There was no reason for him to resign in the first place. All he said was that he wasn't going to believe an accusation against a friend without evidence.
That's not all that he wrote. He made very specific speculations about what happened by way of making excuses for Minsky: https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com] . Take Vice's spin with a grain of salt, but Stallman wrote a lot more about it than simply that he refused too believe accusations against his friend without evidence.
What is your claim? That the emails quoted there are fabricated? I already recommended disregarding Vice's spin, but they quote emails. Are they wrong in claiming that Stallman wrote the things they quote?
This, exactly. Ignore what Vice says, but they did provide the actual email chain to review. RMS went way out on a limb about "willingness" while admitting these were children. Children cannot consent, not to mention the entire felony aspect of what accusations were made. Willing or not, a felony is a felony.
She was only a child because of the legal jurisdiction.
It was perfectly legal for Prince Andrew to have sex with her because the age of consent in England is 16.
Minsky (allegedly) raped her because the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18. If the sex had happened in the British Virgin Islands or back in Boston, it would have been legal.
It was illegal to transport her, but neither Minsky nor Andrew did the transporting.
Willing or not, a felony is a felony.
Minsky was dead when the accusations were made and unable to defend himself. He was never convicted of any felony.
What Richard said was insensitive and showed a lack of appreciation for woke-outrage, but he wasn't wrong.
...Minsky (allegedly) raped her because the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18.
Wrong!
This is the part where everybody gets the facts in the allegation incorrect. There is no allegation of rape (statutory or otherwise). Giuffre was directed to do an action, which, if it had happened, would have been rape. But she didn't ever actually allege it happened.
Specifically, her deposition said that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her (at the time age 17) to go to Epstein's private island in order to have sex with Minsky....it continues to say that she did fly to Epstein's private island... but the deposition stops at that point. She never actually say that she did have sex with Minsky.
There was no allegation of rape. From all the facts we are given, she may have to the island, told Minsky "let's have sex," and Minsky replied "no thanks, you're just a kid". Or for that matter, she doesn't even say she even met Minsky, much less propositioned him.
Stallman isn't being arrested. Minsky isn't being charged with a crime - he died before that could happen. So there's no reason for yoyr legal defense.
People were unhappy with Minsky because he consorted with an infamous pedophile, despite being clearly told by MIT not to consort with an infamous pedophile. We don't know exactly what Minsky did while visiting the notorious convicted pedophile's pleasure estate multiple times - presumably he just watched TV and played tennis with Epstein, and didn't reall
People were unhappy with Minsky because he consorted with an infamous pedophile, despite being clearly told by MIT not to consort with an infamous pedophile.
They told a prominent professor NOT to consort with a major donor they were courting? That would be a first.
The rest of your post is a hairball of unwarranted assumptions.
Stallman isn't being arrested. Minsky isn't being charged with a crime -
Correct. Because he wasn't accused of a crime. No crime by Minsky was alleged in the deposition.
he died before that could happen.
Yes: he died before he could be not charged with a crime that was not mentioned in the deposition and for which there is no reason to believe ever happened,
So there's no reason for yoyr legal defense.
Well, no reason other than correcting a blatant mis-statement of fact.
People were unhappy with Minsky
People being "unhappy" with him is a completely different statement from an allegation that he raped somebody.
If your statement is "people were unhappy with him," I won't bother to correct
Stallman was defending him in case it had taken place though. His defence was not "it didn't happen", it was "Minsky wouldn't have had reason to assume a 17 year old girl he had just met on a private island was not consenting."
Part of what Stallman wrote, quoting someone else, was this:
> Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it __rape__ in the Virgin Islands.
Does it really? I think 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.
Stallman seems to be arguing for some idealized, universal definition of "rape". That is neither achievable nor reasonable. Different countries have different laws about what constitutes rape,
186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.
Good for him. (Score:5, Informative)
There was no reason for him to resign in the first place. All he said was that he wasn't going to believe an accusation against a friend without evidence.
-jcr
Re: Good for him. (Score:3, Informative)
That's not all that he wrote. He made very specific speculations about what happened by way of making excuses for Minsky: https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com] . Take Vice's spin with a grain of salt, but Stallman wrote a lot more about it than simply that he refused too believe accusations against his friend without evidence.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Vice is about as believable as Gawker. Thanks for playing, and better luck next time.
-jcr
Re: (Score:2)
What is your claim? That the emails quoted there are fabricated? I already recommended disregarding Vice's spin, but they quote emails. Are they wrong in claiming that Stallman wrote the things they quote?
Re: Good for him. (Score:5, Informative)
This, exactly. Ignore what Vice says, but they did provide the actual email chain to review. RMS went way out on a limb about "willingness" while admitting these were children. Children cannot consent, not to mention the entire felony aspect of what accusations were made. Willing or not, a felony is a felony.
Re: Good for him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Children cannot consent
She was only a child because of the legal jurisdiction.
It was perfectly legal for Prince Andrew to have sex with her because the age of consent in England is 16.
Minsky (allegedly) raped her because the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18. If the sex had happened in the British Virgin Islands or back in Boston, it would have been legal.
It was illegal to transport her, but neither Minsky nor Andrew did the transporting.
Willing or not, a felony is a felony.
Minsky was dead when the accusations were made and unable to defend himself. He was never convicted of any felony.
What Richard said was insensitive and showed a lack of appreciation for woke-outrage, but he wasn't wrong.
Re: Good for him. (Score:5, Informative)
...Minsky (allegedly) raped her because the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18.
Wrong!
This is the part where everybody gets the facts in the allegation incorrect. There is no allegation of rape (statutory or otherwise). Giuffre was directed to do an action, which, if it had happened, would have been rape. But she didn't ever actually allege it happened.
Specifically, her deposition said that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her (at the time age 17) to go to Epstein's private island in order to have sex with Minsky. ...it continues to say that she did fly to Epstein's private island... but the deposition stops at that point. She never actually say that she did have sex with Minsky.
There was no allegation of rape. From all the facts we are given, she may have to the island, told Minsky "let's have sex," and Minsky replied "no thanks, you're just a kid". Or for that matter, she doesn't even say she even met Minsky, much less propositioned him.
The deposition is here, if you want the details on what she said: https://drive.google.com/file/... [google.com]
(It also has a lot of gaps. But those facts don't seem to be in doubt.)
Re: (Score:1)
Stallman isn't being arrested. Minsky isn't being charged with a crime - he died before that could happen. So there's no reason for yoyr legal defense.
People were unhappy with Minsky because he consorted with an infamous pedophile, despite being clearly told by MIT not to consort with an infamous pedophile. We don't know exactly what Minsky did while visiting the notorious convicted pedophile's pleasure estate multiple times - presumably he just watched TV and played tennis with Epstein, and didn't reall
Re: (Score:2)
People were unhappy with Minsky because he consorted with an infamous pedophile, despite being clearly told by MIT not to consort with an infamous pedophile.
They told a prominent professor NOT to consort with a major donor they were courting? That would be a first.
The rest of your post is a hairball of unwarranted assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman isn't being arrested. Minsky isn't being charged with a crime -
Correct. Because he wasn't accused of a crime. No crime by Minsky was alleged in the deposition.
he died before that could happen.
Yes: he died before he could be not charged with a crime that was not mentioned in the deposition and for which there is no reason to believe ever happened,
So there's no reason for yoyr legal defense.
Well, no reason other than correcting a blatant mis-statement of fact.
People were unhappy with Minsky
People being "unhappy" with him is a completely different statement from an allegation that he raped somebody.
If your statement is "people were unhappy with him," I won't bother to correct
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman was defending him in case it had taken place though. His defence was not "it didn't happen", it was "Minsky wouldn't have had reason to assume a 17 year old girl he had just met on a private island was not consenting."
Re: (Score:3)
Part of what Stallman wrote, quoting someone else, was this:
Stallman seems to be arguing for some idealized, universal definition of "rape". That is neither achievable nor reasonable. Different countries have different laws about what constitutes rape,