![[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) 2019-09-18 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.