"Many states used the offense of sexual assault to replace conduct formerly defined as rape", ergo, Stallman is wrong.

Here's my citation: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-court-of-appeals/1866619.html (italics added to show the source of the above quote)

> 9. The entry for “sexual assault” in Black's Law Dictionary provides two definitions. First, “sexual assault” means “[s]exual intercourse with another person who does not consent [,]” noting “[s]everal state statutes have abolished the crime of rape and replaced it with the offense of sexual assault. ”Black's Law Dictionary 138 (10th ed. 2014). Second, “sexual assault”means “[o]ffensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape.” Id.

> {22} The first entry in the dictionary narrowly defines sexual assault as intercourse because, as noted, many states used the offense of sexual assault to replace conduct formerly defined as rape. In New Mexico, the crime of rape was not replaced with the offense of sexual assault. State v. Keyonnie, 1977-NMSC-097, ¶ 5, 91 N.M. 146, 571 P.2d 413 (explaining that “[t]he essential elements of the common law crime of rape, from which the statutory offense of criminal sexual penetration was derived,” were carnal knowledge or intercourse). Rather, the crime of rape was replaced with the offense of criminal sexual penetration.

Remember, Stallman argues that it is "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation".

Yet here we see that some jurisdictions use "sexual assault" as a replacement for the term "rape".

And we see jurisdictions (like New Mexico) where "criminal sexual penetration" was used to replace the term "rape". Indeed, here's the law: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/arti... . But are you seriously (outside of a technical and pointless argument) going to say that "rape" and "sexual assault" aren't illegal in New Mexico?

So Stallman is wrong to say that "statutory rape" is the right legal term. At the very least he has to say that "it is not considered sexual assault in the US Virgin Islands" .. except the US V.I. laws do use the term "sexual assault" so then he has to point to the US V.I. definition of "sexual assault" to show that it's the wrong definition. Which he did not.

As another example, we can look at US military law, which distinguishes between "rape" and "sexual assault", at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920 . In that definition, "rape" involves force, or 'threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping' or drugging a person.

While "sexual assault" - contrary to Stallman's "absolute" views - includes things which does not include force, like "inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person" or " without the consent of the other person".

Note that someone under the age of consent (17 in the US V.I., with exceptions for similarity in age and for sex with one's spouse) cannot consent to sex under the law.

In other words, Stallman's definition, which says that sexual assault "presumes that he applied force or violence" is much more aligned with the military's definition of "rape" than the military's definition of "sexual assault."

Making Stallman, again, wrong in saying that "sexual assult" is an "absolutely wrong" term.