Both MIT and Harvard have admitted to helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors after they were exposed by whistle-blowers at both of these institutions.
I'm still not sure why people consider it appropriate to exclude someone like Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while continuing to allow Mr. Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
So why has nobody drafted petitions to cancel Rafael "Thank You So Much Mr. Epstein -- And Don't Forget to Show My Letter to Federal Prosecutors" Reif, Benedict "Epstein is an Ideal Donor for Harvard" Gross, Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz, Martin "Punishment Serves No Noble Purpose" Nowak, Steven "Using the Internet to Entice a Minor into Prostition is A-Okay" Pinker, Seth "So What If I Make Female Undergraduates at MIT Feel Uncomfortable "Lloyd, Neri "Epstein was Always a Reliable Supporter of Israel" Oxman, Frank "I Never Saw any Girls that were Underage" Wilczek, and all of the other pedophilia-tolerating two-faced phonies that attended EDGE Foundation dinners hosted by the convicted child rapist and/or visited him on "Pedophile Isle," where FBI reportedly found instruction manuals that Mr. Epstein had ordered on Amazon that describe how to create a so-called "sex slave," in addition to video tapes containing child pornography that he allegedly recorded using secret cameras that were installed throughout his various residences?
Stallman blaming his "being on the spectrum" for all of the troubling statements cataloged on the website cited below may not entirely excuse Mr. Stallman for making them since there is no evidence that someone on the spectrum is more likely than the general population to hold similar views on child rape:
But the most important question today that Mr. Stallman needs to address directly, because many of his critics on this issue continue to hold him in the highest regard for his role in advancing the free software movement, is a very frank one:
Were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in donations that were promised to his academic program at Harvard and hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, often laundered through Epstein's fellow billionaire pedophile friends like Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, and Leon Black, to Harvard University, where Mr. Nowak is a professor?
I'm not entirely convinced by the naysayers on this one yet, but Stallman is most deserving of forgiveness thus far, and not because of his autism, but rather because of all of his contributions to free software in spite of it.
Some of the other dogs cited above deserve to spend time in the same jail cell where Epstein killed himself because he was too much of a coward to stand trial for all of the crimes that he knew he had committed.
He's never adequately explained from what I can tell why he made those statements in the first place. If he could provide that additional insight, I think it would help others evaluate the sincerity of his apology.
The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman, whom many of us hold in the highest regard for his role in the free software movement, is a very frank one:
Were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in donations that were promised to his academic program at Harvard and hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, often laundered through Epstein's fellow billionaire pedophile friends like Les Wexner and Glenn Dubin, to Harvard University, where Mr. Nowak is employed as a math professor?
> Stallman’s nasty comments last week drew attention to some even more appalling stuff he said back in the mid-2000s. In one 2003 post, the famed coder even wrote that “everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately.”
Funny that this "even more appalling stuff" is the law in such backward places like Austria, Germany and Italy. Just slightly less uncivilised countries such as Denmark, France, Sweden, set the age of consent to 15.
To the extent that Stallman used his position at MIT and the FSF to help Jeffrey Epstein evade prosecution under the federal RICO statute for several decades by colluding with Epstein co-conspirators MIT president Rafael Reif, MIT corporation chairman Robert Millard and corporate vice presidents Morgan, Newton, Ruiz and Lucas, as well as colleagues Seth Lloyd and Marvin Minsky, in hopes of receiving the kind of money that they witnessed Epstein donate to Harvard as quid pro quo for Harvard law professor and Epstein best buddy Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz negotiating the infamous 2011 "sweetheart deal" with federal prosecutors, that was also facilitated by Benedict "Dick" Gross, Martin Nowak, Stephen Kosslyn, Steven "Use-of-the-Internet-to-Entice-a-Minor-into-Prostitution-is-A-Okay" Stinker of a Pinker, and former Harvard president Larry "Women Can't Do Science" Summers, then that's a huge obstacle to allowing Mr. Stallman to continue to serve on the board of the FSF.
As far as the examplars you quote above, namely Austria, Germany and Italy, along with some of their collaborators during WWII, I wonder if even Epstein, Maxwell, Reif, Summers, Pinker, Kosslyn, Minsky, Oxman, Dubin, Wexner, Black, Zuckerman, and last but not least, Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz, would approve of citing these countries as modern role models for the protection of basic human rights.
>To the extent that Stallman used his position at MIT and the FSF to help Jeffrey Epstein evade prosecution under the federal RICO statute for several decades
Can you present any evidence that Stallman did anything of the sort?
The evidence at this time is largely circumstantial:
i) Mr. Stallman's job was to raise money for the FSF.
ii) Mr. Stallman's friend and possible mentor was accused of sexual misconduct involving an underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle."
iii) Mr. Stallman's statements appear more designed to justify and rationalize Mr. Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls than to defend the reputation of his friend and possible mentor Mr. Minsky against accusations that he presumably wanted to believe were false.
iv) Mr. Stallman was presumably aware of Mr. Epstein's donations to Harvard and the reason why he was making them given the accusations that had been leveled against Mr. Epstein in the press through articles like this one:
v) Mr. Stallman presumably knows that he is a public figure who is recognized around the globe for his lifelong contribution to the free software movement, and that any statements which he makes in support of Mr. Epstein personally, or in defense of his alleged illegal behavior, could be seized upon by attorneys like Mr. Dershowitz to help Mr. Epstein negotiate his next "sweetheart deal," much like Mr. Epstein's "CIA connection" was used to bamboozle federal prosecutors for the first deal.
Regarding this last bullet point, do realize that this was exactly what Mr. Reif was doing for Mr. Epstein when he handed him that personally signed thank-you note that has caused so much public outcry and calls for his resignation.
By the way, Reif's thank-you note is also eerily similar to what happened here:
Note that in this case, pedophile prize-winning author Gabriel Matzneff received his "thank-you" note not from the president of MIT, but from the former president of France!
Matzneff openly bragged about taking multiple eight year-old boys to bed that he picked up at a shopping plaza in the Philippines so that he could enjoy sexually abusing them all at the same time, to only then celebrate it in one of his most despicable novels, and like Epstein, he also managed to evade prosecution for these crimes over the course of several decades, because he had his set of "protectors" sitting in powerful places too.
So Stallman should think about answering his critics at the appropriate time, because it sure as hell looks like he was providing "reputation laundering" for Mr. Epstein along with MIT president Rafael Reif, and in the court of public opinion, what Mr. Stallman has hopefully learned by now is that circumstantial evidence is often all that's needed to convict.
i) False. Richard Stallman's primary concern is with the philosophy and ethics of free software. He has never shown any notable concern with money.
ii) True, but has no bearing on Richard Stallman's character or motives. It invites guilt by association.
iii) False. I take issue with the expression 'more designed' That imputes a motive to Mr. Stallman to the effect that he was deliberately and specifically covering for Epstein rather than reacting spontaneously to learning of the accusations against Marvin Minsky.
iv) Mr. Stallman may or may not have been aware of Mr. Epstein's largess, but given Mr. Stallman's known lack of concern with money, it cannot be inferred that he had any interest in soliciting donations.
v) Mr. Stallman is surely aware that he is a public figure, but that does not change the fact that he is no politician or diplomat, but a nerd who is more comfortable with computers.
>and that any statements which he makes in support of Mr. Epstein personally, or in defense of his alleged illegal behavior
Richard Stallman has made no statements in defense of Mr. Epstein personally. A case could be made that his ill-chosen words could provide cover indirectly for the activities of Mr. Epstein, but that is not the same thing.
The rest of this argument is sensationalist and irrelevant.
>He's never adequately explained from what I can tell why he made those statements in the first place. If he could provide that additional insight, I think it would help others evaluate the sincerity of his apology.
I don't think it's relevant to his work.
And if anything I said caused such a reaction from the public, I wouldn't say anything else about it either. It just is not likely to help anything.
Both MIT and Harvard have admitted to helping Jeffrey Epstein avoid prosecution on federal racketeering charges for the sex-trafficking of minors after they were exposed by whistle-blowers at both of these institutions.
Not sure why it would be appropriate then to exclude Stallman from serving on the Board of the FSF while allowing Rafael Reif, for example, to remain president of MIT after sending a personally signed "thank-you note" to one of the most notorious alleged sex-traffickers and convicted child-rapists in US history:
So why has nobody drafted petitions to cancel Rafael Reif, Benedict "Dick" Gross, Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz, Martin Nowak, Steven Pinker, Seth Lloyd, Neri Oxman, Frank Wilczek, and all of the other pedophilia-supporting two-faced phonies that attended Edge Foundation dinners hosted by the convicted child rapist and/or visited him on "Pedophile Isle," where FBI reportedly found instruction manuals that Mr. Epstein had ordered on Amazon that describe how to create a so-called "sex slave," in addition to video tapes containing child pornography that he allegedly recorded using secret cameras that were installed throughout his various residences?
Ito resigned. Kosslyn has repeatdly resigned as he tried to run with his tail between his legs from one university to the next as soon as he started to feel the heat (thanks to some anonymous emails).
It's time to cancel the rest of them too ... and that now includes Claudine Gay at Harvard and Martin Schmidt at MIT who signed off on allowing Nowak and Lloyd to return to their respective campuses !!!
Where is the presumption of innocence, where accusations of guilt must pass a burden of proof?
Stallman is the least 'guilty' of the people you mention, since his 'crimes' consist of the pedantic quibbling over definitions that are typical of an individual suffering from Asperger's syndrome. They are, of course, 'wooden-eared' and easily misrepresented by persons of bad faith such as the petitioners linked above. There is zero positive evidence that he advocates, or ever participated in pedophilia.
I put 'guilty' in scare-quotes because, unless there is solid evidence to the contrary, there is only guilt by association involved. Epstein was a big donor, especially to research programs in physics, and that is the basis of their association with him.
> pedantic quibbling over definitions that are typical of an individual suffering from Asperger's syndrome
I don't get why expressing (however unpopular) opinions based on rational arguments should be dismissed as "pedantic quibbling" caused by some underlying mental issue. Just consider how closed-minded, not to mention offensive, is to characterise opinions you disagree with as the product of a mental syndrome.
Besides, Stallman's opinions are not about subtle points without practical consequences. The laws and language in the US (which are, by the way, NOT always shared by the rest of the advanced world) have very practical- sometimes terrible- consequences on people's lives. So I don't think it's fair to call it "pedantic quibbling".
Stallman was responding only to the accusations against his colleague and friend, the late Prof. Marvin Minsky, not making policy prescriptions. It is clear that he did not want to believe that Prof. Minsky was guilty, and he engaged in precisely that direct and unfiltered thinking aloud that can get people who are on the autistic spectrum into trouble.
If that were the case, the "pedantic quibbling" would be exactly of the same sort that takes place every day in courts of justice- and it's at the base of our judicial system, as the right to defense from accusations. Stallman is using it to defend the reputation of a deceased friend, I think it has value.
Anyway, there are many more statements by Stallman that caused outrage, and they are about morals and public policy. And he has the full right to hold and express opinions that go against that of the majority in his time and his country, without them being dismissed as the ramblings of someone suffering from a mental disorder.
Noting that somebody has Asperger's syndrome is not an invitation to dismiss their words. Instead it provides context and insight into why they speak as they do, which furthers correct understanding of what they have said, and their motives for speaking.
I think they speak as they do for the same reasons of everyone else, i.e. because they believe it's right and relevant. If anything (my entirely intuitive, anecdotal take, for what it's worth) people with Asperger tend to be less conscious of social norms and therefore more capable of independent, original thought. Which would make their statements more valuable and less hypocritical.
I agree with you, but given that hypocrisy, indirectness and dissimulation are the norm, an approach to speaking characterized by directness, literalness, and lack of guile can easily be misinterpreted, assigned false motives, or cause upset even if understood correctly.
Ok. But then instead of trying to excuse Stallman by mentioning a possible cognitive disorder, it would make more sense to try to excuse the cancellers- after all they are those who misinterpret, assign motives without reason, and ultimately lack the ability to participate in a rational conversation.
He's never adequately explained from what I can tell why he made those statements in the first place. If he could provide that additional insight, I think it would help others evaluate the sincerity of his apology.
The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman, whom many of us hold in the highest regard for his role in the free software movement, is a very frank one: were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in donations that were promised to his academic program at Harvard and hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, often laundered through Epstein's fellow billionaire pedophile friends like Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, and Leon Black, to Harvard University, where Mr. Nowak is a professor?
>The question today that I have for Mr. Stallman...
...Is an accusation disguised as cross examination. It is a common technique used in courtrooms and by journalists. Such usage does not serve the interests of clarity, and we need clarity here.
If you believe that Richard Stallman, a notoriously unworldly hippie, was really motivated by greed for grant money, then you have a rather high burden of proof to surmount.
The real, and most plausible, explanation was that Stallman was horrified at the unsavory revelations concerning his good friend and colleague, Prof. Marvin Minsky, and was attempting, innocently, to defend him.
My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university.
I am also not asking whether he was motivated "by greed" when he made public statements that appeared to defend Epstein.
Your use of the word "greed" is a distraction away from the real question that I asked previously: were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation?
That's all that I am asking here!
If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe?
>My current understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong here, is that Mr. Stallman's primary role at the FSF over the past decade has been to raise money for that organization, much like Rafael Reif's primary role at MIT is to raise money for the university.
Richard Stallman's primary role was to be honorary head of the FSF, a figurehead and inspiration rather than an active participant, far more interested in upholding its philosophical and ethical basis than in practical matters.
There is a conflation here between 'role' with 'motive.' While one should expect the leaders of an organization such as the FSF to be concerned, even if only indirectly, with raising money, it does not follow that RMS had any such concern. Given his spectacular disregard for tact, diplomacy, interpersonal skills, and even bodily hygiene, RMS would appear to be singularly unsuited to any role resembling that of a lobbyist or fundraiser. Mr. Stallman is simply far to unworldly to care about money.
>were any of Mr. Stallman's statements intended to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation?
Again, that is a leading question which invites the hearer to assume the truth of what is being asked, reversing the burden of proof. This is a mere rhetorical trick, not a serious question.
>If his sole intention was to defend his dear friend Mr. Minsky from false accusations of raping a underage girl who was allegedly being trafficked to him by Mr. Epstein on "Pedophile Isle," then why is he attacking the law that protects underage girls from people like Mr. Epstein rather than the accuser who you claim that Mr. Stallman is not prepared to believe?
This is another attempt to impute a motive to RMS which he simply did not have. Yes, his unguarded, over-analytic, response to the accusations against his friend provides plenty of ammunition to those who would misrepresent his position, but it cannot be said to follow that his intention was to provide cover for Epstein, and his response to the ensuing controversy linked elsewhere in this thread makes it clear that he had no such motive.
There was a nice discussion on hacker news recently about Martin Nowak's research on this topic that was largely funded by Jeffrey Epstein, and as a result was likely designed to serve as a foil for a billionaire convicted child-rapist who was facing impending federal charges at the time for the sex-trafficking of minors:
Claudine Gay has decided that Martin Nowak only needs to serve two years of probation for openly aiding and abetting a convicted child rapist and accused child sex-trafficker by conspiring with fellow accused child molester and Harvard law professor (and also Epstein best buddy) Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz to help Mr. Epstein evade prosecution on pending federal racketeering charges ... in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to Harvard from Epstein's estimated $500 million estate, that was laundered in part through other members of Mr. Epstein's billionaire child sex-trafficking ring that included Les Wexner, Leon Black, and Glenn Dubin.
Hopefully there are a few like-minded students at Harvard that will keep the pressure alive on their university's administration like these brave souls over at MIT are doing:
Nowak used to write papers on how punishment "serves no noble purpose" as part of the interference with the legal process that Nowak was running for Epstein.
Actually, one of the principal reasons why the courts can sentence folks like Epstein and Nowak under the federal RICO statute for up to a lifetime sentence in prison, in addition to seizing his assets (and possibly those of Harvard and MIT as well) under the criminal forfeiture provision of that statute, is not just for "punishment."
It's for deterrence.
The message that law enforcement sends by not prosecuting Epstein's co-conspirators at schools like Harvard and MIT, that include Nowak and several others, is that there are no real legal consequences for this type of behavior.
And so what again we see here is a prime example of how the real discrimination that takes place in the United States judicial system regarding who gets punished and who escapes scot-free has less to do with skin color than it does with the size of your bank account, and in Nowak's case, the size of your culpable employer's bank account too.
Shame on Frank for trying to downplay his connection to Jeffrey Epstein's billionaire sex-trafficking ring!
Pinker once tried to claim that "he never really liked the guy" either .... but signed on to Alan Dershowitz' legal defense "dream team" to help the latter find a "linguistically valid" way to interpret a law prohibiting the use of the internet to entice minors into prostitution in order to help Mr. Epstein avoid prosecution on racketeering charges in federal court that would have subjected his estimated $500 million estate to criminal forfeiture proceedings ... instead of Harvard and MIT's endowment !!!
Indeed there are also plenty of child rapists hiding within the Catholic Church, which is mentioned in the article.
But Frank is an even bigger fraud on this topic. Students and other faculty members should throw a few proverbial pies at the two-face whenever he attempts to give a public talk ... as they should his colleague and fellow Epstein acolyte Mr. Seth Lloyd:
Shame on "Ms. Affirmative Action" at Harvard for "punishing" Martin Nowak with only two years of probation. Nowak aided and abetted a convicted child rapist by conspiring with fellow accused child molester and Epstein best buddy Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz to help Mr. Epstein evade prosecution on pending federal racketeering charges in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to Harvard from Epstein's estimated $500 million estate, that was laundered in part through other members of Mr. Epstein's billionaire child sex-trafficking ring that includes Les Wexner, Leon Black, and Glenn Dubin.
Hopefully there are a few like-minded students at Harvard that will keep the pressure alive on their university's administration like these brave souls over at MIT are doing:
As for the punishment that Claudine Gay now deserves, that's a difficult one to decide. But if she has a daughter that is around the same age as any of the girls that Mr. Epstein abused on "Pedophile Isle," and like Alan Dershowitz, she believes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 so middle-age guys can "partake of the forbidden fruit," as he likes to call it, maybe her daughter needs to be sent over to spend the night ... with Richard Stallman?
What does Stallman have to do with this? He is clearly the opposite of Epstein. He actually fights for LGBTQ+ rights and against what you are describing. What a disgusting thing to write.
He's never adequately explained from what I can tell why he made those statements in the first place. If he could provide that additional insight, I think it would help others evaluate the sincerity of his apology.
The question that I have for Mr. Stallman is a very frank one: were his remarks in support of pedophilia designed to persuade Mr. Epstein to donate part of his $500 million estate to the Free Software Foundation, much like he observed role-models such as MIT president Rafael Reif do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Reif sent Mr. Epstein a personally signed thank-you note for his donation to the Media Lab, or colleagues like Martin Nowak do for Mr. Epstein when Dr. Nowak created a web page on a university website and an office in his department for a convicted child-rapist in exchange for millions in donations to his academic program at Harvard.
Shame on "Ms. Affirmative Action" at Harvard for "punishing" Martin Nowak with only two years of probation.
Nowak aided and abetted a convicted child rapist by conspiring with fellow accused child molester and Epstein best buddy Alan "Dershbag" Dershowitz to help Mr. Epstein evade prosecution on pending federal racketeering charges in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to Harvard from Epstein's estimated $500 million estate, that was laundered in part through other members of Mr. Epstein's billionaire child sex-trafficking ring that included Les Wexner, Leon Black, and Glenn Dubin.
Hopefully there are a few like-minded students at Harvard that will keep the pressure on their university's administration like these brave souls over at MIT are doing:
As for the punishment that Claudine Gay now deserves, that's a difficult one to decide. But if she has a daughter that is around the same age as any of the girls that Mr. Epstein abused on "Pedophile Isle," and like Alan Dershowitz, she believes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 so middle-age guys can "partake of the forbidden fruit," as he likes to call it, maybe her daughter needs to be sent over to spend the night ... with Richard Stallman!
This was just on hacker news today:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/22/t...