Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Is Stallman nuts?

[Will Hill]

On Sunday 15 September 2019, Adrienne G. Thompson wrote:

> Contrary to Stallman's comment that "the word 'assaulting' presumes that he
> applied force or violence", force or violence is not necessary to
> constitute rape or "assault".  The fact that a young woman might have
> presented herself as "willing" does not absolve the *alleged *offender of
> rape  ... 

He did not say that.  He said the phrase "sexual assault" is ambiguous and 
misleading, and that prostitution is not equivalent to violent rape.  

He also argued that it's wrong to define rape and assault by the letter of the 
law, probably because people should use their morals to guide the law rather 
than the other way.  

This does not "absolve" Minsky, it just means we people should not categorize 
Minsky as a violent rapist of the sort Epstein was.  It should go without 
saying that the further inflation of Stallman into a defender of Epstein is 
an injustice.   

On Sunday 15 September 2019, Adrienne G. Thompson wrote:

> The record on Richard Stallman underscores that he is driven by ethical
> sensibilities. He's not about to approve of rape anytime soon. So let's
> just tell rms to shut up about the Epstein matter, not to attempt to defend
> his idols (some of which I, *personally*, know are not worth defending) and
> to get a female FSF colleague to censor all his comments pertaining to
> women before these comments go public.
>

No, Richard Stallman has been grossly misrepresented.  I'm glad he said so.  

I'm sorry Leah, but yes I do like fish.  I'd be happy to see you in Fairhope, 
Alabama but I understand you have better things to do with your time.  If you 
do show up, I promise to buy you some well prepared fish.