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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

"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."

Seems logical. The real issue in her case was human trafficking, which is illegal irrespective of age.

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.

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.

he also uses term "voluntarily pedophilia", pedophilia is when adult person is attacted to kid.

Correct. Though "voluntary pedophilia" is a nonsensical term.

and there is no such thing as vuluntary pedophilia because the kid cannot give informed consent.

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".

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 don't see anyone here making the claim that it is.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 3 points 18 hours ago

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.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

often including Romeo and Juliet laws

except romeo was not 70 yo creep secretly longing to fuck 12 years old.

so not really an unpopular take, and I can’t say I disagree with him there.

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.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

except romeo was not 70 yo creep secretly longing to fuck 12 years old.

No, he was a 20yo creep secretly longing to fuck a 12yo.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Do you even know what Romeo and Juliet laws are? Because with those, you’re scenario is not legally possible.

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.

Are you US American by chance?

i am not, how is that relevant?

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip -1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I did explain that in the very first sentence, by mentioning that your scenario would not be legally possible.

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?

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

except romeo was not 70 yo creep secretly longing to fuck 12 years old.

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.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

he specifically uses term “voluntarily pedophilia”, which means an adult fucking kid.

the whole romeo and juliet is you trying to defend a pedo and you are not good at it.

He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you’re moving the goal posts.

i am not moving anything, it is just that you can't read. see below.

I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)

for your pedo hero, some kids are ready to be fucked by an adult sooner than at 14.

So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent

this discussion is not about age of consent, that is just your desperate attempt to steer the debate.

this discussion is about the fact that according to stallman, voluntarily pedophilia does not harm children and according to him, lot of children are ready to be fucked by an adult sooner than at the age of 14.

especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws

i did not bring that up. you did, multiple times, in spite of that not being relevant at all. only you know why you are so bent on defending fucking children.

i am done with you, glorious pedo defender, no need to reply, you are in my ignore list, and please don't approach any children, since you are obviously heavily confused about what is acceptable around them.

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

He uses the term wrong, but yes, that's what's implied.

Okay, I'm going to spell it out for you, because clearly you have no fucking idea what Romeo and Juliet laws are. These laws allow teenagers to have sex with others in a similar age group, for example between 14 and 16, but not above. So these laws don't make it legal for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. Now first: What's bad about "defending a pedo"? For fucks sake, use your words correctly, what you mean is "defending someone who thinks that sexual acts between children and adults are okay", which isn't really happening here. Stallman questions the damage done by sexual acts with children as related to other factors besides the sexual acts themselves, which I disagree with because of the lack of physical development alone, but it's a fair thought to have about things like supposed mental harms.

it is just that you can't read.

I can, I just interpreted the sentence differently. To me it sounds like he uses "some people are ready earlier." in relation to the current age of consent in the US. Hard to say which interpretation is correct here without context or clarification from Stallman himself.

this discussion is not about age of consent

Uhm, yes it is? When Stallman mentions that people ought to be allowed to have sex at age 14, that is leading to a discussion directly tied to the age of consent. He didn't even make the claim that sexual acts with children should be allowed (besides possibly our differentiating interpretation in question), he merely questioned the belief that they are inherently harmful.

i did not bring that up. you did, multiple times, in spite of that not being relevant at all. only you know why you are so bent on defending fucking children.

It was YOUR quote of Stallman regarding his point that 14 is an acceptable age. So it's only logical for me to bring this up to prove to you that it's not an unpopular take. And not once have I defended fucking children here, you're seeing ghosts.

i am done with you, glorious pedo defender, no need to reply, you are in my ignore list, and please don't approach any children, since you are obviously heavily confused about what is acceptable around them.

Well, I already explained above why "pedo defender" defender is not the insult you think it is. And sure, run away from anything that questions your world view, because yours is the only correct one. No wonder why the average person is so stupid. Your baseless assumptions about me are also pretty lame.