I too, am a fan of Stallman's accomplishments and I am sad that debate on this topic essentially can't happen.
That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent. Morally, that stance really is justified in the most common circumstance - when the non-underaged person has more power and experience than the underaged person. In the case under discussion, you have that in spades, double spades.
The sad thing is that individuals interested in freedom, who make serious contributions to some things called free, don't notice that the massive imbalances of wealth today have produced a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
And yeah, the thing about inquisition atmosphere, imo, is that it doesn't reveal the rot behind all the "mere" abuse of power.
He seems to have expressed a couple distinct arguments:
1. It isn't pedophilia if the person is sexually mature. Pedophilia is sex with prepubescent children.
2. He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I agree with you that in the Epstein case you have a situation with a dramatic power imbalance. Stallman seems to consider Epstein a serial rapist (possibly for that fact?). He seems to be more pushing back on the pedophilia accusations.
Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States. This whole aspect of the conversation seems to have melted away in the various other controversies.
> Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States.
I agree that the reporting silence on this aspect of the case is odd. The federal prosecutor who worked out Epstein's plea deal (Alexander Acosta) appears to have told the press that the deal was done because he was told "Epstein belonged to intelligence". This was widely reported in July (https://www.google.com/search?q=acosta+epstein+intelligence), and then this revelation was almost completely dropped when Acosta resigned from his position as Secretary of Labor due to fallout from his involvement with the plea deal.
I'll note though that Acosta did not explicitly claim that Epstein was working for the US intelligence services...
> making it hard to accept your view that "it really looks like" that's the case
I didn't use those words, the parent poster did.
Personally, I think the possibility that Epstein was working for a government agency (domestic or foreign) merits further investigation, but is far from a certainty.
I agree that Acosta might have been lying. But if this is the case, I find it doubly odd that there has been so little follow up reporting.
Suppose Acosta started the lie, and refuses to talk about it. What would the follow-up reporting look like?
"I contacted 16 US intelligence agencies. 9 of them denied that Epstein worked for them, and the rest would neither confirm or deny that Epstein worked for them."?
Would you have seen that sort of reporting? Would it be convincing? How many relevant intelligence agencies are there in the US?
I agree that asking US intelligence agencies probably wouldn't produce anything worth reporting. I also agree that there is an asymmetry here, and that it would be very difficult to prove that he was not working for an intelligence agency.
The reporting I'd like to see would probably focus on finance and connections. How did Epstein make his money? Who were his clients? What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations? Who does Acosta claim told him? What were Epstein's internal motives?
I haven't seen any major news outlets focussing on these aspects. The simple explanation is that they fear that any explanation of Epstein other than "he's a monster" would reflect badly on them to the public. The more conspiratorial explanation is that the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them.
But answering your questions: Yes, I probably would have seen that reporting if it existed; No, it wouldn't be convincing; I don't think the number of agencies matters, the connections he does have seem to lead to the CIA or Mossad.
You ask "What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations?"
The only known business associate is Wexner. He has declined to comment, says Bloomberg.
You ask "Who does Acosta claim told him?" He has declined to comment. Eg, the Miami Herald at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html says "Acosta did not respond to numerous requests for an interview or answer queries through email."
"The simple explanation" is that it was hidden well, protected by powerful people, and had not yet been figured out.
I have no doubt that "the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them". That's how it has been squelched or diminished until now.
Other than the one comment, is there any evidence that an intelligence agency is really involved? Why can't it be a bunch of sexually abusive plutocrats supporting each other with their connections of power? Why can't the reference to "intelligence" be a convenient cover?
If it were the CIA or Mossad, do you not think that, perhaps, some time in the last 20 years they might have told him to tone down as he's going to get caught, and destroy their decades-long effort?
What are the connections between Mossad and Acosta? Any Epstein connections wouldn't affect the federal prosecutors' office, yet it was they who gave Epstein such lenient terms.
If Julie Brown, the investigative reporter who worked on the story for a long time for the Miami Herald, had been able to figure out any of these questions, do you think she would have reported it?
> He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
I understand what RMS is trying to say, but this strikes me as an incredibly weak argument. All laws are arbitrary, but pointing that out isn't a meaningful defense of someone who broke one.
It's like contesting a parking ticket by saying "well if parking had been allowed on that street at that time then I wouldn't have done anything wrong."
While I don't know about this case, a common problem with people arguing right/wrong and legal/illegal is that one side picks right/wrong and the other picks legal/illegal and they talk past each other. If the law happens to agree with somebody's opinion, they'll use that to justify that they're "right" and if it doesn't, they'll use some higher moral standard and disregard the law.
Sometimes it's obvious which the sensible choice to make is. If you're arguing whether the GPL allows linking to a proprietary library or not, then it's the law that's more important. But if you're arguing if sex with children is OK then it's some higher moral standard that's important and appeals to the law are essentially appeals to popular opinion as support of some moral standard.
Luckily, people usually agree on what the law means, so they just have to make sure they're arguing about the same point that their opponent is actually making.
That is a poor analogy, because if you can't park where you want that is a moderate inconvenience at the very worst. If you find yourself "in love" with a 17-and-a-half-year-old, it's not so easy as finding another spot.
The point of an analogy is to be similar in some single illustrative way, not to be similar in all ways. If someone finds themselves "in love" then they could make some kind of argument based on that, but it wouldn't make the "but it would be legal somewhere else" argument any more compelling.
Thank you for making this point. It's somehow been mostly lost in the noise of this thread that the main reason RMS's comments are so unacceptable is because he gave this defense (theoretical or not) of someone accused of having sex with a child trafficking victim. Not because he happens to have socially unacceptable opinions about certain corner cases in consent laws. Fortunately in this case, there's a very very bright line, and RMS was way over it.
I mean, his defense was of Minsky, not Epstein. RMS believes that Minsky likely wasn't aware of of either her age nor the coercion so Minsky could hardly be blamed for not knowing. I haven't followed this too closely (except on HN) but I think that incident also predated Epstein's first trial (conviction?).
I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.
I'm not going to argue one way or the other. But for those saying legally it's one way or the other.
In Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2]. Of course a judge can find that the child or their legal representative not having been capable of giving consent in which case it's still considered child abuse.
Western societies themselves have such vastly different legal definitions of consent. To be honest I find germanies version to be the weirdest I've seen although I don't know much about the other european countries.
> Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2].
It is not.
The general legal age of consent in German is 16 years. § 182 (3)
The special legal age is 14 and it's only legal if the other party is under 21.
Even then there are a lot of further exemptions that would make sex with a minor illegal.
Prostitution and/or pornography involving minors is always illegal.
In Germany, having sex with someone in the 14-15 range can be illegal if the other party is above the age of 21.
Relevant passage in German, from the parent's link:
"Über die Vorschriften des § 182 StGB Abs. 1 und 2 (Zwangslage, Entgelt) bezüglich des Schutzalters 18 Jahre hinaus, die auch für unter 16-jährige Opfer gelten, können sexuelle Handlungen von Erwachsenen, die über 21 Jahre alt sind, mit 14- und 15-jährigen Jugendlichen nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB bestraft werden, falls ein gesetzlicher Vertreter des Jugendlichen Strafantrag stellt und im Strafverfahren das Gericht feststellt, dass der Erwachsene eine – etwa mit Hilfe eines Sachverständigen – festzustellende „fehlende Fähigkeit zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung“ des Jugendlichen ausgenutzt hat. Der Bundesgerichtshof hat 1996 festgestellt, dass der bloße Hinweis auf das Alter der 14- oder 15-jährigen Person für eine Verurteilung des erwachsenen Beschuldigten nicht ausreicht."
(emphasis mine)
To summarize: Having (consensual, of course) sex with a 14 year old is always legal in Germany if you're under the age of 21 and not a teacher or some such, and can be illegal if you're over that.
yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a case by case basis, because that's what the law says.
That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".
The point of this is not, say the lawmakers (as can be read in the Referentenentwürfe), to give a card blanche to adults to have sex with 14-15yos, but account for the very rare case a 14-15yo actually has a far above average developmental maturity, to the point where a special protection by law is no longer necessary, thus making the age of consent less arbitrary and closer related to the actual state of development of an individual.
> yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a case by case basis, because that's what the law says.
> That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".
The wikipedia link directly contradicts you:
"Dieser Rückgang wird in der juristischen Literatur nicht etwa so erklärt, dass die Zahl der Sexualkontakte Erwachsener mit Jugendlichen zurückgegangen sei, sondern dass solche Kontakte gegenwärtig gesellschaftlich weitgehend toleriert werden und Erziehungsberechtigte nur noch selten Strafanträge stellen.[6] Verschiedene Studien rechnen damit, dass nur jede hundertste bis zweihundertste sexuelle Beziehung einer über 21-jährigen Person mit einer 14- bis 15-jährigen Person zu einer Anzeige nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB (in aktueller Fassung) führt.[5]"
From everything I've read, the number of convictions following complaints by parents seem to be pretty rare. Unless we have actual numbers on that however, the discussion is rather pointless.
This is not a discussion about legality or facts. The fact is that a 18-old ex-sex trafficked girl approached Minsky and he turned her down.
There is no legal case here for that. And that's what Stallman was saying also. There was no rape.
He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.
One can draw a distinction between rape by physical force and rape by coercion, manipulation and deception - but it's kind of undesirable to push any kind of line that a lack of force makes this a automatically a different kind of crime. For example, sex with police officer or prison guard when someone is in custody is in many jurisdictions automatically considered to be rape because the circumstances mean a person can't really consent - and that's entirely logical. In this sense, "statutory rape" and forcible rape aren't entirely different.
Maybe one might find situations where under-aged sex isn't rape by manipulation - where you can argue consent could reasonably given (an eighteen year old with sixteen year in the same High school is hard to argue against). But the Epstein situation is clearly the wrong place to look for this.
People's opinions and what they say have weight and actually affect people (not to mention they affect people's actions). He isn't defending pineapple on pizza, he's defending the victimization of women.
Whether or not this case crosses it there clearly is a line where expressing an opinion isn't okay. If he was spouting off racist stuff you would have very few people defending him being fired.
Being racist goes beyond having an opinion. I’m talking about what is clearly a much more limited viewpoint, about a specific situation. Racism is deeply held, applies (by definition) incredibly broadly, and is reasonably expected to affect how you treat coworkers.
By "having an incorrect opinion" I'll assume you mean "having and voicing an incorrect opinion."
Yes. There are laws against workplace harassment. Harassment may include repeated voicing of discriminatory opinions. The harasser may be fired to prevent the workplace from being a 'hostile environment'.
Even when the law does not require action, someone may be fired even after a single conversation with incorrect opinions (and I mean 'incorrect' in the factual sense here). Take Jimmy Snyder, a.k.a. "Jimmy the Greek". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Snyder_(sports_commentat... .
> On January 16, 1988, Snyder was fired by the CBS network (where he had been a regular on NFL Today since 1976) after making several questionable comments about African Americans during a lunchtime interview on January 15, 1988 with Ed Hotaling ...
More directly, if it's the 1950s and I call my stridently anti-Soviet Union boss "a pinko Commie" to his face, that's voicing an incorrect opinion -- and I might easily be fired for it. (It's not hard to come up with modern-day examples, but I felt it best to use phrases which no longer have the emotional power they once did.)
None of these apply to what happened with Stallman. I instead wanted to address your broader topic of being fired for expressing an opinion.
>None of these apply to what happened with Stallman
That’s the point. If it were harassment, false accusation of a colleague, etc, it would not be merely expressing a bad opinion. But as you say, none of those apply.
And I think it’s clear I was not raising an issue of what is legal, but of what is right and just, and desirable for a university, for a workplace, for a society.
I gave two examples, one real ("Jimmy the Greek"), and one hypothetical ("pinko Commie"). Do you really want to get into a discussion of how it was not "right and just" to fire Jimmy the Greek for his racist comments?
To defend Minsky and Prince Andrew, there’s no evidence they knew she was underage. She also appeared in a photo with Andrew and Ghisline Maxwell. Perhaps he knew she was underage but for a member of royalty to fly to a private island and have underage sex with 8+ girls at once is a serious allegation which is what she claimed. Maybe it’s true but at least one of the accused by her (the famous lawyer involved) has claimed to have evidence that she is lying — or more precisely, exaggerating her story.
My ex-girlfriend dated Prince Andrew (she was in her late 20s). I’ve been around some of these people in South Florida and LA. A lot of allegedly good people will ignore red flags but people openly targeting underage girls seems to be isolated to only one or two principals.
Of course, all of this is wrong —- even this concept of pleasure parties where young (over 18) girls are brought to billionaire parties often by younger guys. Turning regular girls into “sugar babies” or prostitutes is a major problem.
> Maybe it’s true but at least one of the accused by her (the famous lawyer involved) has claimed to have evidence that she is lying — or more precisely, exaggerating her story.
Ah, Dershowitz. The one who says, yes, he got a massage at Epstein's Palm Beach place, but it was from a 52-year-old woman named Olga and he kept his pants on the whole time.
I'm sure we'll see his exculpatory evidence any day now.
> Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent
Yes and no. With a 17 year old, in some jurisdictions, it's rape in such and such degree, but in other jurisdictions, it's a separate crime, and in other jurisdictions it's not a crime at all. I think the stronger argument is that it's illegal/immoral, rather than getting stuck on a single word.
So if I have sex with a consenting 14-17 year old on vacation (the actual legal ages of consent in Europe) people in USA can just call it rape/sexual assault?
Stallman has a point, even though he should've steered clear of this by 100 miles. People who don't travel internationally probably have a huge blind spot on this issue...
Yes, in fact, federal law makes it a crime for Americans to go to a foreign country and have sex that would be legal in that country, even Western European countries with typical laws. It's considered "sex tourism"
> a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
I'm not so sure. "Free choice" today as defined by those on the left is "free to make choices independent of constraints imposed by personal capacity or personal resources", whereas it has historically been interpreted as "free to make choices independent of constraints imposed by other humans".
The problem with the former definition of free choice is that it requires encroaching on the latter definition of free choice.
If you have two people that are equally poor, both are equal in terms of having free choice under both definitions.
If one of those people becomes wealthy, they continue to be equal under the latter definition of free choice, but are unequal under the former definition even though nothing has changed in the circumstances of the one that became neither richer nor poorer than he was previously.
>That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
So you have the default opinion anyone in our society will have. I'm interested in what the heretic has to say why we are wrong.
However with what has happened to Stallman I doubt I ever will. A shame because something has gone hugely wrong when half of all children are thinking of suicide.
That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and problematic.
Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent. Morally, that stance really is justified in the most common circumstance - when the non-underaged person has more power and experience than the underaged person. In the case under discussion, you have that in spades, double spades.
The sad thing is that individuals interested in freedom, who make serious contributions to some things called free, don't notice that the massive imbalances of wealth today have produced a situation where simple "free choice" is made a mockery of.
And yeah, the thing about inquisition atmosphere, imo, is that it doesn't reveal the rot behind all the "mere" abuse of power.