See this recent interview with him, he addresses this topic and shows he changed his mind.

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?

As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter?

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.

>As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter?

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 agree, it should always matter. How much it matters would certainly depend on things like that. So on that scale, it would take a lot more than "I've now learned that sex with children is actually wrong" before I consider that person redeemed. But that's just me.

Do you have citing for this? Very easy to make a wide claim like this and go on a witch hunt.

I don’t know the guy but that’s a big accusation.

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#25%20May%202... (second item at that date)

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...

http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20...

First link is not about this topic i believe.

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.

People can and do change their views, certainly.

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?

I dont know what his age has to do with it.

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.

There is a comment of his talking about "voluntary pedophilia." This is likely (very likely) a misuse of terms, though -- having had this discussion with others on the Internet, they do not usually intend pedophilia, which is an attraction to the prepubescent. Prepubescent children have no sex drive and their interest in sex is usually taken to be a sign of sexual abuse. Consequently it is hard to see voluntary pedophilia as something that can happen.

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.

He knows what pedophilia means.[1]

[1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...

> The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia

Among the many things one can say about RMS, this is not one of them.

This is just slander.

> 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.

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

he's saying that it should be legal at the very least.

Well, there is big difference between 'saying it should be legal' and endorsing.

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.