I don't know whether "sexual assault" is "the most precise language for what happened", because I don't really know exactly what happened. A witness present on the island with Minsky and the victim, Greg Benford, says that the victim approached Minsky but Minsky turned down her approach. The victim's deposition says that she was ordered by Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with Minsky, but she never directly says whether she actually had sex with Minsky or not, so what she says doesn't on the face of it directly contradict what Benford says. But, I don't have all the evidence, so I can't really reach any conclusions as to what actually happened here. I totally believe that she was a victim of Epstein and Maxwell and various powerful men, but I honestly can't say whether or not she was a victim of Minsky. (If she directly and unambiguously claims that it happened, I'll believe her, but on my reading of the publicly released documents, she hasn't done that as yet.)
Stallman was making some assumptions about what happened. I don't know if his assumptions are correct. He said that, he thought that, if those assumptions were correct, then using the phrase "sexual assault" would be a misleading description of what Minsky did to her. He never said that phrase was a misleading description of what Epstein and Maxwell did to her. Indeed, Stallman calls Epstein a "serial rapist".
I'm not claiming we always have to use legally precise terminology, and I don't think Stallman was claiming that either. In fact, Stallman was claiming the opposite – that terminology can be legally accurate, yet create a misleading impression to people who aren't familiar with legal definitions. Whether or not he's right in this particular case, he's certainly right in the general case.
The other thing he was saying, is that we need to keep a clear distinction between morality and legality, when a lot of people mush them together and fail to distinguish them. Indeed, when discussing morality, we need to leave legal terminology out of the picture, since that isn't in the general case morally relevant. That's how this whole discussion about the age of consent in the Virgin Islands came up. The fact that it is eighteen, obviously that's a very important consideration in the legal judgement of what happened. But, is it important to the moral judgement of what Minsky did (if he in fact did it)? Stallman argues not, and I think Stallman's correct there. Consider some hypotheticals: the trip to the island gets delayed for a few months, and by the time it happens, the victim has turned eighteen; the legal history of the Virgin Islands turned out a bit differently, and it ended up with sixteen or seventeen as an age of consent instead of eighteen; instead of buying an island in the Virgin Islands, Epstein buys one in some other jurisdiction with a lower age of consent. Now, in terms of their potential legal consequences, these scenarios are all very different from what actually happened (if it happened). But, are they morally significantly different? I think not. If Minsky has done something gravely immoral in the actual world situation, then his act would have been just as immoral in those hypotheticals.
On the topic of an unconscious woman – do you think, Stallman actually believes that, if a man walking through a park comes across an unconscious woman lying in the grass, and instead of calling for help, he attempts sexual intercourse with her, that would not be rape and/or sexual assault? I doubt Stallman actually believes that. If a literal reading of his remarks implies that he does, well a literal reading isn't always a charitable one.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: 20 years late ?
Date: 2019-09-18 07:28 am (UTC)Stallman was making some assumptions about what happened. I don't know if his assumptions are correct. He said that, he thought that, if those assumptions were correct, then using the phrase "sexual assault" would be a misleading description of what Minsky did to her. He never said that phrase was a misleading description of what Epstein and Maxwell did to her. Indeed, Stallman calls Epstein a "serial rapist".
I'm not claiming we always have to use legally precise terminology, and I don't think Stallman was claiming that either. In fact, Stallman was claiming the opposite – that terminology can be legally accurate, yet create a misleading impression to people who aren't familiar with legal definitions. Whether or not he's right in this particular case, he's certainly right in the general case.
The other thing he was saying, is that we need to keep a clear distinction between morality and legality, when a lot of people mush them together and fail to distinguish them. Indeed, when discussing morality, we need to leave legal terminology out of the picture, since that isn't in the general case morally relevant. That's how this whole discussion about the age of consent in the Virgin Islands came up. The fact that it is eighteen, obviously that's a very important consideration in the legal judgement of what happened. But, is it important to the moral judgement of what Minsky did (if he in fact did it)? Stallman argues not, and I think Stallman's correct there. Consider some hypotheticals: the trip to the island gets delayed for a few months, and by the time it happens, the victim has turned eighteen; the legal history of the Virgin Islands turned out a bit differently, and it ended up with sixteen or seventeen as an age of consent instead of eighteen; instead of buying an island in the Virgin Islands, Epstein buys one in some other jurisdiction with a lower age of consent. Now, in terms of their potential legal consequences, these scenarios are all very different from what actually happened (if it happened). But, are they morally significantly different? I think not. If Minsky has done something gravely immoral in the actual world situation, then his act would have been just as immoral in those hypotheticals.
On the topic of an unconscious woman – do you think, Stallman actually believes that, if a man walking through a park comes across an unconscious woman lying in the grass, and instead of calling for help, he attempts sexual intercourse with her, that would not be rape and/or sexual assault? I doubt Stallman actually believes that. If a literal reading of his remarks implies that he does, well a literal reading isn't always a charitable one.