Summary: RMS is nitpicking on legal issues, while ignoring the moral issues.
OK, so I do think it is useful and meaningful to distinguish between "rape" and "statutory rape". Not that I think either one should be legal, just... they're different things, with different implications. It's not an accident that the legal system has different names for them.
However, I agree that it's totally inappropriate for RMS to be nitpicking it in that context, regardless of whether he's even correct. It's a sign of insensitivity.
In the general case, reasonable people can disagree about whether age of consent starts at 16 or 18 or whatever, or what the max age gap should be, etc. (Some states have "Romeo & Juliet" laws regarding the age gap for this reason.) But this is a pretty clear cut case of "should have known better" on Minsky's part: You're supposed to evaluate whether your sexual partner is capable of consent, and there were obvious red flags here. It doesn't actually *matter* whether the 17 year old was willing at the time!
I don't actually know if RMS is on board with that definition of consent, or not. (The email fragments are small and low in context.) The problem is that he appears to be derailing into legalistic stuff that's largely irrelevant, and that's pretty insensitive in context.
Why it's a problem
OK, so I do think it is useful and meaningful to distinguish between "rape" and "statutory rape". Not that I think either one should be legal, just... they're different things, with different implications. It's not an accident that the legal system has different names for them.
However, I agree that it's totally inappropriate for RMS to be nitpicking it in that context, regardless of whether he's even correct. It's a sign of insensitivity.
In the general case, reasonable people can disagree about whether age of consent starts at 16 or 18 or whatever, or what the max age gap should be, etc. (Some states have "Romeo & Juliet" laws regarding the age gap for this reason.) But this is a pretty clear cut case of "should have known better" on Minsky's part: You're supposed to evaluate whether your sexual partner is capable of consent, and there were obvious red flags here. It doesn't actually *matter* whether the 17 year old was willing at the time!
I don't actually know if RMS is on board with that definition of consent, or not. (The email fragments are small and low in context.) The problem is that he appears to be derailing into legalistic stuff that's largely irrelevant, and that's pretty insensitive in context.