> Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job?

There are absolutely jobs in the world where “don’t be a distraction” is a requirement for the job.

Sometimes who you are, a physical trait, an accent, an unrelated disability is a "distraction". And, yes, personality and neurological traits can count as well.

I can understand "don't be a jerk", and maybe RMS failed that test. But "don't be a distraction" can easily be (and has been) an excuse to oppress in the name of pragmatism.

The problem is people don't want to associate with an organization lead by someone they have problems with, and a lot of people have problems with his views/behavior. The struggle of the FSF is difficult as it is. He doesn't have to be actively using power/influence.

edited phrasing

Your question is addressed in the article.

Because of their public-facing role and influence, whatever opinions and interests they express while in that spotlight will widely be interpreted, fairly or not, as being implicitly endorsed by the institution they represent. That's a tradeoff of being someone whose actions and decisions profoundly affect and direct the work of everyone in the institution.

>Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job?

They can always share opinions anonymously. I don't know you who are: for all I know you could be the president of the US.

If you're seen as a figurehead of a company/organisation/movement etc, it makes sense to limit what opinions you say under your real name. As the article says, it can be a distraction from the organisation's purpose. Musk is a good example: I work in a company that has links to SpaceX, and when Musk dives off the deep end on Twitter every conversation about SpaceX eventually leads to a discussion about him.

Of course people are allowed to have opinions or interests. AFAIK nobody has said you can't. He was also not fired, but resigned.

People in prominent positions have visibility and platform that elevates their voice as well as tacitly tieing their declared opinions to the organizations they represent. That is just how societies operate. You can rationalize that it shouldn't be like that, but it always has been and always will be and it is surprising that people are seemingly shocked or offended by this.

> As long as RMS wasn't actively using his power/influence as head of the FSF to advance his odd-ball views I really don't see what the problem is.

Let me reverse that, if Stallman weren't heading up the FSF, would anyone give one iota of damn about his other oddball views?

Of course not. They would dismiss him as a nobody.

I think you have it totally backwards. Would anyone give a damn what the FSF said if RMS hadn't been its leader for 30 years? I sure wouldn't. The FSF has put the personal political goals of some of its members ahead of free software. Stallman would never, and has never done that.

Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job?

That is basically correct.

You're allowed to have interests outside of your job, but most workplaces expect you to leave them aside, and focus on doing WORK at work.

If your job involves being a public speaker, who is 'on' 24/7, then that's what you have to deal with. You're always free to pursue flipping burgers, or fixing cars, where you only need to be focused on work for 40 hours a week.

The problem is we are rapidly heading towards a world where all of us are 'on', public-facing or not.

Remember this wonderful bout of collective insanity: https://reason.com/2017/04/18/drupal-developer-ousted-over-k...

Maybe once it was only leaders, but I think these days anybody can be harassed via their employer for saying controversial things on the Internet. I guess free speech still exists in non-controversial matters, and for people who don't have to worry about employment.