How do we fix the fake news problem?

...

Epstein Was A Hero The Sex Was Consensual
Epstein Was A Hero The Sex Was Consensual
Epstein Was A Hero The Sex Was Consensual
Epstein Was A Hero The Sex Was Consensual

Dunno.
Are there guillotines in Minecraft?

Attached: 1565082254541.gif (480x270, 482K)

I dislike authoritarianism, but the most expedient way would be a law that equates online lynchings, "cancelling", "terminating", against non-public figures to vigilantism. Tie in vexatious lawsuits, bring parallels to loitering laws, call it a hate crime.

I ignore normie news.

We don't. It's free speech.
Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences.

The shit only happens to public figures though. You can’t cancel a literal who.

yikes

No it's not in context, fucking faggot. It's amazing how you will believe whatever ((( they ))) tell you.

The vice retards actually had the balls to misquote him while uploading the full conversation below the article and nobody has even realized it's fake news. KYS

You're either underaged or you have memory issues.
All of this started with a literal who at a python conference.

And in the first place, Stallman is not a real public figure. He specializes in one issue, and that's software. If people are mobbing him over things he says outside of the official capacity of the FSF then in those cases, he isn't a public figure.

You can't, they are incentivized to fight for clicks are feed their wokespehere lynchmob

Ask to play nice.

The direct quote is hypothetical, albeit what Stallman thinks is most likely
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that
>she presented herself to him 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.
and he has since backpedaled on his views on pedophilia after learning, somehow at the age of 66, that children having sex causes psychological problems.
stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)

> In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “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.”
Is a direct quote. But please, do add context.

How much more public do you need to be than getting booked for your speeches, having autists fanboy over you and be an (ex) spokesman for an organisation?

RMS and all autistics have been cancelled by the libs

Rip

definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-figure/
Stallman is a public figure in the context of software.
He never speaks publicly about anything else.
How can it be simpler than that?
People are mobbing him over his emails--that isn't a public forum, he isn't getting invited to speak in front of a crowd or TV audience about his opinions on the legal terms and definitions of sexual crimes
Am I a public figure for having spoken at scientific conferences to deliver presentations about my work?
Obviously not, and no one else speaking at developer conferences are public figures either.

whether she is 18 or 17 or in the virgin islands or mainland usa is irrelevant if she was raped

This. In some US states 17 is legal. They are traveling cross country to different islands. The charges really shouldn't depend on exactly where they were when they committed the crime.

You're a limited public figure for the purposes of newsworthiness of the event. Besides the only thing that matters being public is assumed damages or not. It's not all or nothing you dumb ass.

god you are such a faggot, if you actually believe what you're posting and this isn't an idiotic larp the world needs less of (((You)))

16 is legal in Massachusetts, where both Stallman and Minsky live, is the hilarious bit. He didn't bring it up for no reason.

I don't agree with 'morally absurd' but leaning inconsistencies between legal systems to justify inconsistencies in semantics is retarded and disruptive to communication so he's right to call the student out on it.

>for the purposes of newsworthiness of the event
So what you're telling me is that I, as an executive of CNBC, can turn literally anyone I want into a public figure, shit all over them, and they will have no recourse against my libel and vigilantism.
Yeah... if that's the world you've decided that you live in, then I'm glad I live in a different one.

*leaning on

Going with this limited logic you end up with “fucking kids is okay if it’s not forced lol”

That’s not how it works. You either are a public figure or not. Whatever initially made you one doesn’t matter.

If you get booked to enough conferences with enough public interest you could become one.

>Going with this limited logic you end up with “fucking kids is okay if it’s not forced lol”
Not going to reply to your shitty nonargument but make sure you see . Don't bother replying to me because I know you will just make another shitty bait attempt, dumb underage.

> shitty nonargument
You mean literally his position on pedophilia?

>after learning, somehow at the age of 66, that children having sex causes psychological problems.
Jesus Christ.

...

“After finally receiving some public backlash against my long held position, I realised that maybe fucking kids is not cool after all.”

Also it came after the stuff. So once again, how does the headline misrepresent the context when the key part it suggests is that he is clueless what consent means, his history and direct quotes show he has no clue what consent means and he suddenly realised himself that he had no clue what consent means?

THIS FUCKING GUY

HE IS LITERALLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THAT HE HAS SOME DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO BE PRESENTABLE

IT'S ALL ABOUT SOME AUTISTIC DUMB BULLSHIT ARGUMENTS TO HIM

JUST ADMIT THAT FUCKING CHILDREN IS BAD GOD DAMMIT HOW HARD CAN IT BE

HE IS A DETRIMENT TO ALL THE SENSIBLE ARGUMENTS HE AND THE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED TO HIM PUT FORWARD

I HOPE HE CROAKS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

FUCKING DUMBASS FOOT FUNGUS EATER

AAAAAAAARGGGH I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE

Basically yes.

You know that's what happened in Covington right?

He's literally autistic, user. But hey maybe this can be another position of power filled by a neurotypical now, I guess running every other major org on the planet wasn't enough for them.

Because no one asked him if fucking children was bad.

>HE HAS SOME DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO BE PRESENTABLE
no he doesn't
he's completely repulsive in mind and body and everyone eats his shit up anyway
it's hilarious

I'm getting real close to taking the proprietary software pill

That quote was in defense of Marvin Minsky, not Jeffrey Epstein, and the woman being discussed was 17 at the time (which is above the Massachusetts age of consent) so that bit about backpedaling on pedophilia is totally irrelevant.

>Covington
MMA fighting? What?

I think a court would disagree with you.

"We" don't. The normies that spanned the internet in the age of MySpace caused this problem, and only they can fix it. By reading technical manuals front to back like they were supposed to from the beginning.

Imagine treating using software like you're rooting for a fucking football team

Which adds a comic level of entitlement to it too.

>yeah, that teen totally wanted to fuck some nasty old guy, how could he assume she wasn’t 100% down to it

Where do you think we are?

Enjoy losing your lawsuits user

Come on, user.

Attached: covington.png (951x216, 37K)

Evidently we're on reddit

money
whores are a thing

With murder

He didn’t pay her and presumingly didn’t promise to.

I don't keep track of the news as if anything they say actually matters, but from what I'm reading, the libel case was dismissed not because the student suddenly became a public figure and her defense is subject to more scrutiny, but because the articles were "one of opinion"
You're saying that changing the laws so that generating an angry mob (which newspapers are known to do) becomes an act of vigilantism doesn't affect this?
I think you have more of a loser's mindset than I initially expected.

Enjoy always losing every shot you never take.

>enlightened courts making a stand against censorship
>entitled alt-right little shits told to GTFO
Perfection.

Minsky wasn't the trafficker. Epstein was. Minsky could have not known that the girl wasn't there voluntarily.

It was his responsibility to make sure she was. It’s basic fucking consent and something rapists like him and apologists like Stahlman either struggle with or don’t give a fuck about.

>Minsky could have not known that the girl wasn't there voluntarily.
do you not know how these things work or are you just really stupid
when two ugly, rich old men get together and trade teenage girls I think there's an understanding of what's going on

Now it makes why stallman is so paranoid. He was a pedo after all

when you go to a strip club, do you speak with all the girls and get them to put in writing that they're all there voluntarily?
no, that's the club owners job

How could he when the girl likely was instructed by Epstein to present herself as willing and consenting? If he asked the girl if she consents, she would say yes, and Epstein would deny that he instructed her of anything too.

stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)

Dunno. Maybe you shouldn't trust a guy who was convicted in 2005 of having sex with a 14yo girl.

Your desire for restricting speech means you should get shot in the user. Fuck off with your censorship demands.

When you go to a strip club with a sketchy reputation, you probably should make sure. Besides, it’s not like he was a spectator. It’s not that hard to tell when the person you’re fucking is into it.

Willing=/=enthusiastic.

So all sex is rape according to you. Got it

How did you get to that? It’s fucking easy to tell whether the person you’re fucking wants it or not. If all your sex life consist of unclear signals ... consider you’re doing something very wrong.

What kind of moron acts like there's anything consensual about an old guy being "introduced" to a teenage girl by a sex trafficer?

She had an id that said she was 18, what more "making sure" could anyone possibly do?

So Stallman's argument is "If a convicted statutory rapist he told me a girl was 18, I would surely believe him!"
What a thoughtful person.

This was before he was outed as a sex trafficker you moron

>consider you’re doing something very wrong
It's not cool to mix guilt and sexuality. It's actually really hazardous to literally every type of person.

pretty sure it wasn't, and replace "sex trafficer" with "middle-aged rich man" and it's exactly the same

>JUST ADMIT THAT FUCKING CHILDREN IS BAD GOD DAMMIT HOW HARD CAN IT BE
He did

He's shitting his pants because the mit media lab director was getting money from epstein through bill gates. It came out yesterday the president of mit even wrote a thank you to epstein.

MIT lincoln labratory and the whole campus is in bed with Darpa. Who knows, maybe stallman was involved in some of the projects epstein and their whole cabal was investing in.

Attached: 1565296071044.jpg (847x1024, 86K)

How the fuck does the right ID imply consent?

>old guy brings a young girl to another old guy
Who could have guessed he is a sex trafficker!?

He's definitely on the autistic spectrum.

I met him when I was like 23 and I distinctly remember how severely awkward he was. Constantly interrupting me. Refusing to have ANY sort of nuance .

I was eating dinner with him at the and he was eating noddles and he had seemingly HALF of them wedge into his beard and they were falling back down on his plate.

It was literally revolting to me and I couldn't finish my meal.

I started the day excited to meet and then ended up never wanting to spend time with him again.

Almost immediately he was chastising me about how I shouldn't have spent money on my car and how I should have donated it to the Free Software Foundation instead.

... if you're EVER in a position where you're famous on subject X you should NEVER speak out on a controversial subject. You're NOT an expert in it and you only have everything to lose.

Don't move the goalposts
Is he supposed to go look up birth records?

Bombard people with fake news from every angle until they learn to never trust any news again.

>goes to kiddy fiddler island
>bothering to check IDs
never gunna make it

>dude minsky you are a cool guy you should come with me to my private island we got tons of legal age (16 in Massachusetts) girls who are there voluntarily because I pay them.

Finally the fat toejam eating faggot will go down

MIT license BTFO
brb relicensing everything to GPLv3

Thank fuck you will never be in position if you unironically wonder how someone can tell whether the other person wants to fuck them or not.

Given it’s 4chains I can’t tell whether it’s a joke or an excuse.

Wait, since when does Jow Forums defend rich pedophiles?
I thought Jow Forums was all about personal freedoms, including the right not to be raped as a child.

And what if the other person acted as if they did?

Leave our 66 year old autist alone!

>famous people shouldn't express heir opinions
are you serious

Stallman didn't rape anyone and no one's defending Epstein.

Get out, retard.

It’s unlikely some teen has the acting talent to convince a grown ass man, unless the latter intentionally paid minimum attention.

Which news sites reported shit like this? Just to make sure I 'll never accidentally read them. I know so far:
- vice:
>vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
- daily beast
>thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing

Nothing wrong with paying women for sex. It's the minors thing that makes it wrong.