His worst comment was probably this one https://web.archive.org/web/20180131020215/https://stallman....
Even were he to turn out to be an incredible coder and lover of open source, I also wouldn't expect the FSF to hire David Duke as a spokesman because the combination of two unrelated advocacy positions would be a distraction for both.
He hasn't been silenced. He still has internet access and the many publishing platforms that affords him.
He's been dissociated from a role in an organization.
If his ideas so clearly stand on their own, then he should have no problems. What he will not be doing anymore is acting as a direct representative of the organization.
He's being branded as an insensitive twit who's pattern of behavior has showed no signs of attempts to change, understand or really engage with the criticism he chooses to attract, and has finally broken the camel's back and this is the result.
Edit: have you ever witnessed something where all you could think while watching it was "Guy, just shut up, you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by talking."? Now imagine that instead of being some guy on news coverage it's someone who's seen as the public face of your organization, he has a history of doing the same thing and you have zero faith that he won't do it in the future.
I wouldn't personally touch any of these topics. Too controversial, no gain. But I can't really fault his logic. Of course, social and sexual morality runs on feelings rather than logic, and perhaps that's what RMS doesn't get!
He doesn't have to be.
Of course, equally, they don't need to at all be concerned with his thoughts or feelings when exercising their rights, either.
Now, if he wants them to give favorable consideration to him when exercising their freedoms, well...
Yes.
> That's not the same thing as using your words
It's an exercise of property and association rights, rather than speech rights, so, sure, it's a different thing on a precise enough level.
On the other hand, it's the same thing on the level of exercise of rights in which others thoughts and feelings need not be considered outside of voluntary (e.g., contractual) commitments or legal mandates.
Dr. Stallman is free to exercise his rights in manners which disregard the thoughts and feelings of others. He should not, however, be surprised that his doing so is reciprocated.
He's absolutely free to speak his mind. Similarly, people and organizations are free to disassociate with him if they find his opinions offensive (or even just distracting).
The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way.
I only argued about freedom of association to counter that simplistic thinking. That is, yes it's your right to say whatever you want, but it's my right to disassociate from you if I don't like what you're saying.
> The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way
I agree whole-heartedly with this more nuanced take on it. In a round-about way, that was kind of my point - That the matter is not as simple as being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have repercussions.
If a person has responsibilities as a representative, then there isn't a clear cut separation between their private conduct and that representation, and they have to be aware of that and accept it, however reluctantly that may be. Anything that leader says and does may be interpreted by the public, rightly or wrongly, as being part of the representation.
Each word is a linked to a comment, some of them fairly eye opening.