[Discuss] RMS

[invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:04:27PM -0400, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:09:10 -0400
> worley at alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
> 
> > Of course, RMS ran into trouble for speaking his mind plainly in a
> > time when that is unsafe, and his personality makes him particularly
> > vulnerable to that.  But I have been wondering whether his personality
> > has robbed him of the connections and goodwill that can buffer one
> > from problems.  That is, whether CSAIL may have been wanting to eject
> > him for some time and this provided the opportunity.
> 
> Point: he didn't speak (write) his mind plainly. He tried to equivocate
> around the meanings of two clearly defined, very serious criminal
> charges.

I read the thread (or as much of it as was readily available on the
web), and, much as I hate to defend rms, I think this is a gross
mischaracterization of what he said.  But it's one tons of media
outlets have also made, so at least you're in good company.

Thread posted in part here, for those of us who aren't actually on
CSAIL-related:

  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing

Side point regarding the article: RMS also clearly did NOT "describe
Epstein victims as 'entirely willing,'" contrary to the article's
clickbait headline.  He simply questioned whether Giuffre appeared so
to Minsky, as by all accounts (including one posted here, if I'm not
mistaken) it was she who initiated contact with Minsky.

I find it tremendously disturbing that all manner of news media
outlets, regardless of any political or philosophical leaning, are
just outright saying shit that ain't true.

> And then when he apologized he didn't apologize for what he did but
> for the press misrepresenting him.

As far as I can see, this was the correct response--or it would have
been, in a world where rational thought about controvercial topics
still had value.  Minsky (and now RMS himself) has essentially already
been convicted in the media.  Due process is rather passe these
days--it's way more satisfying to convict people who say and do things
you don't like on social media or in the press--but it's still the law
of the land, for good reason, perhaps now more than ever.  RMS's
arguments are likely exactly the ones Minsky's lawyers would have used
(perhaps among others) to defend him, most likely with success as best
I can tell, should it have come to that.

I'm certain RMS saw it that way--that he was defending a colleague
(and friend?) whom no one else could or would, whom he thought deserved
due process, just like any other accused person.  I could not see the
start of the thread, but it would not surprise me if it was a response
to a message from someone else suggesting that MIT's affiliation with
Epstein and Minsky should be disavowed, or if he posted it after
hearing conversations about it.  Whever else I think about RMS, it's
been my observation that his words and actions all point unfailingly
at what he genuinely believes is fair and just.  Even if he is mostly
shitty about it.

RMS's comments centered around two DISTINCT but related points:

1.  Questioning whether Minsky was actually guilty of _anything_,
    UNDER THE LAW:  Whether Minsky was aware Giuffre was being coerced,
    whether someone's assertion of what the law is in the Virgin
    Islands was correct, whether Giuffre was in fact under aged under
    that law, and whether Minsky was aware of it if she were.  It's my
    understanding that her own deposition leaves those questions in
    doubt--she was not sure where or when it happened or what her age
    was at the time.  She did not give any indication that Minsky knew
    she was being coerced, or that he knew her age.  Nor did any other
    account I've heard of.  If Minsky didn't know of her age or her
    coersion, then it fails to meet the legal requirements of the
    crime of rape.  You're still entitled to think it's pretty creepy
    though.

2. The terms "sexual assault" and "rape" both apply to a range of
   behaviors (this is a fact), which are not equal (this is a
   judgement).  Statutory rape, for example, involves ONLY whether the
   participants are beyond some age defined by law in their local
   jurisdiction.  The age is rather arbitrary, as made plain by the
   fact that in 30 states what Minsky did wouldn't have been illegal,
   even if he had known her age (barring coersion).  RMS argued that
   it is "morally ambiguous" and unfair to label such a person, /if he
   were guilty/, with the same label as, say, the South Hill Rapist.

The second point requires a moral judgement.  I don't agree with rms's
"abolish age of consent laws" notion (yes, he has really advocated for
that publicly), but I think his point about their arbitraryness is an
existential fact and therefore reasonable.  I also don't think it is
unreasonable to conclude that having otherwise consentual sex with
someone who is, say, 6,569 days old, instead of 6,570 days old, is not
the same evil as the brutal assault and forced penetration of multiple
humans.  YMMV, but this is the point he was making.  Sadly, words are
now only as powerful as the offense you're able to read into them,
rather than the ideas they actually express.

The first point, however, requires no such judgement.  It is merely a
matter of what can be proved.  Rape law requires mens rea, it seems it
can not be established by any of the (publicly, widely) available
facts.  He's dead so he'll never stand trial, but if he would have, he
most likely could not be convicted.  That would mean, legally, that
Minsky is not a rapist, and calling him one is slander.  Calling him
creepy is just your opinion.

It seems to me RMS's career was ended not because he did anything
illegal, immoral, or even unreasonable. It was because he verbally
defended a colleague against a charge he believed was in two different
ways unjust, and a student at MIT didn't like it, because she read
into his words offenses which were in fact not stated.  [And perhaps a
bit because he's generally an asshole.]  I think we should, all of us,
be very afraid of that.  One slip of the tongue, your career is done.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.