Friday 72-year-old Richard Stallman made a two-hour-and-20-minutes appearance at the Georgia Institute of Technology, talking about everything from AI and connected cars to smartphones, age verfication laws, and his favorite Linux distro. But early on, Stallman also told the audience how “I despise DRM…I don’t want any copy of anything with DRM. Whatever it is, I never want it so badly that I would bow down to DRM.” (So he doesn’t use Spotify or Netflix…)
This led to an interesting moment when someone asked him later if we have an ethical obligation to avoid piracy… First Stallman swapped in his preferred phrase, “forbidden sharing”…
I won’t use the word piracy to refer to sharing. Sharing is good and it should be lawful. Those laws are wrong. Copyright as it is now is an injustice.
Stallman said “I don’t hesitate to share copies of anything,” but added that “I don’t have copies of non-free software, because I’m disgusted by it.” After a pause, he added this. "Just because there is a law to to give some people unjust power, that doesn’t mean breaking that law becomes wrong…
Dividing people by forbidding them to help each other is nasty.
And later Stallman was asked how he watches movies, if he’s opposed to DRM-heavy sites like Netflix, and the DRM in Blu-ray discs? “The only way I can see a movie is if I get a file — you know, like an MP4 file or MKV file. And I would get that, I suppose, by copying from somebody else.”
Sharing is good. Stopping people from sharing is evil.
Abstract credit: https://slashdot.org/story/451774
To be fair, the question (if it was asked verbatim) doesn’t even make sense. Pedophilia can’t really be okay or not okay, it just is.
It’s like asking if schizophrenia is okay.
Now, if you’re talking about child molestation, that is clearly and unequivocally wrong, but if that’s what you mean, you should say that.
It should never even be questioned. Pedophilia will never be okay. Children cannot reasonably consent and if anyone thinks they do, don’t care to know what ‘grooming’ is or probably is a groomer to make a child believe that.
I don’t think that is what he meant. Perhaps some more nuance might show you both to be correct. Cronophilia is not a choice, it just is, to OP’s point. However acting on those urges is always unequivocally morally wrong, reprehensible and criminal. Children cannot consent.
Precisely what I meant, thank you. People seem to have troubles differentiating between thoughts and actions when it comes to paraphilias.
You’re going beyond the meaning of the word. Pedophilia is just the attraction itself, there can’t be anything okay or not okay with it, it just is. That’s like asking “Is psychopathy okay?”. There’s no answer for asking if the state of something is okay or not okay, because like I said, it just is.
Huh?
The Daily Beast first reported that Stallman wrote in 2003, “I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)” In 2006, he wrote, “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”
he also said this on account of epstein’s victim Virginia Giuffre:
“We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.” When a person on the email chain noted that the girl was 17 at the time, and that sex with a minor is statutory rape, Stallman replied, “I think it is morally 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.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=stallman+pedophilia
edit: jeez, that’s a lot of pedophiles we have here on lemmy.
you sick f.cks carefully choose fraction of the quotes i presented and try to spin it and you are not good at it.
all of you trying to steer the debate about 17 or 18 and “oh, each limit is kind of arbitrary, i see where he is coming from”: the 17 girl was victim of rape and human trafficking, her age does not matter at all; on top of that he dismisses her with “she presented herself to him as entirely willing”. i wouldn’t touch this asshole with 10 meter pole.
he also uses term “voluntarily pedophilia”, pedophilia is when adult person is attacted to kid. and there is no such thing as vuluntary pedophilia because the kid cannot give informed consent.
pedophilia is not case of [age of consent] + 1 having sex with [age of consent] - 1. it is adult person having sex with 14 yo (and some of them are ready sooner!) - his words.
whatever is in your heads guys, please know it is not acceptable for adult man to fuck a kid younger than 14 years, under any circumstances.
I think you’re missing the point. Stallman meant that it would be absurd to classify something as rape just for their age, the most important thing is of course context. Moreover, all of this argument about someone needing to reach the complete state of neurological development in order to have sex is flawed since men don’t develop to their full extent until their 30s. You can absolutely make a choice for yourself even before that age and therefore before reaching that point of brain development. If it wasn’t like that, we also wouldn’t allow people to vote, get guns, work etc. The age of consent exists in order not to criminalize sex between teenagers and also allow to shades and case to case evaluation. Of course it is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have
no, the age of consent exists to protect 12 yo kids from 70 yo creeps who think it is okey to fuck these 12 year olds.
Yeah it’s also for that but it’s not the main purpose. If it was like that, they could have just placed an age limit, while the concept itself of “age of consent” starts from the assumption that even a minor at some point reaches the minimum level of emotional and cerebral maturity in order to give full consent. Moreover, the age of consent also has other clauses in most countries. For example, in Italy the technical age of consent is 14 (which also brings other things such as individual penal responsibility if the kid does something illegal, the freedom to be heard in court as a witness etc) but when there’s specific power dynamics involved the age of consent rises to 16
And that’s why I was wondering if the question was asked verbatim. Stallman doesn’t seem to know what the word means either.
I don’t get what’s supposed to be so controversial about the first part, though. Many countries already have their age of consent somewhere around 14, often including Romeo and Juliet laws (i.e. not indiscriminately), so not really an unpopular take, and I can’t say I disagree with him there.
Seems logical. The real issue in her case was human trafficking, which is illegal irrespective of age.
Funny how you criticised ad hominem attacks in another comment, while resorting to the same tactic. And yeah, pedophiles are everywhere, including Lemmy, so what? Then again, I don’t see any around here.
Correct. Though “voluntary pedophilia” is a nonsensical term.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as voluntary pedophilia because pedophilia only refers to the attraction, which not a choice. What you mean is simply “there is no such thing as (voluntary) consent by children”.
I don’t see anyone here making the claim that it is.
Coming from a country with an age of consent lower than 18 and possibly one of the few people who acknowledge even the US - famous for its stance on 18 - has an AoC under 18 in more than half of ots States, I understand where he’s coming from in that quote. Choosing to care only about an arbitrary age - one that so very few actually agree on outside of puritan cultures - is flawed.
Age of consent is 16 in Australia and many other western nations. Governments need to set an age to say what is too young, but whether that age is 16 or 18 is somewhat arbitrary. Some 16yos are very ready for sex and some 20yos aren’t. Different people develop at different rates. So any age you set will limit the freedom of some unfairly and not protect others who need it.
except romeo was not 70 yo creep secretly longing to fuck 12 years old.
it is actually quite an unpopular take and you agreeing with him is something you should really keep for yourself. i am done with you.
No, he was a 20yo creep secretly longing to fuck a 12yo.
incorrect. juliet is 13, and romeo’s age is never explicitly stated, but is generally understood to be between 16-18. which is something that might have been acceptable at that time, while stallman is not acceptable today.
Do you even know what Romeo and Juliet laws are? Because with those, you’re scenario is not legally possible.
Basically all countries in South America have their age of consent at 14, plus some in Africa and Asia, and Europe is also pretty evenly split between 14-15 and 16. This is not unpopular at all, but go ahead and scream at everyone with a differing opinion because yours is the only “correct” one.
Just out of curiosity: Are you US American by chance?
this discussion is not and never was about romeo and juliet, why are you so desperately trying to steer it there?
he specifically uses term “voluntarily pedophilia”, pedophilia is when adult person is attracted to a kid. and there is no such thing as voluntary pedophilia because the kid cannot give informed consent.
pedophilia is not case of [age of consent] + 1 having sex with [age of consent] - 1. it is adult person having sex with 14 yo (and some of them are ready sooner!) - his words.
i am not, how is that relevant?
Can you even read? I did explain that in the very first sentence, by mentioning that your scenario would not be legally possible.
And I was just wondering, because US Americans online are often extremely prudish and self-centered, which matches your attitude.
what the fuck are you talking about? what scenario is not legally possible? adults fucking kids? YEAH, NO KIDDING, THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. adults fucking kids are not legally possible, and yet, some people, including richard stallman, defend it.
and you come with some scenario that is not discussed as if it has to mean something for the discussion? what are you trying to achieve here?
also, do you call not being pro-pedo extremely prudish?
According to your own comment, Stallman literally said “NOT INDISCRIMINATELY”, which to me can only mean Romeo and Juliet laws and/or only after mandatory sex education. Do you fucking know what words mean? Your scenario is completely made up in your head and not something Stallman advocates for, at least not according to the quotes you yourself provided.
So this scenario is something that YOU made up. He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you’re moving the goal posts.
And defending the age of consent to be 14 is not “pro-pedo”, and there is no such thing, because as I just explained, pedophilia is a state of something that can’t be okay or not okay, favoured or not favoured, it just is. Also it refers to children below that age, so you really need to upgrade your vocabulary and learn the definitions of words in it. Defending this age barrier is called having a fucking brain. So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent, especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws, is extremely prudish.
Yeah, Stallman needs to educate himself on human brain development. The decision-making centers of the brain don’t stop developing at 17 or 18 but 25. So, a lot of people are wrong on this, unfortunately.
I kind of get what he’s saying here, especially when draconian California laws can put 18-year-olds in prison for daring to have sex with a 17-year-old, when they are both in high school. (I think they finally fixed that legal gap, but it existed for a long time.)
But, completely outside the whole age and human brain development “debate”, there’s also power dynamics at play here that aren’t even considered. Epstein is a powerful man that used his influence to coerce girls to have sex with other powerful men. Even if she was 18 or 25, a woman in that position is still being exploited, with human trafficking in the mix.
Yes, that’s worth pointing out. Human trafficking is illegal no matter what age the victim is. What Epstein did would’ve still been wrong (and criminal) even if none of the women had been minors.
You got the point blud