Hi Liam:
The key issue that got him kicked out of the FSF two years ago (as well as
forced out of MIT!) was to suggest that those underage victims of Eppstein
"Epstein" not Eppstein.
that his chum Minsky had been playing with did so "willingly"
That is not correct. It is not fair to attack the man based on an
incorrect depiction of what he said. I am not defending him here; I am
merely saying, if you want to talk about whether his views are
unacceptable or not, then get them right. It not fair to damn someone
for something they did not say.
Stallman said that “the most plausible scenario” was that Epstein’s victim
“presented herself to [Marvin Minsky] as entirely willing.”
That is fair but it contradicts your previous sentence.
Stallman cast doubt over the use of the term “sexual assault”
Person A is approached by Person B. Person B says that they want to
have sex with person A.
Stallman said that if Person B _appears to person A_ to consent –
that is, if Person B *lies* and *says* that they consent -- then it is
not assault. As far as Person A knows, it is consensual. Whether
Person B did so based on coercion by a third party, and that coercion
is unknown to Person A, or for some other reasons, if Person A doesn't
know that the consent is a lie, then Person A has not committed an
assault.
Sexual legal cases are controversial. I met law academic. When he taught
that--his students protested!
I fully understand a lot of people find it unacceptable, but a lot of
people find RMS in general unacceptable and the things he says and
does unacceptable.
I recall an academic study of students' ethics. It found that the
computer-science students were the least compliant!
Stallman also described the distinction between a 17 or 18 year old victim as a
“minor” detail, and suggested that it was an “injustice” to refer to it as a
“sexual assault.”
AIUI, it depends on jurisdiction.
Laws are codified social constraints. They vary geographically, and have
historically changed!
The UK is made
of several different countries, with different ages of consent.
Here teenage boys were reportedly ignorant of the concept of consent. So
they needed to learn it!
In England, a couple over 16 but under 18 need their parents' consent
to marry. In Scotland, they don't.
In Islamic countries, changing your religion is a capital offence!
You can marry, you can have sex, but you can't take a photo
of your husband or wife naked, or take a photo of you having sex.
A lawyer colleague moaned at me. He disliked the penalty for having a
radar-detector in your car. Saying it was worse than if your negligent
driving killed someone!
Summary: the law is an ass, and you cannot safely make blanket
statements such as "she was underage" on the assumption this is true
everywhere for any given age.
People love to spout-off about technical details of which they are ignorant!
And if someone doesn't understand this issue at hand is part of the problem...
It appears that someone here does not fully and properly understand
this issue, and it is you, Ralf.>
I worked for a lawyers' union. It had a promotional slogan "See a
solicitor first".
--
members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
