[Barrin92]

He is, and I'll quote the relevant part from Stallman's statement that is included in the article:

"The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X... The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing... We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing."

Not only is Stallman wrong about the fact that sexual assault requires force or violence, sex between a 73 year old man and a 17 year old is not only sexual assault but statutory rape, something which Stallman in another post declared to be a 'technicality'.

[etchalon]

It's interesting the degree to which people will claim his quotes were "taken out of context" or "mis-represented."

Some of the quotes, I suppose you could be charitable and read them as more of a discussion of the logical flaws in language, but it many cases, as is the one above, the quote is so obviously, hilariously heinous, and the mentality behind it so obvious, it's hard to understand why people defend it.

"It's not sexual assault if I thought she was game and didn't use physical force" is such a pedantic defense.

[saagarjha]

I think the biggest conflict here is the fact that most people are not actual pedophiles or sexual assault defenders; however, many may have confused, internally inconsistent or overly simplistic views on those topics. To that end, I really think you need to put on a Stallman hat to understand his viewpoint. (Not that I’m not saying this is something you should wear normally, this is just an attempt to interpret his words in good faith.)

Seeing through those lenses, I think the point being made was that Stallman believes the situation was that Minsky was unwittingly approached by a girl who had been coerced by Epstein to present herself as being of the age of consent and genuinely interested in him, and he felt that the term "sexual assault" in this case was unfair as it projected the view that Minsky had done something coercive, similarly to how someone who buys something that was stolen is unknowingly "trafficking in stolen goods". His views on statutory rape are, IMO, fairly straightforwards: he clearly subscribes to the "if the law says it is legal tomorrow but not today there is something unsatisfying about its definition" viewpoint.

Now, these viewpoints have multiple issues, the largest of which is probably that one is supposed to do due diligence in their choice of partners to ensure that they are what they seem and not underage or being coerced, especially if one is a 73-year-old man with a woman half a century younger. And the reason we have a specific age set in law is that otherwise we would have to do exceptionally difficult value judgements on whether a person is mature enough to provide consent. But I think both of these are just the failings of a rational person to make sense of the world, rather than the rants of a deranged and actively malicious lunatic as most people (including you) claim.

[etchalon]

His argument wasn't difficult to understand, and I accepted it in good faith.

He believed the term "sexual assault" should be reserved for those cases where content was affirmatively withdrawn, and physical violence was used.

He believed that the broadening of term would lead people to believe someone accused of "sexual assault" was guilty of the most morally reprehensible version of the crime imaginable (formal withdrawal of consent combined with physical force).

In this specific case, he believed that his friend hadn't committed "sexual assault", under his preferred definition, and found it more plausible that his friend thought the victim was willing, or was lead to believe she was.

It's a pedantic defense.

[saagarjha]

I disagree with your interpretation, so clearly it's not as simple as you are laying it out to be. I did interpret it the same as this:

> In this specific case, he believed that his friend hadn't committed "sexual assault", under his preferred definition, and found it more plausible that his friend thought the victim was willing, or was lead to believe she was.

but I disagree on how I think he is describing sexual assault. I think he brings up violence and withdrawal of consent as what he believes most people think when they imagine sexual assault (without actually defining it as limited to those categories). He seems to believe that it is possible that his friend was mislead, which he then laments is not the situation most people think of when they hear "sexual assault" (which conjures up active malice). This is kind of what you are saying, but the big difference here is that I think his main point was more "I think the words being used describe Minsky as doing something he did not do" and less "I think what he did was right".

[etchalon]

I did not imply that he said, or believed, that what Minsky did was "right", and I fail to see how your interpretation is any different than mine.

[mixmastamyk]

I'll be a little more blunt because you two seem to be incapable of subtlety.

The dictionary definition of assault is "a violent attack, or threat of..." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault

Neither of those things happened according to our current, best knowledge, or at the time of the statements.

At best, we can say a third-party did the threatening beforehand. A third-party that was neither Minsky or Stallman.

To clarify further, assault does not mean... "ooh, I did something bad and failed to verify something I'm required to, but didn't want to, because reasons…". Expanding the definition of assault to include any poor behavior under the sun (in order to score virtue/outrage points) does not help anyone.

IANAL, and until we know more, I'd say a more accurate term for Minsk's misdeeds would be statutory-rape and perhaps "negligence."

[etchalon]

You're making the exact same argument the RMS made, using the same logical construction that I laid down as being the argument RMS made, while arguing that I do not understand RMS's point.

I understood his point. I understood your point. I find the point to be pedantic.