So I'm not sure there are any "heinous crimes" here, so what we're talking about is hypothetical, not this situation.

If you believe your friend has committed a heinous crime (assuming this isn't just a quote "crime" but actually involves heinous harm to others), the right thing to do is support your friend as a human being and support and encourage them to take accountability for the harm they've done and try to repair it, and either way support what is necessary for them to be taken out of a position where they can continue to do harm, while trying to make sure your friend is okay too (as far as still having a roof over their head and food to eat and emotional support and dignity etc).

I know this isn't the way our society works right now. It is the right thing to do.

Come to think of it, it's the right thing to do even if the harm is less heinous.

Part of the problem is that our society has taught us that the only choices are a) total abandonment of someone, throw them away completely or b) that "supporting" them means helping them deny the harm they've caused avoid any consequences and continue to do harm.

Neither one will work to reduce the amount of harm done or build a culture where we can be human.

If they actually did what they are accused of then, yes, you should probably rethink that friendship. There’s some value in loyalty, but I don’t see a reason why that should include culpable behavior.

Right...but in this specific case, Stallman was loyal because he didn't think his (at that point deceased) friend did it, and in the end he was right. So this seems like a good example of why it's appropriate to withhold judgement until the facts are in.

Also worth noting: Minsky was never actually accused of anything. His name came up in a case and the press & twitter hordes went on a rampage. That's what Stallman was reacting to. It really bothers me that the press outlets that went with "Famed AI Researcher Raped Children" aren't even being discussed, but the guy who said "Did he really, though? I think we should wait for more info" was (and still is) being dragged over the coals for it, even after he was vindicated.

The right thing to do is keep controversial opinions to yourself at work, especially when you're in a position of authority or public facing work.

You can stand by a friend without minimizing the harm they cause.

You mean marginalising?

Because minimizing harm is nothing bad as far as I am concerned.

When the actual harm was zero? And perhaps more importantly when the accusations go well beyond anything evidence warrants?

Yep. That thinking is part of the problem.

Because you did not feel bothered by him you assume no one has a right to it?

And justified or not, there was real harm done to the reputation of FSF.

No but justice comes before kindness.

Justice without kindness is just violence while somehow getting to feel good about it

Notice that I did not say "without".

Your statement (think about it) is a non-sequitur: I did not reject kindness, I just set an order. Think about mafias.

And I did not advocate violence, at all.