Just to quickly clear it up since this is brought up very often, RMS has changed his views on pedophilia[1]

[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

That's fair. I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of reading everything he's said on the subject, and that was mainly in response to https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... . And I do get (and agree with) your analogy, too.

For full disclosure, I think you can make a reasonable case for at least some of what he said in the link I just posted. For instance, an 18 year old having sex with their 17 year old partner doesn't automatically make it non-consensual, and lots of states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws that agree. That's where the call for caution and careful phrasing come in: does he intend to mean it's OK for an 18 year old and a 17 year old to date (which I'd agree with), or for a 40 year old and a 15 year old (which I'd vehemently not agree with)? If what he meant was the former, I wish he would have clearly stated so and avoided the whole issue. If it really is the latter, then there's no way I'd attempt to defend that or be willing to consider the nuance (and more than I'd be willing to consider your analogy).

Stallman chooses his words precisely. An 18 year old dating a 17 year old isn't a pedophile formally or informally. The article he shared is about a campaign to make 12 the age of consent among other things.

But that's just it!

You're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because you're a fan of his work and his ideologies in other spaces. Which makes sense, I dig it.

For myself, I'd rather not expend the mental gymnastics. If RMS had ever wanted to set the record straight, he could have. If he isn't willing to clarify, personally I'm uninterested in attempting to do it for him, and inclined to assume this (like his other writing) is direct and unambiguous.

(Edit, to add:) And to reinforce my previous point: sometimes the damage one's words do can't easily be undone, and treating everything like it's a philosophical debate and not someone telling us who they are may reinforce that harm.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I didn't follow this whole saga very closely and I picked the one quote of his that I'd seen in the headlines. It's not that I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as up until this moment I haven't personally seen anything worse than that one comment.

That one comment by itself seemed bad but explainable. If he's said worse, well, damned if I'm going to be an apologist for a pedophilia advocate.

The latter would be legal in several European countries.

It was legal in Spain not so long ago, it was 13 the age of consent. Now is 16.

I'd probably state it this way.

It's one thing if someone makes an offhand comment like "Oh yeah, Hitler wanted to be an artist!"

You'd be like "Ok, interesting tidbit but whatever".

It'd be a whole 'nother thing if one multiple different occasions you start talking about positive hilter attributes.

I think it's reasonable for people to be pretty uncomfortable with the number of times and frequency that RMS seems to want to talk about underage sex. That certainly does not make him a pedophile. It is, however, pretty off putting.

All this makes me feel very much like the Hans Reiser case. I was internet active at the time and remember all of his fans swear up and down about how innocent he was and how much he was a victim of the corrupt judicial system. Then that fateful day happened when Reiser was convicted and basically said "Ok, if you'll give me a lighter sentence I'll show you where the body is".

Stallman did a lot of good for the opensource community, which makes him a hero to many. I think, however, it's unhealthy to try and justify his statements on pedophilia. It's ok to talk about the nuance of the laws (Certainly there are major issues with the way CP laws work. It's a bit crazy that teens are getting convicted of it over normal teen behavior). Stallman has been really icky here. He talks not about age difference but instead how "voluntary" the acts are. Trying to read in "Romeo and Juliet" scenarios when he himself doesn't even mention that is trying to paint a more rosy picture of what stallman wrote.

All of this, frankly, can also be cleared up by clarifications from Stallman (which he's not published). He could say pretty much exactly what you've said here "When I was talking about X, this is what I meant". He's not done that and I think that's really telling. Maybe someone told him to STFU, but then again, he's not really been silent on his positions on sex throughout the years, so why start now?

Ugh, I remember the Reiser case pretty well, and perhaps that's a good cautionary analogy.

And ultimately, you're right: if everyone misinterpreted him, it's on him to come out and explain what he really meant. It wasn't my intent to play devil's advocate here, and my original point was just that I think he can be a poor communicator on difficult topics.

Could you show us an instance of RMS being "actively supportive of pedophilia"? This is a claim that will both ruin a man's career, life and reputation, so you better have some decent sources.

I mean, his own website?

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

  > 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. 

Please note that for the purposes of determining statutory rape, a person under the age of consent is not mature enough to give consent, so there cannot be "voluntary pedophilia."

https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September...

  >  Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography"

This second seems to touch lightly on specific cases where the definition of "child pornography" should perhaps be in question -- but given RMS' stance from the former quote, it's not clear that this is the entirety of his viewpoint.

See my answer to the guy below. He's arguing for a law such that child molesters can more easily get prosecuted, instead of prosecuting teenagers who have pictures of their girlfriends/boyfriends.

That's one of the two links I posted, which I think Stallman did not link in the faith you give him (nor do I think was written in that same faith), but that's subjective.

The other is where he's doubting that pedophilia is harmful to children. So yeah, that's pretty well "in support of pedophilia." That one isn't subjective, it's the words he typed, and try as I might I can't find an interpretation where he's not saying pedophilia is fine.

So he links to a post that wants to change the law such that pedophiles can more easily get caught, but you disagree, and feel that he linked to it in some sinister motivation that isn't expressed in said article. Alright...

If I said "I am skeptical that infants smoking weed is harmful to them", does it mean that I smoke weed, or that I smoke weed around infants? Or that I actively support it? Or do I (perhaps wrongfully) state that I am skeptical about claims around the topic?

Personally I think pedophilia is just about the most awful thing in the universe. I wouldn't engage in in depth speculation about how it affects children, because I think it's a horrible thing to think about, but the fact that RMS engages in those conversations doesn't make him a pedophile. And it definitely doesn't make him an "active supporter" of it.

Did you actually read those links? The very first paragraph on the falkvinge-page:

"This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it."

So they're arguing for a change in laws such that child molesters could more easily be prosecuted? And here you are accusing a man of actively supporting pedophilia based on some gossip from someone who also didn't read what he was actually saying?

> 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.

We are talking about what stallman has written. The above is what he wrote. The distinction he's drawing between "voluntarily pedophilia" and "involuntarily pedophilia" is one that I don't believe exists. Particularly because "grooming" is a common tactics of pedophilies.