|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2019-09-18 18:39:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Журнализмъ какъ онъ есть
Richard Stallman resigns from MIT and from FSF over "insensitive" comments.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3k
The article says:
Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked
Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him
However, below they quote the entire email exchange, which shows that:
- Stallman did not "insist" (or even imply!) that "all" victims were "entirely willing". Stallman actually wrote,
All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was coerced. It does not report what each said and did during their sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.
... the most probable scenario is that [Guiffre] presented herself to [Minsky] as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
- Stallman does not argue that sexual assault or rape is somehow not a crime. He argues that these notions are defined and used too vaguely. He argues that, according to the deposition, Minsky most likely did not sexually assault Guiffre, and that it may be doubted that Minsky actually had sex with Guiffre at all:
I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexuai assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
I think it is moraily 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 or 17.
The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. It says they had sex.
Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
...A witness denies this, saying that Minsky turned her down.
... She does not explicitly state that Minsky was one of the people she had sex with.
So, Stallman believes that Minsky most likely had sex with Guiffre - even though he is aware that there is no direct evidence for that, and that a witness claims that it is not true. Stallman also believes that Guiffre was coerced into having sex. The only thing Stallman argues is that Minsky may not have been aware of the coercion.
Stallman's words were taken out of context, exaggerated, and presented in a way that portrays Stallman as a staunch defender of rape and sexual assault.
Richard Stallman resigns from MIT and from FSF over "insensitive" comments.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3k
The article says:
Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked
Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him
However, below they quote the entire email exchange, which shows that:
- Stallman did not "insist" (or even imply!) that "all" victims were "entirely willing". Stallman actually wrote,
All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was coerced. It does not report what each said and did during their sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.
... the most probable scenario is that [Guiffre] presented herself to [Minsky] as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
- Stallman does not argue that sexual assault or rape is somehow not a crime. He argues that these notions are defined and used too vaguely. He argues that, according to the deposition, Minsky most likely did not sexually assault Guiffre, and that it may be doubted that Minsky actually had sex with Guiffre at all:
I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexuai assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
I think it is moraily 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 or 17.
The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. It says they had sex.
Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
...A witness denies this, saying that Minsky turned her down.
... She does not explicitly state that Minsky was one of the people she had sex with.
So, Stallman believes that Minsky most likely had sex with Guiffre - even though he is aware that there is no direct evidence for that, and that a witness claims that it is not true. Stallman also believes that Guiffre was coerced into having sex. The only thing Stallman argues is that Minsky may not have been aware of the coercion.
Stallman's words were taken out of context, exaggerated, and presented in a way that portrays Stallman as a staunch defender of rape and sexual assault.
