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.