SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the resign:-to-sign-and-sign-again? dept.
Richard M. Stallman Resigns as FSF President and from its Board of Directors
https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns (emphasis from original retained):
On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of
the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board
of directors.The board will be conducting a search for a new president, beginning
immediately. Further details of the search will be published on
fsf.org.For questions, contact FSF executive director John Sullivan at
johns@fsf.org.Copyright © 2004-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Privacy Policy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later version) — Why this license?
Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns from MIT Over Epstein Comments
Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns From MIT Over Epstein Comments
Famed free software advocate and computer scientist Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT, according to an email he published online. The resignation comes after Stallman made comments about victims of child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, including that the victims went along with the abuse willingly.
"I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT," Stallman wrote in the email, referring to MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. "I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations."
[...] Last week, Motherboard published the full email thread in which Stallman wrote that the "most plausible scenario" is that Epstein's underage victims in his campaign of trafficking were "entirely willing." Stallman also argued about the definition of "rape" and whether the term applies to the victims.
[Ed.'s note - just because Vice say things in the above blockquote does not mean that SoylentNews or its editors consider it a demonstrably provable representation of reality. We're just reporting that they are reporting, nothing more. At least this Ed. finds out-of-context quoting of short inflamatory phrases to be particularly disingenuous, and perhaps even a warning sign that manipulation of a quote has taking place. -- FP.]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:58AM (11 children)
Attempting to defend Minsky Mr. Stallman argued:
* A newspaper article used the term, "assault."
* The newspaper article said nothing other than they had sex.
* He speculates (without any evidence at all other than absence of what is in the article) that the sex was "entirely willing" is the most plausible solution.
* "Sexual assault" is a slippery term and should not be used, and it is difficult to read in context if he is referring to this specific case or generally.
He then as you suggest states in a later email, "I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old instead of 17."
Someone else then ventures the opinion that whether Mr. Stallman finds it morally absurd or not that is what the law is.
Let's ignore that he still uses the term "victim" which may be error or may be a Freudian slip of epic proportions which shows he's still able to recognize such a person as a victim. Let's ignore that he is not talking only about abstract intellectual principles but is actively trying to defend a colleague and friend (Dr. Minsky), which makes this entire thing a personal matter and not merely intellectual.
Mr. Stallman then asks for sourcing on the accusation, and someone else provides a source at The Verge which states (according to that author) that it unequivocally stated the sex was forced. If Mr. Stallman made a reply to that it isn't seen at the Vice source. Since that is all public now (assuming the integrity of the publicized email chain, which might be a line of defense).
In attempting to defend Dr. Minsky he reasoned from absence of evidence that the sex was most plausibly consensual and that therefore no assault took place. He calls into question that terms like assault shouldn't be generally applied until it is publicly known that force was applied, which given the known facts now is incorrect and comes across as victim-blaming when the allegations are in fact assault. He then finds it absurd that statutory rape should be a crime.
That's more than a witch hunt. Mr. Stallman can indeed make a public apology for where he is wrong in his interpretations, to wit that assault was indeed stipulated in a source he didn't have, and that an allegation of assault is indeed an allegation of assault and shouldn't be swept under the table by saying, "maybe it was consensual," and make other such stipulations. And since he did it all on the CSAIL mailing list then yes, this can cost him his job.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:07AM (8 children)
Yet another person, someone who was at the event, unequivocally stated the sex never even took place, as he saw Minsky decline it, and then even spoke to Minsky afterwards about it. See pjmedia link upthread.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:05PM (7 children)
That is not what Stallman was saying in the emails. He was saying that because the article he said never said it was forced it was therefore unfair to call it an assault. Specifically he suggests it was, "accusation inflation." That was put back into his face that it was not an inflation. Regardless of Dr. Minksy's innocence the charge was leveled that it occurred.
Regardless of Dr. Minsky's guilt or innocence "sexual assault" is not a slippery term, in fact it is quite definable legally and psychologically, and neither is statutory rape. When others tried to point out that because she was 17 it doesn't matter if the act was consensual or not a further rationalization was put forth that the concept is in error. Which was then corrected by simply stating that this is the law, whether or not he finds it morally acceptable.
If he was trying to defend Dr. Minsky this would be understandable. Dr. Minsky may in fact be innocent. But this was not the path to take to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:02PM (1 child)
There's nothing at all wrong with discussing age of consent laws.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:32AM
Unless you're a microsoft target.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:50AM (4 children)
Then why do different jurisdictions define it so differently?
It's because whilst there are some cases that clearly are, and some cases that clearly aren't, there are other cases which some think are, and others think aren't. That's the very definition of a grey area. If that ain't a slippery term, I don't know what is.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Redundant) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:38PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:15AM (2 children)
Defined differently in different jurisdictions. Thanks for proving my point.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:45AM
Don't bother responding, as I know in advance you have absolutely nothing of value to say, but go off and ponder whether the colour "orange" is easy to define. After all, crayola managed, pantone managed, and the W3C have also managed it. OK, their definitions differ from each other, but why should little things like disagreement stand in the way of "definition".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:28PM (1 child)
Saying that a person PRESENTED THEMSELVES AS entirely willing is not the same thing as saying that they were entirely willing.
Example: Some creepy dude abducts you and takes you to Pedo Island. You're told to act horny, to ask for sex, and to act like you enjoy it. If you refuse, your brother will have his throat sliced. In comes Bill Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, or Dr. Minsky. What do you do? (meanwhile, it is all recorded on secret video for a corrupt or foreign intelligence service)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:31AM
> Bill Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, or Dr. Minsky
One of these people is not like the others.