He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him!
His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein.
For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.
Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology.
And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.
Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life?
If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers.
Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.
> Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.
Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.
I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching.
As far as watching what you say, that is the world:
1. As it has always existed.
2. It exists today.
3. Will always exist until the end of time itself.
And that will never, ever, change.
Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
To take one of the more innocuous examples from the past consider the Red Scares. It was fundamentally driven by people believing that they have the moral high ground against a certain view. Communism is bad and therefore it was okay to do bad things to people who held positive views of such. And it was simply 'common sense' that supporting communism in any way, shape, or form was an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. And I use that as an example only to avoid any rousing of emotion but the exact same logic drove the KKK, Nazis, and nearly every group, sinner and saint alike, throughout time. Moral authoritarianism is again, a very dangerous thing.
And I certainly do not agree with you on this was or will be the way of society. Words and actions are distinct. I think an ideal society would have no tolerance for intolerant actions but an unlimited tolerance of words. Indeed this is even what the actual quote, often egregiously bastardized and misused by the most intolerant of today's society, on the 'paradox of tolerance' fundamentally suggests. Even looking back now at the Red Scare we can generally see how quaint our intolerance was. There's no need to name and shame communists - the view itself is simply not supported by enough of society to matter. And if it does become supported by enough of society? Then we try it, almost certainly fail, and continue on our disjointed path "forwards" as always.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
As Scott points out in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-... censorship is mostly used against groups we think are dangerous (mostly because they actually have a fairly large amount of support). Someone advocating that going to church should be mandatory and divorce and blasphemy should be illegal will get eye rolls, not anger.
I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
Many people seem to be complaining about this.
As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying:
"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “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.”and he should face no consequences."
or
"My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences."
Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".
The question is--should being a jerk be a fireable offense?
On its face... yes???
*IANAL
Because IRL there's no attorney of defense.
You can just throw accusation in the air and somebody else get hurt.
Prosecution: "We think he knew this person was subject to coercion and we say this because X, Y, Z".
Defence: "We think he did not know this person was subject to coercion and we say this because we interpret X, Y, and Z differently."
These involve speculation about the mental state of the accused.
Is there any evidence of this? There is a big difference between the place he works at taking money and him taking money.
I don't think its right to hold an employee responsible for their employers actions.
How often does he bring it up and how often is it in response to someone else saying something that is technically wrong?
RMS chose to step down himself. That was his decision. Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob".
Furthermore, stepping down from MIT is not destruction you're playing it up as being. People have done similar (and of course, worse!) things and, after being the subject of some number of embarrassing articles on the web and some larger number of angry tweets, are currently living their lives with new jobs just fine. RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy.
If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake, like the US-Mexico border or Hong Kong.
The mob pressured MIT and the FSF to remove him from his positions. It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats.
>RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake...
You could just easily say "Hong Kong doesn't have it that bad, they have food and shelter. Focus on conditions that are actually bad, like starving child soldiers in Africa."
This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
If you think the brass at MIT are in any physical danger from a bunch of angry tweeters, I don't know what to tell you.
This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
No, that's a deflection. Someone choosing to step down from their job is not an issue that can, as the parent post puts it, "destroy them at any moment without warning". Being a starving child soldier in Africa is, being locked in a cage in a foreign land is.
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
> When a person tells someone else "I'm sorry that you feel that way", they are not acknowledging the potential role they might have played in making them feel this way. Instead, it is more like they are absolving themselves of responsibility, and are showing apparent sympathy that the person who is complaining might be upset for some abstract, and potentially irrational reason. It not only fails to acknowledge the potential role played by the speaker (or who they might represent), but this phrase is actually used to position the speaker as an innocent actor who has had little or no influence over the current situation.
> feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
The statement that RMS did not attempt to make an apology even one that is a false apology is 100% made up, he did in fact make a false apology.
My point is that like many people on here the person making the argument believes RMS did wrong and they are now inventing reasons to justify their belief, its not an honest argument.
You are ignoring or not reading the argument I was responding to which establishes the honesty of an apology as irrelevant. This is another example of a dishonest argument because it is moving the goal posts of the argument again to justify your prior beliefs.
No he didn't. Making a false apology requires some form of deception or misdirection whereby it isn't obvious that you are denying any responsibility.
For example "I'm sorry you feel that way - but I'm not at fault!" Is not a false apology, since it is very clear that you are denying responsibility, despite that fact that it contains the triggering substring "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Stallman had no control over being misquoted.
He also didn't say "I'm sorry that you feel that way" - He specifically mentions he was misquoted, leaving no doubt that he is not apologizing for the cause of the offense - People were offended by the misquotes, not the original statements.
Stallman decided it was a great idea to, in the wrong place at the wrong time and in response to a protest regarding someone he knew (Minsky, not Epstein), construct a hypothetical that exonerated Minsky and then judge that protest, again publicly, through that hypothetical. That's not a "believe he said" thing. That's what he did. He got tossed out on his ear for that and that's a thing he did.
Now, RMS then did construct a hypothetical based on his knowledge of Minsky's character. Note that nowhere in his hypothetical did he either defend Epstein or assert that the victim was in fact willing - both of which were things that he was accused of doing. He then insisted that people be more precise in their speech, which is exactly what you should do if you want actual justice.
Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.
As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention.
And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.
He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime
> "got cancelled"
> Jumanji sequel
A part on the sequel to a reboot of a mediocre 90s movie? WOOO living the dream!
—Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes.
[1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers.
[1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...
I don't know how other jurisdictions handle this.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2
> Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress
> An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.
This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.
mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?
He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say:
> I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.
This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible.
Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.
So he's being punished for thinking out loud and not apoligising for thinking out loud?
While redemption is one of the themes in the book sadly the internet has not quite developed that level of sophistication so we are stuck with denouncement/punishment.
The point of the Scarlet Letter is that its victims are forever oppressed by the masses, and those near to the victim are made guilty by association.
It doesn't matter what the crime is; forever punishments are unjust, and prone to abuse.
He is merely encountering actual consequences for saying absurd, indefensible things -- and, likely, also finally encountering consequences for being a well-known source of creepy behavior towards women for a very long time. People lose jobs all the time for less.
Yeah, he's done some good things. And maybe (MAYBE) he's actually not neurotypical. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being a creep forever.
This isn't a one off and he's one of the least likely people to mend his ways.
This is one of the reasons it took so long for homosexuality to become accepted.
Free speech is a right, but it's not a shield. He can continue to express his opinions, and the public will continue to have the right to object to them. If public opinion on a person is negative, companies will not want to associate with that person. That's the way society has been and will continue to be. This isn't inherently good, as seen with things like race/sexuality--but conflating the long struggle of the LGBT community with one man's archaic thoughts on pedophilia is frankly disgusting.
Censorship can be done by governments, institutions, individuals or society as a whole.
I'm not really conflating the LGBT history with RMS views, merely noting that attempting to surpress non-majority views can be bad by using them as an example.
How many years and incidents is enough to move to removal?
But what we've seen instead is cowardly throwing someone to the baying crowd.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
> The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia.
This is a big accusation, do you have source to back this up?
I agree with the principle of people being able to change their minds and we should accommodate that, but I also have a hard time giving a huge credit when a 66 year old man says that contrary to everything he's written on the subject, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong.
If changing doesn't have any benefits, would anyone change?
I'm not saying there should be no lasting repurcussions for such behavior, but when someone admits they are wrong, it should matter.
If admitting they were wrong doesn't matter, then it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.
I don’t know the guy but that’s a big accusation.
For the other statements, I dont think he's "endorsing" it, he's raising questions. I'm not AT ALL on the same boat as him wrt this topic, but I dont mind a discussion on this topic. I consider that the basis of democracy.
Also, from this recent interview on the register it shows he changed his mind on this topic: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per 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."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in...
I respect that people openly change their views.
But when a 66 year old man says that he has now learned that sex with children is wrong, do you just wipe the past clean and forget that anything ever happened? Would it be wrong for those past views to have any effect, now that he's changed his mind?
And yes, I think we should not dig up old statements once he has announced he has changed his views: that's why I commented.
I understand those past views will linger on, I just dont think they are protayed fairly, nor that it is adequately considered that he has changed.
He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question.
There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.
[1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
Among the many things one can say about RMS, this is not one of them.
This is just slander.
https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
he's saying that it should be legal at the very least.
For example, i think that drinking alcohol and smoking pot should be legal, but also think it is stupid thing to do and definitely would not endorse that.
Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him if he refuses to do so.
But when a "scarlet letter" offence is involved, we jump straight to the punishment phase, removing the person outright with no judicial process. This is completely backwards, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. It brings a chilling effect on everyone, because suddenly people start to realize that they're living under the Sword of Damocles, which could destroy them at any moment without warning. You can never be sure if something you say or do is going to get you publicly pilloried in future, and destroy your career, friendships, and reputation in the blink of an eye. Far better to just sit quiet and never say anything that might offend someone. Far better not to participate at all.
Mob justice always turns ugly in the end. That's why we have courts.