You mean such as:

  "The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 
  "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest 
  and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these 
  acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

    RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

--------------------------

  "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. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party

--------------------------

  " There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

  Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do 
  not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia

Yes, precisely this. It's a controversial opinion, certainly that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but it also seems to be a considered one. Notably absent from posts where people pasting these quotes is any argument against the claims made by RMS. We are apparently meant to assume he is both wrong and malevolent merely for holding an opinion we find uncomfortable.

To be fair to RMS he has retracted this opinion and provides arguements against it himself....

>I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children

I'll just leave this here

https://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Myth-Sexual-Children-Aftermath...

I doubt anyone here is defending pedophilia. I certainly am not.

> [...] necrophilia [...] should be legal as long as no one is coerced.

I wonder how that is supposed to work. How would one acquire consent from a corpse?

Who owns a corpse? If the former inhabitant of the then-living body had designated a particular heir via a will or similar legal instrument, one might acquire consent from that heir?

I wonder which of his other strong opinions could have led to a similar result.

Something I am glad to say he has retracted some years ago.

I see a retraction on his website dated Sep 13, 2019.

Scroll back a few years.

And no I won't link. You defamed someone. Where I come from it is up to you to prove your defamation is justified.