"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."

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

That's a sickening viewpoint. It's from ten years ago, so I hope his views have changed since then. I'll still defend his right to say that, as long as it's outside the venue of his work. And if a preponderance of evidence were to support him, I'd have to accept that view, as much as I disagree with it. I strongly think he's wrong though and the evidence is against him.

I bet some people at MIT felt that view was sickening as well, and don't want their institution to be associated with that view. And actively want to show their community that they oppose it. I wonder how they could do that effectively...? Oh wait, fire the guy who said it! Brilliant.

Yeah, if he has a history of saying things like that, it's a much more understandable reaction.

However, as a university it still seems like dangerous territory. I think communists are just as sickening, in light of the horrors of the twentieth century. Should I fire them if I'm making those decisions at MIT. Like if a professor said the gulags are a worthwhile evil on the road to socialist utopia? Is it really necessary to end a person's career when you disagree with them on matters unrelated to their work?

This comes down to your allowance and interpretation on self-determination. There are consequences for every action - sometimes positive, sometimes negative. MIT made a calculation and rolled the dice. Most people are pleased, but it just as easily could have gone the other way. Every organization and individual has this right - you're essentially asking if its okay to make this choice if the outcome is negative - yes it is. Thats up to the individual to decide. Stallman made his choice and so did MIT

They did: https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_20...

It looks like it was just an ignorant thought from a decade ago that had long since been corrected. Not a strongly-held viewpoint.

It did: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

It looks like it was just an ignorant thought from a decade ago that had long since been corrected. Not a strongly-held viewpoint.

> as long as it's outside the venue of his work

But it wasn't outside of his work. It was on an email list whose recipients included 17- and 18-year old undergraduates.