[Discuss] RMS

[sethg at ropine.com (Seth Gordon)]

If I say that ?I think person X committed crime Y?, without further
elaboration, and crime Y is punishable by law by up to ten years in prison,
my statement is not equivalent to ?I think that person X deserves to go to
prison for ten years?. Any time there is a crime there are aggravating and
mitigating factors. To point out that X?s behavior falls *within the
boundaries of* a crime punishable by *up to* ten years in prison is not
prejudicial.

(FWIW, according to my quick google-fu, the median time served for rape or
sexual assault in a state prison on a first offense is 4.2 years, and a
quarter of such convicts are released within two years.)

The whole reason the concept of ?statutory rape? exists in the law, and why
the broad category of sexual assault *includes* statutory rape, is that
lawmakers assume that children are not yet mature enough to manage their
own affairs, even when they *think* they are competent, and therefore, an
adult who has sex with a child should be treated as someone who has
committed rape *even when* the child has said ?yes?.

There is room for reasonable debate on whether the law should put the
dividing line at 16 or 17 or 18 or whatever, or how to properly handle sex
between two minors, or when one partner is just above the line and one is
just below it, or how severely the crime should be punished. But these
debate does not seem apposite to the simple question of whether or not
Minsky (based on the facts that nobody seems to be disputing) committed
sexual assault at all.

And if we?re going to acknowledge that in some cases people younger than 17
can be psychologically/morally capable of consent even when the law says
otherwise, we should also acknowledge the reverse: in some cases people
*older* than 17 (i.e., some college undergraduates) can have sex
*without* giving
meaningful consent.

I would also observe that RMS has (quite properly!) subjected the question
of ?consent? to very careful scrutiny, and even used some rhetorical
exaggeration to describe the relationship between ?consenting? parties,
when the object used to execute ?consent? is a restrictive software license.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:03 PM Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:56:48 -0500
> Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org> wrote:
>
> > So I lied, I do see a way:  If you choose to read in the worst
> > possible unstated intentions of the person making the statements.
> > This is unfortunately a tactic that has become commonplace in recent
> > years.  Then you get the interpretation that you have taken.
>
> Or the way that you seem to be directly avoiding: confusion. RMS wrote
> two things which appear contradictory:
>
> Epstein was a serial rapist.
>
> Sexual assault presumes the application of force or violence.
>
> Huh? So if Minsky or Epstein did not apply force or violence then it
> wasn't sexual asasult or rape?
>
> --
> Rich Pieri
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>