If you can't express yourself on certain topics, there's a chilling effect where people just don't talk about them and no further progress can be made. There are now plenty of topics like this including gender [edit: I should specify that it's fine to talk about gender, but only if you have certain permissible positions on the topic]. This list used to include other things like being pro gay rights, pro equality for races or gender - but at least you were able to have those conversations without fear of being lynched and society moved forward. You should be allowed to voice a viewpoint that's against the mainstream viewpoint without risk of making yourself unemployable.

It's atrocious that our academic institutions, which used to be a bulwark of free-speech are leading the charge here.

Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements. He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum, but the consequences here are way out of proportion to the "crime".

You've been throwing a lot of stones here, but I'm sure you've held or expressed viewpoints just as questionable at some time in your life. I know I have. Should you now be denied the right to make a living if they come to light?

Stallman's controversial opinions stood for ages when they were hypothetical.

But at this moment in time, they've intersected with the real-world activities of organizations that he has considerable influence over. He seems to have prioritized theoretical point-making over the organizational necessity of addressing people's concerns.

Running things and debating things are two different activities, and for Stallman those things are currently in conflict. Maybe he's tempermentally incapable of dealing with conflicting imperatives; in any case he seems to have taken the absolute route to resignation.

I think this is a better argument than merely talking about the content of the speech. That said the question is whether the punishment matches the severity of the crime. There was no due process here so we'll never know for sure.

Stallman is all about being technical. Technically, he resigned. So what due process was denied to him?

He was forced to resign. Holding a gun to one's head and telling them to recite a confession doesn't make it authentic.

I don't want to pretend he had no choice in the decision, but to pretend he did if of his own free volition is false.

You mean like how Stallman pretended that the underage girl that was on Epstein's island had sex with Minsky of her own free volition?

That was not Stallman's statement. In fact, Stallman's argument rests on the foundational belief that the girl was forced to service Minsky.

He reasons that because it would have been in the best interest of Epstein not to disclose the harm that's being done to the girl, she would have been convinced to present herself to Minsky as willing. Thus it is argued that Minsky might have had a sexual encounter without having realized that the girl is being forced to do this. In such a scenario, it is proper to accuse Epstein of harm, but wrongful to accuse Minsky of sexual assault.

All participants of the discussion should refer to the original MIT email thread and not base their opinions on secondary information. There is also a quote from a scientist who names himself as an eyewitness and clears Minsky of wrongdoing. He was not listed by the girl as present during the event and it may be too early to accept his words as the truth. However, if the girl's account corroborates his, then even the harshest critic should be obliged to exonerate Stallman's statement. It reminds me of the role of the lead in "Twelve Angry Men".

No. Comparing the two acts is uncharitable. The 17 year old was exploited and faced a much worse wrong. Stallman was wronged in my opinion but of course it isn't comparable to it.

Honor the facts please. First Minsky was approached by Guiffre at the island, and Minsky turned her down. Guiffre was already 18 at that time according to one statement. So both accusations on Minsky needed to be defended, which RMS did.

There was no sex, no rape, no violation of age of consent, just a lot of slanderous allegations by folks who had no idea about the background, and didn't read about it.

On the other hand the students allegations on their Facebook event had a proper basis, against MIT management. But this had nothing to do with RMS defense of Minsky.

There is rarely 'due process' when it comes to private institutions hiring or firing. Are you advocating for the government to intervene on behalf of citizens before allowing a company to make a financial decision?

This is an aside, but if you want my personal opinion, I wish workers had more power on their side in both hiring and firing (firing particularly). It need not take the form of the government intervening directly but regulation can't hurt.

I don't disagree with you - Most labor laws in this country are horribly skewed in favor of the employer

You should seek to form a union at your place of employment. That's what they are for.

Do you really think that no one has suffered for having conversations pro gay rights, civil rights, gender equality, and all those other previously inadmissible topics? No, they spoke publicly, and paid the (unfortunate) consequences of the day ... but they carried on because it was the right thing to do.

What exactly is it that we're trying to "express ourselves" about here? what "progress" are we trying to make on old men having sex with young girls?

If there's change to be made, then someone is going to have to weather the cultural storm that speaking out about it brings in order to bring change. If it's not worth weathering that storm, then maybe it's not worth having that discussion in the first place.

Of course not, it's my position that there shouldn't be such serious consequences for having a dissenting opinion. Minority opinions are in fact the only way we make progress in science our society. Everything accepted now was once a fringe idea.

There is a real conversion to be had about our statutory rape laws. They're absurd in some aspects. That's beside the point.

> Of course not, it's my position that there shouldn't be such serious consequences for having a dissenting opinion

Do you think an advocate for paedophilia and child pornography should be able to pick up a job in a childcare centre or primary school?

Are you really saying Minsky is a paedophile? You are exaggerating the situation here unfairly.

Stallman used to argue that 'voluntarily paedophilia' should be decriminalized, cf quotes from 2003 and 2006[1].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d59r46/richard...

Yes, I know. But that's not what we're talking about now. We're taking about the objectionable comments he made now, rather than his long history of objectionable opinions. It probably affected the decision to fire him though.

That really is what we're talking about now, try as people might to ignore it. This was the last of a long string of statements and actions that Stallman had been repeatedly warned about.

Well, at the very least the Software Freedom Conservancy was talking about past behaviour, as did various other commentators.

You might be right that widowlark's comment was in reference to the Minsky defense specifically - I didn't read the exchange that led up to the comment that closely, and took its opening line about minority opinions as a reference to pedophilia apologia in general.

I want everyone to understand the medium his comments were made in.

This was not just a "work forum", it was a mailing list containing thousands of people in the MIT computer science community, including professors, researchers, administrative assistants, graduate students, and hundreds of undergraduates.

This isn't just a matter of his comments being inappropriate, it's also about him arguing them in an effectively public forum.

But Stallman replied to an email advertising a gathering to protest MIT's handling of the Epstein scandal.

I have no idea if that sort of political email is common in the mailing list, but if it is appropriate to share/advocate the protest, surely it should also appropriate to discuss the topic?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

The original poster on the thread even raises a question of the ethics of having the discussion on csail-related before Stallman even gets involved.

I think people are missing the context of the level of shitshow that’s going on at MIT CSAIL right now with Epstein, Ito, Minsky, and now Stallman.

When the original story blew up over Media Lab and the Administration lied that they didn’t know anything about donations to Epstein, I can only imagine the chaos.

It's my understanding that a protest against Minsky was being advertised on the same mailing list. Was that an inappropriate medium for the protest to be advertised as well?

>He perhaps should not have made them in a work forum

Look, that's the reason he's gone. So you said it yourself. That was his decision.

You would think universities would be a little more lax than a Fortune 500 company when it comes to freedom of expression . They certainly have been in many other aspects. You can rail all you want against the oppressive patriarchy and talk about toxic masculinity, but to question the statutory rape laws (which are different in every country, so clearly there are different viewpoints on the subject) - that's unpardonable?

It's a pretty sad state of affairs. Warn him to take the discussion elsewhere and then wait for the outrage storm to blow over. People have such short attention spans in these social media days anyway.

> You would think universities would be a little more lax

They were. A casual look at Stallman's history will show you that his views (and behaviors), as well as his discussion of them in a public forum, are not by any means new or unknown within the community. They _have_ been ignored for a very long time by the university, the FSF, etc, right until he chose to take this particular moment in time to repeat his views, specifically in connection with a recent scandal.

I think that this _is_ sad in the sense that had folks been stricter with him earlier on, perhaps he would have understood why it was not a good idea to continue doing that, and avoided making these specific public comments at this specific time. It's really hard for me to believe that no one has ever _tried_ to tell him to (essentially) "take the discussion elsewhere" about this stuff, so I have to assume that people did, but he did not think that he had to follow their advice: he relied on being able to say what he liked, wherever he liked, with no real consequences.

And until now, he was correct. But today, people no longer believe that it's ok to be heralded as a pillar of the community (which as both the president of the FSF and the holder of an honorary position at MIT, he is) and be able to say whatever you'd like in a public forum. And enough people believe this today to make these institutions be unable to just ignore his behavior indefinitely.

> so I have to assume that people did

Yes, and that's basically why there is a "CSAIL minus RMS" mailing list.

The great thing about this country is that others cannot define your own tolerances or lack thereof. The university had it's tolerance tested, and Stallman lost. If you don't like it, I encourage you to speak out like you are now. But it's not unfair, and it's not a violation of free speech or thought.

So if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well? Following your argument you could say a given company had its tolerance, it was tested and those people lost.

Firing people for political views, especially expressed in coherent not aggressive way is certainly violation of free speech and thought. It's also currently legal in US.

It would be likely legal, though the companies would probably face backlash from the public. That drives a lot of these decisions.

> So if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well?

Depends. Had they repeatedly harassed women in work contexts over the preceding several decades?

If they repeatedly harass women in work contexts they should be fired for that. Waiting until they say something controversial implies the organisation was just fine with the harassment.

Now you're getting it. Next time fire the superstar when multiple women complain, not just when one of the complaints goes viral.

> if someone starts firing open borders advocates or basic income activist would that be ok as well?

Not all opinions are the same.

Advocating for open borders and basic income are fairly straightforward political opinions. So is being a member of the republican or democratic party, or saying you support lower taxes, or even that you voted for Trump. Had Stallman resigned over reactions to calmly expressing these type of opinions, the fallout would be very different, and I suspect most people would say something similar to what you've said, and side with him.

But if a person repeatedly says, in public, that our definition of pedophilia as a necessarily-bad thing isn't right, and that people are being too hard on the billionaires who recently got in trouble for this -- even if they do so calmly and coherently -- they are espousing views that many people believe would lead to actual harm to actual human beings. The same would be true for someone who openly supports fascism, or calls for the deportation of Hispanic-looking citizens (I want to avoid a straw-man here, so to be clear I am absolutely not saying Stallman supports these views; they're just examples).

In that case, don't other people have a right to react negatively to that?

As for the consequences of that reaction, that is somewhat proportional to the person's position. If that person was a gas station clerk who, outside of work hours, had posted something on a forum, then we'd again be having a different discussion. But the positions of President of the FSF and Visiting Scientist at MIT carry a lot more weight. Putting someone in these positions who not only holds but eagerly volunteers these types of views is seen as an implicit endorsement of these views by the FSF/MIT -- _especially_ when he chooses to broadcast these views directly to his work community, directly in defense of someone at the center of a recent scandal.

> Firing people for [their] views ... is certainly violation of free speech and thought

Stallman is free to _think_ what he wants. He's even free to _say_ what he wants -- he was never censured afaik. What he is no longer free to do is to continue doing so from the position of President of the FSF or a Visiting Scientist at MIT. Should an institution (such as MIT or the FSF) be forced to protect its personnel from all consequences for individually sharing _any_ opinion in any public forum? I don't think they should.

The thing is that there are many people out there who think that enforcing borders leads to actual harm to human beings and treat it as human right issue (detention camps etc.). On the other hand there are people who think open borders policy leads to actual harm to human beings as well (criminals getting to the country and hurting citizens etc.).

The line between fairly straightforward political opinion and what some people consider extreme is fairly thin in today climate. This is the case with Stallman's recent posting as well. It's hard to imagine (for me!) that the expressed opinion about the usage of the word assault or questioning sensibility of age of consent laws goes beyond reasonable discourse.

You have a point about pedophilia but that's from very long time ago. He also publicity stated he was wrong and thanked people who helped him understand that. He expressed that views in the distant past as well. He wasn't as prominent by then and he did it from what I understand on his private website. One way or another having sex with 17 years olds is not pedophilia by any stretch of imagination. I consider his comments which he retracted long time ago irrelevant to current situation unless of course we consider it acceptable to dig out every controversial comment from the past to help with character assassination today.

I do think institutions schould take care to not fire people over outrage especially caused by expressing political/philosophical opinions. It's illegal in some countries and treated as common sense there. It is currently legal in US but it doesn't mean it doesn't have grave consequences for public discourse.

> Stallman made questionable, but reasoned statements.

These problematic statements were made in the context of someone who has a long, long history of upsetting, angering and offending people with bad behaviour. People in CSAIL kept plants around them because Stallman hates plants and it functioned like garlic to a vampire.

Firing him may be disproportionate to the moment, but it's overdue given the history. The guy who fired him literally said "straw that broke the camel's back."

Interesting, that's different from why I value free speech. The idea is that dissent makes good societies stronger. When you fire a dissenter, even if they're a bad person, future dissenters (some of whom are good) realize that they have no principled protection. And that's true whether you're a government or a private firm.

it's unfortunate that you value free speech in a way that it isn't protected.

I bet libertarians could get leftists on board with protecting speech with from corporate interests as long as protections also cover unionization.

I'm a leftist and I've always been on board with protecting speech. Those who don't don't know the history of the left in the US, the red scare, where the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" comes from, etc.

Free speech is generally accepted to be in the service of “political dialogue”.

In so far as Stallman was discussing the law, he was genuinely engaging in political dialogue; in so far as he was speculating about Minsky or the situation in question he was not.

To say that we can exercise speech but must face the “consequences” is just begging the question — what “consequences” are compatible with a free society? If my boss says it would be a great thing if California secedes from the Union, and I say I doubt that would go well, we rely so much on other states for water, &c, &c ... I may definitely offend him. How acceptable is it that a person be fired in that situation?

There is more to free speech than what the law says about it. No one here as far as I can see argues that forcing RMS out is illegal. People argue for the principle that you should be able to express your views without fear of losing your livelihood. The problem is that there is no universally trusted authority on what is and what isn't acceptable speech. I find what RMS said to be less outrageous than what I regularly hear from politicians in recent presidential debates. Does it mean I should start firing employees expressing those views because of "consequences" or "freedom of association"? It would lead to a tribal world where you either walk the exact line of your institution/employer/group or you're out possibly with grave consequences for your financial and family situation.

In my country it's illegal to fire people for their political views even if the employer finds them immoral and incompatible with the culture they want to foster. It's part of legal and social framework to protect freedom of expression. Freedom of expression neither starts nor end with what The Constitution says about it.