I agree with some of what Stallman said, but he didn't simply encourage everyone to reserve judgment. He imagined a plausible scenario, argued for a particular moral interpretation, and emphatically rejected legal definitions. He called opposing views "absolutely wrong" and "morally absurd". He dug in when someone suggested that the conversation was unproductive and could reflect badly on CSAIL.
Why do you believe the FSF and MIT didn't investigate? Many people have called this the straw that broke the camel's back.
To be honest?
If they had, I'd have expected an official rebuttal, and a call for either calm, or a full retraction.
Since neither has happened, I see it as a duty to dig up, and try to propagate the facts as far as possible.
To that end a compilation of accusations, rebuttals, and sources follow.
Specifically, Stallman has been accused of
(1) Defending Jeffrey Epstein (while in reality Stallman was defending Marvin Minsky);
(2) Describing Epstein's victims as entirely willing (while in reality Stallman was arguing that one specific victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, was presented to Minsky as entirely willing because she was coerced by Epstein, not that she was entirely willing);
(3) Defendinf pedophilia (while in reality Stallman was arguing that age doesn't matter in a case of rape because rape is always a terrible act no matter the age of the victim);
(4) Defending pedophilia in the past (while in reality Stallman already countered his controversial claim from 2006 -in which he expressed skepticism in case of consensual sex- with a comment in 2013, where he said that children can't really be consensual);
(5) Condoned sexual assault (while in reality Stallman was arguing that the term "sexual assault" does not fit the description of Minsky's act towards Virginia Giuffre since she wasn't assaulted by Minsky but coerced by Epstein; Stallman also added that the term is generally too vague as it refers to bad acts that can range from harmful to very harmful, and that the term usually makes readers think of the worst case);
(6) Implying that the victim wasn't harmed (while in reality Stallman explicitly claimed that she was harmed);
(7) Making comments that are excuses about rape, assault and child sex trafficking (while he condemned all three as explained above);
(8) Used to keep a mattress in his MIT office, implying sexual activity and/or macho behavior at work (while in reality Stallman is known to have lived in his office for a certain period of his life).
As a consequence of these writings, Stallman resigned from his position at MIT and also from his position at the Free Software Foundation.
Sources in chronological order:
September 12
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
September 13
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191... https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r... September 14
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_Septe...
Septembet 16
https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relations... https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-spea... https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#16_September... https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns
OTHER REFERENCES Stallman on his home
https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
Stallman on Pedophilia, 2006
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun...
Stallman on pedophilia, part deuce, 2013
https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
Point being: Let his words/acts stand as they are, and come to your own judgement.
There is a petition floating around for journalists to own up and post a retraction (not that anyone is expecting miracles), but if you're against having the Press straight up spreading lies, consider offering a signature.
https://www.change.org/p/journalists-to-stop-the-persecution...
I leave it to every individuals conscience to make of it what they will... I just know that to me, this entire thing stinks to high heaven. I cannot see any way in which any of this boondoggle can be remotely said to have happened in good faith. Spread the word, or just at least make your decision on the most accurate information possible.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...
Then come back and read what I have to say.
There was nothing offensive or controversial in there. Not a one. The man only pushed to avoid letting the narrative people wanted to believe run away with the reputation of a friend (Minsky) before all the facts were in.
He's endorsing to let the justice system do it's work instead of letting a near tabloid level effort of the media hang a man's reputation out to dry. He's even willing to accept wrongdoing if that is what the facts spell out. He also asks the more extreme poster to the mailing list to provide evidence that it seems he is incapable of uncovering due to his commitment to only using Free Software.
If he's guilty of anything, it's being overconfident of the rationality of others in a world so tormented by those willing to turn even a hint of inconvenient independent thought into a sign of some disfigurement of one's essential humanity.
There are people out there who pose a threat to civil society and deserve civil/social ostracization. Richard Stallman is not the one in this case, as is evidenced by a willingness on his part to have his mind changed.
The media, if anyone, deserves to be ostracized for not actually digging into and presenting the original posts, and picking and choosing only the most controversial aspects of the man that weave the best narrative to draw clicks. If they had done their job, this would have been a non-story, as it would be clear the man was calling for calm in a discussion where passions were running high.
The FSF, and MIT handled the entire thing poorly. Instead of investigating, and not doing anything hastily, they caved to engineered histrionics, and also failed to demonstrate a bare modicum of scrutiny to establish the facts of the matter, or reach out to correct the media. Essentially they prioritized distance and public perception over ensuring the truth was known. Both proved to have betrayed fundamental principles that their respective institutions were set up to protect.