What Stallman said is "the people who were trafficked, probably did not tell the people they were trafficked to, that they were being trafficked and were there unwillingly."

I don't see how saying that is a "defense of Jeffrey Epstein".

Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per1 psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”."

THESE ARE THE WORDS RICHARD STALLMAN POSTED ON HIS OWN WEBSITE WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED.

please defend this. i really really want to see you stoop this low.

EDIT: OKAY i'm being DOWNVOTED for bringing these words to light. officially y'all are now covering up for child sex criminals. Sickening.

It's just that you don't seem to realize that what you perennially appear to have understood, is not what anyone wrote.

Him posting that doesn't have anything to do with you telling lies about defending Epstein. Both are shitty.

Is it now appropriate for me to tell lies about you defending Epstein, because you did something shitty (falsely accusing others of defending Epstein)?

He is assigning the blame to Epstein's victims.

The scenario being described was that Epstein was ordering some of his victims, who were ostensibly employed as masseuses at his resort, to go and offer sex to specific people who were at an event taking place there.

You don't keep a sex trafficking operation going as long as he did if you don't coerce victims in that situation to play along with the story that they are masseuses and that the offer of sex is coming from them.

if you dont understand what that is saying, i can't help you.

You can't see the difference between "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" and "she was entirely willing"?

Stallman may be a dick, but at least he's precise with his speech - this means exactly what it says, and in no way means what you want it to mean.

"The trafficked person did not reveal they were being trafficked, because they were trapped on an island with their abuser and were afraid".

This is not blaming the victim, nor a defense of the abuser.

From Minsky's point of view a girl who was old enough to legally consent to sex offered to have sex with him. According to witnesses at the event he turned down the offer.

The statements that Stallman made about the nature of those crimes, were not what you claim they are.

When third parties are discussing the crime, "the person who committed the crime may not have known they were committing a crime" is a valid, reasonable thing for a person to say as part of a discussion.

Doing so is not a defense of the person who trafficked the child to be raped.

“We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing,” Stallman added. “Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.”

"Sex trafficker probably told the people he trafficked not to tell anyone that they were being trafficked. Trafficked people trapped on an island with their abuser may have done as they were told out of fear." Obviously.

I don't see how that statement is a defense of Epstein, or victim blaming.

But it didn't, so it isn't.