In 2008 Jeffrey Epstein had faced charges in Florida that could have put him in prison for life, but thanks to a shameful non-prosecution agreement (NPA) facilitated by US attorney Alexander Acosta (subsequently US secretary of labor under Trump), Epstein managed to avoid full prosecution and ended up serving just 13 months in prison under extraordinary privileged conditions. [1]
Excerpts of emails and letters disclosed in 2015 revealed a covert negotiation between Epstein's lawyers and the Government to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret from the victims and the general public. This secrecy was a violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act that prevented the victims from discussing the terms of the agreement or taking action to prevent it. The agreement was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in February 2019, but was not invalidated by the Department of Justice. [2]
MIT Media Lab professor Marvin Minsky died on January 24, 2016.
In April 2019, RMS writed article 25 April 2019(Plea deal for Epstein) .
25 April 2019 (Plea deal for Epstein)
(Now) Labor Secretary Acosta's plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein was not only extremely lenient, it was so lenient that it was illegal. [Archived]
I wonder whether this makes it possible to resentence him to a longer prison term.
I disagree with some of what the article says about Epstein. Epstein is not, apparently, a pedophile, since the people he raped seem to have all been postpuberal.
By contrast, calling him a “sex offender” tends to minimize his crimes, since it groups him with people who committed a spectrum of acts of varying levels of gravity. Some of them were not crimes. Some of these people didn't actually do anything to anyone.
I think the right term for a person such as Epstein is “serial rapist”.
On July 7, 2019, Billionaire sex-trafficking criminal Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in New Jersey.
In August 2019, the acknowledgement by MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito that the laboratory had surreptitiously accepted Epstein's post-conviction donations. [3]
MIT commissioned an investigation, the results of which were published on January 10, 2020. The report shows that Epstein had sponsored, through his charitable foundations, the projects of several professors at the Media Lab, starting with a donation to Marvin Minsky's artificial intelligence project in September 12, 2002—four years before Epstein was first charged with sex crimes. Earlier that same year, on April 14-16, Minsky and some of his colleagues had held an AI symposium in the US Virgin Islands, and a second one took place in December 2011, both sponsored by Epstein. [4]
The investigation found no evidence of further donations from Epstein to support Minsky's work .[5]
On August 9, 2019, the unsealing of a deposition by one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre née Roberts (born August 9th, 1983), in which she testified, among many other things, that Epstein's partner Ghislaine Maxwell had “directed” her to have sex with MIT Media Lab professor Marvin Minsky and other men.
However, it's unclear whether any sexual encounters actually took place with Minsky.
Physicist and science fiction author Greg Benford reported that he was present when Virginia Roberts approached Minsky: If Marvin had done it, she would say so. I know. I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me. [6]
Benford is probably referring to the conference held in the US Virgin Islands in April 2002, when Virginia was 18.
Minsky's widow, Gloria Rudisch, has said: We were always together. We didn’t stay at his house or anything. [7]
On September 10, 2019, an email announcing the protest that was organized at MIT against the institution's involvement with Epstein was sent to the CSAIL(Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab) mailing list.
Email #1 by Poster A
From: [A] Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:20:54 -0400 To: csail-related@csail.mit.edu Subject: [csail-related] Protest against MIT involvement with Epstein While we're talking about what the ethics of our profession should be (and the ethics of discussing the ethics of our profession on csail-related@), there's an upcoming protest on Friday outside the Student Center (W20) from 4 PM - 6 PM about MIT's handling of the Epstein scandal.
In particular, given the most recent revelations in the Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/09/top-mit-officials-knew-epstein-ties-media-labmails-show/OFEzFtD0mgic2zzXOSPe9J/story.html , it appears that MIT administrative officials aided the anonymization of Epstein's donations. I have also attached a text version for people who are pay-walled. According to the e-mails, in July 2014, after Epstein made a $50,000 gift
> to MIT, Richard MacMillan, then a senior director for large individual > domestic gifts for the university, alerted the Media Lab to the problems > associated with the donation. > “Recall we are not taking gifts from him,” MacMillan wrote to Peter Cohen, > who was then the Media Lab’s director of development and strategy. > Cohen responded that he had spoken to Ito and that Epstein had an account > that allowed him to make small gifts anonymously. > In a July 28, 2014, e-mail exchange, Cohen relayed that Ito had told him > that the recording secretary who helped the university track gifts > “maintains this account and knows the drill.’’ > Then, another person, who is not identified in the e-mails obtained by the > Globe, explains to several people on the e-mail chain that the recording > secretary “should be reminded of Epstein’s anonymous status. There must be > some kind of note they can add to his record to assure that all these gifts > continue to get recorded as such.’’ > MacMillan then responded: “No it’s all set. She is taking care of it.’’ > The Facebook event is here: https://www.facebook.com/events/687098025098336/ >> For those who don't want to access Facebook, I have copied the event > description below. > Hope you can join me on Friday. > ====== > CW: child abuse, sex-trafficking. > Top MIT officials covered up Epstein’s donations to the Institute. MIT > Professors and officials visited him in prison, flew on his “Lolita > Express,” invited him to campus, and gave him awards. MIT CANNOT be trusted > to investigate itself through an “independent” law firm that they > themselves hire and that reports to the MIT Corporation. WE, students, > staff, faculty, and Boston-area community members MUST hold MIT accountable > for this and more!! What happens next is on us! > Background: > Jeffery Epstein was a multimillionaire serial child abuser and sex > trafficker who eluded serious justice for many years (his 18-month sentence > from 2008, of which he served 13 months, was a slap on the wrist [1]) by > surrounding himself with powerful men and powerful institutions. He > maintained these networks of powerful men by writing them big checks > through his “philanthropic” activities, including philanthropic activities > to MIT. He cultivated very close relationships with several MIT figures, > including Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte, former Media Lab director > Joi Ito, deceased AI “pioneer” Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting > one of Epstein’s victims [2]), and Professor Seth Lloyd, who visited > Epstein during his prison term and accepted grants afterwards, per his own > public apology. MIT had internally “disqualified” Epstein as a donor. That > meant MIT officially would not take Epstein’s money. But Joi Ito wanted > Epstein's money anyway, and so Media Lab officials and other top MIT > officials, such as MIT’s VP of Resource Development Julie Lucas as well as > Richard MacMillan (a senior director under Lucas), worked together to cover > up Epstein’s donations by anonymizing them. This is what the latest article > on the MIT-Epstein scandal reveals. > https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/09/top-mit-officials-knew-epstein-ties-media-labmails-show/OFEzFtD0mgic2zzXOSPe9J/story.html >> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/09/top-mit-officials-knew-epstein-ties-media-labmails-show/OFEzFtD0mgic2zzXOSPe9J/story.htmlfbclid=IwAR04nkBSnHCnpAzrkRslcJVJyDMdlycevTcsjYqacj-toftwKL_8k5blZc >> Accepting money linked to Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just disgusting and > immoral. It violated MIT’s own donor policies. All senior administrators > who knew about these donations MUST RESIGN IMMEDIATELY. > But individual resignations aren’t enough. The Epstein scandal demonstrates > a rot at the heart of the Media Lab [3] and MIT as a whole. It gets at more > profound issues regarding how MIT finances its activities and who it > partners with to perform research. We demand an end to dark money. We > demand an end to the pernicious influence that millionaire pedophiles, > genocidal crown princes, billionaire climate change deniers, and giant > corporations profiting from wars, deportations, and concentration camps at > the border hold over MIT and academia generally. MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD! > [1] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article219494920.html?fbclid=IwAR1e6oMSiZXz99LKWimNsPFe6jkjA5QhK116OKsg8_tFSu5ws8YnPL2R-BI >> [2] https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-traffickingisland-court-records-unsealed?fbclid=IwAR3oNYfrRaVWaLYyKb17FYnWbVvc2nmsNcqdOKcEZMeqSnjeHNFWqIuHg4U >> [3] https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joi-ito-moral-rot.html?fbclid=IwAR2A1C4Ry2KVI4RLkpbCI5ylQah3VjcY4D73DHUXm45FPOis9KUE7G0uQvg
Email #2 by RMS
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
> deceased AI “pioneer” Marvin Minsky (who is accused of > assaulting one of Epstein’s victims [2])
The injustice is in the word "assaulting". The term "sexual assault" is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.) Let's presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
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.
I've concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term "sexual assault" in an accusation.
Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
Email #3 by Poster B
For the record, a witness denies this, saying that Minsky turned her down: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
Email #4 by Poster C
Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Islands.
The witness (who was not named as someone present by Giuffre) claims that the deposition never directly accuses Minsky of participating, based off a convoluted sentence by the New York Times. The Verge article includes a depostition snippet, which is not ambiguous at all: Giuffre directly says she was forced to have sex with Minsky.
Let's stop grasping at straws to defend our friends, and instead listen to the women who were harmed.
Email #6 by Poster E
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:21:19PM +0000, [C] wrote:
:Let’s stop grasping at straws to defend our friends, and instead listen to the women who were harmed.
^ exactly that.
The legal presumption of innocence does not mean you presume the accuser is a liar.
Email #7 Richard Stallman's reply to Poster C
> Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Islands.
Does it really? 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.
I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term “sexual assault” is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone.
> The Verge article includes the deposition snippet, which is not > ambiguous at all: Giuffre directly says she was forced to have sex > with Minsky.
I don't see any quotation from the depostion in the article, but it says, “Giuffre says she was directed to have sex with Minsky.” Given the circumstances, that implies she was coerced by Epstein into doing so.
The article I know of, and have a copy of, is https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.
Are you talking of some other Verge article? If so, would you like to tell me its URL?
> Let’s stop grasping at straws to defend our friends, and instead > listen to the women who were harmed.
We can listen only to what is said to us.
All I know she said about Minsky is that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky. That does not say whether Minsky knew that she was coerced. It does not report what each said and did during their sexual encounter. We can imagine various scenarios.
We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
Looking through the article again carefully, I found a link that reportedly points to the deposition itself. I visited that URL and got a blank window. It is on Google Drive, which demands running nonfree software in order to see it. See https://gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html.
Would you (not anyone else!) like to email me a copy of the part that pertains to Minsky? I say "not anyone else" to avoid getting 20 copies.
Email #8 by Poster F
Dr. Stallman - If we're debating the definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault," perhaps it's better to accept that this conversation isn't productive. When this email chain inevitably finds its way into the press, the seeming insensitivity of some will reflect poorly on the entire CSAIL community. Regardless of intent, this thread reads as "grasping at straws to defend our friends" around potential involvement with Epstein, and that isn't a reputation I would like attached to my CSAIL affiliation.
On September 13, 2019, Selam Jie Gano immediately leaked the conversation chain to the media and published a blog post calling for the removal of Stallman that triggered the defamation attacks.
On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board of directors.
On March 21, 2021, Richard M. Stallman announced he is member of the board again.
Content is partly from https://stallmansupport.org/
1.Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges. (Archived)
2.Prosecutors Broke Law in Agreement Not to Prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, Judge Rules. (Archived)
3.Director of M.I.T.’s Media Lab Resigns After Taking Money From Jeffrey Epstein. (Archived)
4.The St. Thomas Common Sense Symposium: Designing Architectures for Human-Level Intelligence. (Archived)
5.Coping with Future Catastrophes. (Archived)
6.MIT review of Epstein donations. ( Archived)
7.Minsky Turned Her Down. (Archived)
Welcome to join the campaign for supporting RMS to return to the leadership of Free Software Foundation.
Signature format as follows:
name: Example name (Good company)
link: https://github.com/example_username
To sign, please submit a pull request.
To sign without using Github, you can Send a signed patch to contact@wesupportrms.org .
Signed by 4 individuals:
1.Coco
2.Gio
3.Henry
4.weixuefeng