![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software
Richard Stallman has once again managed to demonstrate incredible insensitivity[1]. There's an argument that in a pure technical universe this is irrelevant and we should instead only consider what he does in free software[2], but free software isn't a purely technical topic - the GNU Manifesto is nakedly political, and while free software may result in better technical outcomes it is fundamentally focused on individual freedom and will compromise on technical excellence if otherwise the result would be any compromise on those freedoms. And in a political movement, there is no way that we can ignore the behaviour and beliefs of that movement's leader. Stallman is driving away our natural allies. It's inappropriate for him to continue as the figurehead for free software.
But I'm not calling for Stallman to be replaced. If the history of social movements has taught us anything, it's that tying a movement to a single individual is a recipe for disaster. The FSF needs a president, but there's no need for that person to be a leader - instead, we need to foster an environment where any member of the community can feel empowered to speak up about the importance of free software. A decentralised movement about returning freedoms to individuals can't also be about elevating a single individual to near-magical status. Heroes will always end up letting us down. We fix that by removing the need for heroes in the first place, not attempting to find increasingly perfect heroes.
Stallman was never going to save us. We need to take responsibility for saving ourselves. Let's talk about how we do that.
[1] There will doubtless be people who will leap to his defense with the assertion that he's neurodivergent and all of these cases are consequences of that.
(A) I am unaware of a formal diagnosis of that, and I am unqualified to make one myself. I suspect that basically everyone making that argument is similarly unqualified.
(B) I've spent a lot of time working with him to help him understand why various positions he holds are harmful. I've reached the conclusion that it's not that he's unable to understand, he's just unwilling to change his mind.
[2] This argument is, obviously, bullshit
But I'm not calling for Stallman to be replaced. If the history of social movements has taught us anything, it's that tying a movement to a single individual is a recipe for disaster. The FSF needs a president, but there's no need for that person to be a leader - instead, we need to foster an environment where any member of the community can feel empowered to speak up about the importance of free software. A decentralised movement about returning freedoms to individuals can't also be about elevating a single individual to near-magical status. Heroes will always end up letting us down. We fix that by removing the need for heroes in the first place, not attempting to find increasingly perfect heroes.
Stallman was never going to save us. We need to take responsibility for saving ourselves. Let's talk about how we do that.
[1] There will doubtless be people who will leap to his defense with the assertion that he's neurodivergent and all of these cases are consequences of that.
(A) I am unaware of a formal diagnosis of that, and I am unqualified to make one myself. I suspect that basically everyone making that argument is similarly unqualified.
(B) I've spent a lot of time working with him to help him understand why various positions he holds are harmful. I've reached the conclusion that it's not that he's unable to understand, he's just unwilling to change his mind.
[2] This argument is, obviously, bullshit
Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-17 01:58 pm (UTC)(link)Stallman's argument against using "sexual assault" is because he wants people to use the "specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism."
The specific legal term for a nonconsensual sexual act, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent, is "sexual assault". 34 U.S. Code § 12291 (29) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12291#a_27 . I think it's reasonable for people to believe that someone coerced into having sex with another person does not have the capacity to consent.
Ergo, his complaint that "it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation" is unjustifiable from the get-go.
Am I misrepresenting him?
Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-17 07:36 pm (UTC)(link)You cite 34 USC 12291 as a defining it, but it says at the start of that section that those definitions are specific to that subchapter of the US Code, which deals with federal grants for victims of crime services and requirements for the Attorney General to make various reports to Congress (provisions which are not criminal law per se, since they don't by their own terms make anything a crime.) So, that's not a general definition applicable across all of US federal law; and even if it was, it wouldn't automatically apply to state or territorial law, which are allowed to define legal terms differently from how federal law defines them.
I think Stallman's point is this – the term "sexual assault" has a wide variety of formal definitions, but most people know little about those definitions, what counts for most people is what it means in the "popular imagination" (which isn't constant either, it varies across time and space). The term brings to mind certain scenarios; sometimes, the case under discussion is a scenario of that sort, other times it is not the first thing one thinks of when one hears the term. In the later case, even if the term "sexual assault" formally fits under one of its many formal definitions, it is going to mislead in practice. And given all this potential for confusion, it might be better to avoid the term entirely, especially in cases whose fact patterns are unusual.
(I'm not going to defend his every choice of words in making that point. Probably, he wouldn't either. But, I think, if he realised when he wrote them that people were going to endlessly pick his words apart and use them to construct a noose with which to end his career, he would have chosen them much more carefully.)
Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-18 01:26 am (UTC)(link)Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-18 02:57 am (UTC)(link)Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-18 12:48 pm (UTC)(link)From: (Anonymous)]
Fyi, "statutory rape" and sexual assault are legal terms used in USA and the UK. When an adult has sexual intercourse with a girl/boy below the age-of-consent, he/she has committed statutory rape, even though the sex victim might have been "entirely willing" or consensual and no violence was used by the accused.
... same as sexually assaulting or raping a mentally disabled or drunk/drugged or coerced/threatened person, even though the sex victim might have been "entirely willing" or consensual or unable to freely give consent and no violence was used by the accused.
In Law, it's either guilty or innocent after being charged in court. There is no "can be yes"/guilty or "can be no"/innocent.
Richard Stallman was commenting on a court case involving 17 yo Victoria Guiffre, 73 yo Marvin Minsky, Jerry Epstein, etc. So, we have to look at the legal aspect of Stallman's comment about sexual assault and statutory rape/age-of-consent, and not ordinary layman's semantics who can twist words like a snake.
Re: 20 years late ?
The UK has an age of consent (16, unless there's a duty of care involved, when it's 18). It does not have, and I think has never had, an offence called "statutory rape".
From 2003:
Being sexual with someone under the age of consent is "Sexual activity with a child" if they're 13-15, or "Sexual assault of a child under 13".
"Sexual assault" is part of the same law. There is no need for violence:
"A person (A) commits an offence if —
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents."
Before 2003:
It was "Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen" or "Intercourse with girl under thirteen." For other acts, it was "indecent assault".
Interestingly, no actual touching was required: an unwanted sexual proposal could be "indecent assault" as well as what you'd expect.
Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-18 03:51 am (UTC)(link)He specifically disclaims using jurisdictional-specific terms. However, if that's your argument, are you really saying that "rape" doesn't occur in New Mexico because the law there calls it "criminal sexual penetration"?
If that is your argument, what *is* the appropriate term for the US VI? The law code uses the term "sexual assault" but does not define it. Do you really think Stallman figured out the correct legal term for this case, and if so, what is it?
I think Stallman *doesn't know those definitions*. He makes no reference to consent, and states that violence is a necessary component of sexual assault. Is there *any* US jurisdiction which has that requirement, eg, where 'sexual assault is defined, and where sex with an unconscious woman is not sexual assult?
He doesn't say anything like 'people often think that ...', but instead argues that it's "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation". He knows exactly how a "brings to mind" argument is support to work - it's what he uses at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html to object to "intellectual property". In there he writes "The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws." I think your argument is that he means here to write "The term “sexual assault” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws."
Except he does nothing like that. It's much easier to interpret him as speaking out of ignorance. I see nowhere where he acknowledges the existing legal definitions before rejecting them.
As you just wrote, *you* think it does fit some of the formal definitions. Hence, Stallman is wrong to say that it's the "absolute wrong term".
"Child abuse" has "a wide variety of formal definitions". Does that mean we can't use "child abuse" during an accusation? *Most* legal terms have "a wide variety of formal definitions". Must we avoid them too?
As our host implied, and to continue your metaphor, that noose started tightening decades ago. This isn't the final straw, but the final bale of hay, and he's had many opportunities to learn better.
Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-18 07:28 am (UTC)(link)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.
Re: 20 years late ?
(Anonymous) 2019-09-18 08:20 am (UTC)(link)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?