statements to which you disagree.
The university campus is where minds should go to get challenged by different and somewhat uncomfortable opinions. RMS presents different and uncomfortable opinions in spades. But he does not present them in an inappropriate way. The thread RMS was responding to was explicitly political and opinion based. It was absolutely fair game for his response.
As an example, when I attended university, I took a class (Anthro 2A) where the material presented pedophilia as normal behavior in the context of certain cultural customs. I personally disagree with that research, but I didn't call for the instructor to be fired. Cultural relativism is an important concept that should be thought about even if one disagrees.
But the actual Stallman/MIT kerfluffle is actually not that big a deal IMO.
The bigger deal is the mob acting on deceptive reporting by Vice & DailyBeast. It's one thing to say that Stallman's factual statements on Minsky were inappropriate. It's another to conflate them with statements on Epstein. The vast majority of the outrage is based on the reporting that makes Stallman appear sympathetic to Epstein which is a complete fabrication. It is literally 'fake news'.
So what? Lawyers do this all the time. Is it really important that the person accused was Stallman's friend?
Also, what's exactly wrong with an argument that one should not conflate "having sex with Bob" with "sexually assaulting Bob"?
Everyone is allowed to believe anything they damn well please. They are even allowed to state it. There should not be a viewpoint holding which makes one unemployable. because as soon as that exists, there is no freedom of speech, only a caricature of it.
freedom of speech is not about saying things that everyone agrees with. It is about saying things everyone disagrees with. and yes, speech comes with consequences. But those should be doled out logically, not by an angry mob forcing an institution's hand.
The common argument that I hear is that free speech does not come free of consequences. Fine. But those should be clear and well defined. Not decided by a mob at any given moment. If you want to clearly state that you will not employ anyone who holds the following views, that is okay with me. But firing somebody because the mob demanded it, is against the very idea of freedom of speech
The issue is not voicing an opinion in private -- it's voicing it on an institutional mailing list in his capacity as a member of that institution.
Deciding post-facto smells of favoritism and can never be proven to be fair. It also creates a chilling effect since nobody ever knows what is and is not ok to say, since at any point in time AFTER the fact you might decide it is not ok.
I'm almost certain MIT has an employee handbook that reasonably covers situations like this. If anything, it's a demonstration of favoritism that he wasn't fired in the past.
That they feel they cannot take on the burden of RMS's stupid comments in addition to their existing scandelous items is not surprising, and should not surprise anyone.
RMS may well have gotten away with making the comments he did, had he been posting on the UCB mailing list.
Yes, this bashing is totally unreasonable, he expressed an opinion that the charge against Minsky is not valid. One party makes an accusation, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for the other party to counter it. Accusation is not the same thing as proof. There is a category of accusations these days that are just the same as a jury sentence, if you're labeled, then you're done. No evidence, witness saying this didn't happen ? Still guilty.
> Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned.
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
I do not think this changes everything, but if this is indeed his honest opinion, then I do feel that he might have simply communicated his opinions very poorly.
I got your back: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...
It's the PDF of the email thread (sigh) at the end of the article.
(Not gonna make any comments because of the mob roaming around.)
> "The most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing," Stallman wrote in his post last Wednesday. "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’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term 'sexual assault' in an accusation."
Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
[and in my opinion: it's the last sentence that made his statement wildly inappropriate. It's one thing if he wanted to raise the possibility that Minsky was deceived, and while incorrect it would be excusable, but his last sentence is a belligerent assumption of bad faith, and it is highly inappropriate for him to use such absolute language in denying sexual assault]
It's not plausible that an 17 year old would be propositioning old men without any external influence in this situation. I think he's strongly implying this and that's part of what got the strong reaction.
I'd suggest due to that, the statement is dodgy even before you get to the bit you highlight.
I don’t think what he said was wildly inappropriate for the forum. It’s an open discussion forum. People not understanding and being offended is not something that RMS or a reasonable poster could predict or prevent.
I read through the entire thread and it’s not as bad as people are interpreting. I think people are inferring intent and meaning that just isn’t there.
I’m pretty disappointed in FSF.
In a country where the current president was elected on a platform of "grab them by the pussy"? Ha.
Here's a radical supposition: it's actually good when speech has consequences in society.
How about a rational debate concerning factual things? I have allmost no background information, knew RMS only as the weird FSF guru .. and it is very hard for me to find facts. Most of the debate is about other stuff, than what actually happened.
edit: so apparently all of it started with this:
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
A rant by a female MIT student, offended by something she rad of RMS she did not know before. She writes very emotional, but much better, in terms of facts, than what vice etc. made out of it
Yes, RMS seems to be a sexist, unsensible at least, maybe not fit to lead such a position, but the media coverage about it is disgusting and misleading. But so is also some of the criticism of the women who started it. She seemed to be really upset about it and not just a "attention whore". Because there still is lots of sexism in the IT nerd world and being a man I can only try to understand what it means, when you try to show good computer work, but get sexually responses instead. So she reacts different, when she sees the sign on his door: " knights for justice (also hot ladies)" to which I would think, stupid maybe, but not to be taken too serious. But I am not a women. I do not have to avoid his office to not fear sexual mollesting, which apparently quite some students experienced.
its getting increasingly boring to have to engage with people who don't see the irony in a belief that they can be an objective observer of what is "factual" and "rational" in their lives.
Let's consider the logical conclusions of "society" being able to inflict consequences upon someone if they speak an unpopular opinion.
If you're an individual human being, it's likely that you have at least one opinion about something that isn't inline with the overarching culture. The particular issue of Epstein or Stallman or whomever is irrelevant; while you may agree with the mob in this case, next week or next month you might not. Under your proposition, that leaves you with three options:
1. Keep your opinion to yourself and refrain from telling anyone for fear of reprisal. In other words, self-censorship.
2. Changing your opinion to match society's, out of fear of being ostracized.
3. Expressing your opinion and then having your personal or professional life ruined, or at the very least, affected to the point where you suffer financially, mentally, emotionally, or socially.
Which of those three options sounds beneficial to you?
Further, all of your "options" sound amazing if what the person is doing is calling human trafficking victims "willing." It turns out that there is a difference between good and bad things. AND it's actually possible to determine which is which!
This notion that a social technology such as public opinion can be used in a negative way is not some sort of revelation. Weapons only have the morality of those that deploy them. Just as we must decry immoral use we must also celebrate moral use, otherwise we'll be living in a society where people can claim that victims of sexual violence were "willing."
Please stop spreading this misinformation. As explained in this thread countless times, Stallman never called the victim "willing" -- he just said she might have been threatened into looking like she is.
I sure know better than to redefine the moral value of rape in a corporate mailing list, but heh, who would want to horribly self censor their every brain farts, surely not heroic stallman, defender of free speech and provider of no value.
That's totally bogus, and I think you should consider the consequences that your speech is already having on the people around you.
Personally I love the guy and his weird contributions to the field. But how can you look at this and not think "wow thats not ok to say" no matter what we can consider he may have meant after the fact?
I read what he wrote, and i DO think it's okay to say. Further more i think it's RIGHT to have said it, publicly, especially by a person of his standing.
It took an incredible amount of courage and determination for rms to have the impact that he's had on the world.
And now, he's been cancelled.
This is a bad sign.
Comparison with lynching seems fair to me.
All of this got me thinking about creating, you know, accepting tech community where everyone is free to express their own opinions. I'm personally fine with my code being called shit and me being called dumbass for a good measure, just tell me what you really think and we'll sort things out faster instead sugar-coating stuff to not hurt my ego.
Who owned the island is not relevant, how much money they make is not relevant, and whether they're Stallman's friend is not relevant to either the morality or legality of the matter. Being wealthy or old is not a crime.
Stallman's controversial comment was:
> “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.”
Whether you agree or disagree that is a reasonable statement to make.
That said, I don't really see how this is grounds for termination. Again, I am not defending the guy or his utterly bizarre opinion on the matter. He had a disagreeable personal opinion and wrote it out load... so what? He wasn't advocating for harm of any person, persons, or group.
People are way too sensitive and we are giving away far too much to save face among people who aren't worth the effort. If I were king for a day and ran some kind of public facing organization here is how I would manage these things:
1. Anybody who communicates or advocates harm to any person, persons, or group gets a naughty warning. On the second offense they are permanently banned, terminated, or what ever.
2. Anybody who communicates offense or defensive language (cry babies) gets their post flagged (suppressed and locked). Sad people feed trolls. They are not hostile, but they are still part of the problem. I am sure they have all kinds of wonderful justifications, but I don't care.
This would allow people to disagree within bounds of acceptable behavior while also preventing mass hysteria and echo chamber insanity.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioVcs/status/11714435848069939...
That's not what happened.
Minsky was accused, and those are the details.
It doesn't matter if it didn't happen, RMS was defending Minsky in the situation that it did by saying the girl who was less than a quarter of his age would have appeared willing.
That gets you fired. Even if it is entirely hypothetical.
And surely to defend a rapist, even an accused one, is nearly as bad as being a rapist? Why, perhaps we should skip the courts all together and simply tar and feather them in the public. That's worked out well historically...
He was asked to resign because it's a good play for MIT, you don't have to defend against a wrongful termination suit if the person in question willingly resigns.
If he wanted to defend himself, he would have stayed and fought, let himself get fired, file a lawsuit.
But he resigned, willingly.
Although it looks like you really believe that's what happened, it is not what happened.
And no amount of repetitions can change the fact that he did not "defend his friend from rape accusations".
> It doesn't matter if it didn't happen
It kinda matters though...
> That gets you fired. Even if it is entirely hypothetical.
And that's absurd.
We always arrive at the same conclusion.
EDIT:
can I ask you why all these comments look the same?
it kinda looks like a pattern to me...
It does matter that RMS, in a hypothetical defended the supposed actions in the way that he did.
And yes, I repeated myself many times to several people saying similar things with the intention of facing all of the threads with a similar challenge. So what?
Why would he be concerned with such details if not for defending Minsky? He is weird, and pendatic. But that we knew for a long time.
Some people do software, like Linus Torvalds, other linger for decades doing nothing and discuss the value of rape. Hope we'll hear less of his nonsense in the future.
So RMS is defending his deceased friend as though he was accused, it would have been more effective to question the accusation rather than to defend as though it had happened.
He said: The girl was most likely willing, and it's morally imprecise to call this a rape, at worst it would be a statutory rape.
Who gets respect, who gets fired ? :D
The discussion is between free speech and appropriate speech. Which is both sides have tribes supporting them Libertarian vs SJW. You might not see the divide but every one else does and you can see that.
> The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever "other"
You might not agree with or recognise the tribes but they exist.
> This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired.
MIT is a university its a public place where adults go to seek truth, if this is an inappropriate place for adults to discuss adult subjects then where is?
I get the argument it's not "public" because the land is privately owned but it is a place where the public gather. While I frequently see this argument it is never accompanied with what would be an appropriate public venue for adults to discuss inappropriate things.
