Stallman posited that Minsky had sex with her. Everything he said was on the assumption that that actually did occur, and that it was still incorrect to use "sexual assault" as the term.
He was trying to spin things to put Minsky in the best possible light. It could also have been a prostitution arrangement between Minsky and Epstein, set up with plausible deniability in mind.
Or, Minsky could have been forced to have sex with her, because otherwise Epstein was going to kill Minsky's wife. That would really make it that Minsky had no culpability. Why didn't Stallman propose that hypothetical?
Where does Stallman say "that terminology can be legally accurate, yet create a misleading impression to people who aren't familiar with legal definitions"? Please provide the relevant quote.
Because "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" sure doesn't sound like it can ever be legally accurate to use in an accusation.
Who cares about what Stallman thinks about the differences between morality and legality, and hypothetical situations? Stallman says that people should never use the phrase "sexual assault" in an accusation, which means he doesn't know what that term even means.
Yes, the literal reading of the phrase "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" means that if a man has sex with an unconscious woman then it would be absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
How is that any less charitable than his views on the terms that the student made in the Facebook post?
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 08:20 am (UTC)He was trying to spin things to put Minsky in the best possible light. It could also have been a prostitution arrangement between Minsky and Epstein, set up with plausible deniability in mind.
Or, Minsky could have been forced to have sex with her, because otherwise Epstein was going to kill Minsky's wife. That would really make it that Minsky had no culpability. Why didn't Stallman propose that hypothetical?
Where does Stallman say "that terminology can be legally accurate, yet create a misleading impression to people who aren't familiar with legal definitions"? Please provide the relevant quote.
Because "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" sure doesn't sound like it can ever be legally accurate to use in an accusation.
Who cares about what Stallman thinks about the differences between morality and legality, and hypothetical situations? Stallman says that people should never use the phrase "sexual assault" in an accusation, which means he doesn't know what that term even means.
Yes, the literal reading of the phrase "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" means that if a man has sex with an unconscious woman then it would be absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
How is that any less charitable than his views on the terms that the student made in the Facebook post?