[eoxenford]

Throughout this whole brouhaha, I’ve been astonished at how nobody in the mainstream press, nor any of those in tech calling for Stallman’s head, ever challenged the statement that Stallman said Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing.” Indeed, quite the opposite.

From the Medium post that kicked the whole thing off [1]:

…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.

And from Vice [2, 3]:

Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'

Stallman said the “most plausible scenario” is that one of Epstein’s underage victims was “entirely willing.”

And the Daily Beast:

Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’

Here’s what Stallman actually wrote:

We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she [Epstein’s victim] presented herself to him [Marvin Minsky] as entirely willing.

In other words, Stallman isn’t saying she was willing, but rather that she likely acted as if she were willing. Lest there be any doubt, the next sentence reads:

Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

So Stallman explicitly acknowledges the likelihood that Epstein coerced these girls and coached them to pretend to be willing to have sex with Minsky and others in Epstein’s circle. At no point does Stallman say they were willing—rather, he suggests the exact opposite.

Regardless of what one may think of Stallman, what else he wrote, or any of his other behavior, the wide dissemination and repetition of this lie is absolutely unconscionable. Those promulgating it should be ashamed.

[1]: https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

[2]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...

[3]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist...

[4]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...

[javagram]

Online media outlets are well known to lie and often do in cases such as these. They are the yellow press of our day.

Unlike 20th century newspapers, they don’t have ombudsmen or public editors who care more about truth than headlines (A traditional newspaper might make mistakes such as these, but they’d at least be embarrassed enough to issue a correction the day later). And since they publish in the USA, about US persons, they also have no fear of libel suits due to the US constitution’s commitment to free speech.

Anyone who is a public figure, or might become a subject of news coverage, needs to be very aware that their words will be taken out of context or lied about if needed to get clicks.

[partialrecall]

You're viewing the history of journalism through rose-tinted glasses. In the late 19th century, American newspapers conspired to start a war for no good reason. That dwarfs anything they've done recently (although the NYTime's role in starting the so called "war on terror" might come close.)

[javagram]

That’s why I said the 20th century, the “yellow press” I mentioned was the 19th century papers you’re talking about.

They did anything to sell a headline - in the 20th century, ethical standards for media were better for a while, although of course they have always been susceptible to influence by the government as you mention (whether Iraq, Vietnam, or more justifiable wars).

[partialrecall]

In the 20th century the NYTimes acted as Stalin's mouthpiece for 50 years, denying the Soviet-perpetrated genocide in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Walter...

Which, again, is worse than anything they've done recently.

[javagram]

OK. At least, as your link shows, they eventually admitted they were wrong once the Cold War ended and the records became available.

In my experience outlets like the NYT do issue corrections - e.g. just over this weekend, they published a pretty questionable story about Judge Kavanaugh but then published a correction within a day when the article was challenged and compared to the book it was based on.

In comparison I’d be very, very surprised if VICE issued a correction for its lies about this reporting, which they boldly publish right alongside the documents debunking their faked quotes.

[partialrecall]

Many contemporaries of Walter Duranty knew he was full of shit, but for the NYTs his lies were politically convenient. That time it took them half a century to come clean. In your example with Kavanaugh, it took them no more than a year or so. So if anything, they're getting better.

Certainly some organizations have better reputations than others, and I do trust the NYTs more than I trust Vice. My point in all of this is that when talking of some sort of golden age in journalism, one needs to keep in mind the severity of lies told in the past, as well as the relative opportunity the truth had to surface in different eras. Could the NYTs have suppressed knowledge of the Holodomor so effectively in the modern era when the wrong viral video from some random bystandard with a smartphone can circulate widely without the assistance or cooperation of organizations like the NYTs?

[pryce]

Thank you for clarifying this, and I have noticed and shared the same concern about these articles putting words in Stallman's mouth.

Please note, I am one of the people in tech who thinks Stallman should resign from leadership roles for the comments he made; the media coverage which mischaracterises his comments and especially so in headlines (looking at you, Vice) is unethical, and damages the assessment of what he actually said.

What he actually said, unfortunately, is in my view incompatible with him continuing in his leadership roles.

[yuy910616]

This. BS article by Vice and the like... This is terrible

[cannonedhamster]

There's a time and a place for philosophical arguments. RMS chose poorly in this case both in the time and place. The outcry is the social cost.

[nemothekid]

I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make. At the end of the day, Stallman is trying whitewash Minsky's responsibility by trying to pretend that a 70-something year old man didn't know that the underage girl at convicted Jeffrey Epstein's private island wasn't actually "entirely willing".

In other words, he's taking us on this garbage thought experiment that Minsky is somehow an innocent bystander. To even arrive at that talking point is asinine.

[eoxenford]

I don’t disagree with most of the points you make. Stallman was defending Minsky using rather dubious arguments. But he was not defending Epstein, and he did not say Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing.” And yet, those last two points were the crux of the case against him.

The point I’m making is that many, many people are deliberately lying or willfully misreading what Stallman wrote in order to force his resignation. Those using such tactics, in violation of their own cherished principles, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead, tonight they are celebrating their victory with glee.

[throwaway5849]

> convicted Jeffrey Epstein

The alleged Minsky assault happened in 2001.