>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".

It seems perfectly consistent to me that someone worried about people being fired for controversial opinions would not give such an opinion non-anonymously. I don't see what point you're making.

I think the user you are responding to is attempting to undermine anything that can loosely be construed as a defense of Stallman. A bit of a dirty tactic, IMO, but the lines of battle have clearly been drawn.

Yeah this is like the authoritarians who claim that if Snowden really feared for his safety as a whistleblower, then he would be happy to be renditioned to a secret blacksite dungeon for punishment by the TLAs he has offended. Does not compute...

Give free speech and it will happen.