There, you're doing it.

It is all right for someone to be skeptical about any commonly held view, except when it's about sex with minors.

In any discussion about any kind of sex with anyone under 18 whatsoever, if you're not 100% fully completely convincedly against it, then you're a bad person!!1

Why can't we just discuss this? Like we can discuss anything else? Especially in the US, where the norm appears to be that the KKK people and the Westboro Baptist nutcases are insane, but they should still be allowed to say what they think? Why is that ok with nazis and homo haters, but not for people who are merely skeptical about the current social norm wrt sex with minors?

It's this same attitude that allows governments to block half the internet, it's to seek out the child pornographers! What, you're against my law? Hey guys, this one here is in favour of child pornography!

Note: I completely share the common opinion that sex with minors is bad and that there are only very few edge cases to be found where it isn't (e.g. a sexually active couple, both 17 years old, one turns 18 and is now a peadophile? surely not). I just think that, like everything else in the world, if we're civilized, we'll allow the discussion.

Well actually, I haven’t expressed an opinion about whether his words are acceptable or whether he’s a bad person, whatever that means. I have heard more than a few people taking me to task for wishing him good health on account of his words, and one of the reasons I posted this was to hear from people like you.

You have, actually. Your statement can't even be charitably called 'loaded' - you explicitly state "he has advocated for truly awful practices?". Just throwing in the word 'allegations' doesn't mean that you're presenting a neutral point of view, as all shock jockeys are fully aware.

Genuinely curious, because I don't think I understood this: what do you mean with "people like me"?

HN readers, especially those who might contruute another perspective. e.g.

reg: Stallman is an important voice.

detractor: He’s also advocating pedo.

reg: He’s still an important voice.

HN reader: Actually, he isn’t advocating pedo. <- new perspective

ah right! thanks for elaborating. in fact, i'm flattered! :-)

also, my compliments for not turning this into a flamewar. in retrospect, it would seem that i was about to.

ps. I really don't understand why people downvoted your comment.

"HackerNews isn't Reddit", until it is.

Thanks. That's useful context.

I don't know if RMS said it in this sense, but pedophilia is actually the sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Attraction to 17 year olds is ephebophilia.

> I just think that, like everything else in the world, if we're civilized, we'll allow the discussion.

He's not discussing it. He's just expressing an opinion. It's an opinion which appears to be based in ignorance. Without any reference to evidence it's just an opinion, and it's unfortunately close to the opinions given by paedophiles.

People have spent many years trying to get the harm done by paedophiles taken seriously. It's frustrating when someone with a large audience blurts out the same ignorant nonsense that victims have been fighting for years.

So, feel free to say that sexual abuse with children is not harmful - just make sure to read some of the extensive evidence before you do.

Actually in New Hampshire you can get married at age 14 (with parental consent) and up here I don't think it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 18 as long as you are within 1 or 2 years of them in age. I've heard in Florida it can be suddenly illegal though, birthdays must be awkward...

You can be skeptical about paedophilia just like you can be skeptical about evolution. The thing is that there is a lot of science and solid arguments why voluntary paedophilia is a bad idea.

You can get married at 16 in the UK (and most of europe) but if you took a picture of your wife giving birth you would be an evil child pornographer.

Another data point: Sex at age 14 is legal in Germany (as long as both parties consent, and it does not involve a position of power - such as a teacher). Even sex at younger ages is not illegal per se, but parents can choose press civil charges (which they rarely do).

Stating a fact, and being skeptical of the claims is not the same as advocating for.

If advocating for better understanding of something and simply not buying into the "think of the children" argument can be called advocating for something, well no. That's dishonest and disheartening, and reeks of a vendetta, or at the very least, a petty mind.

It's one thing to support something. It's another thing to be skeptical.

You'd have to have something more than just conjecture from RMS. Nothing I've read or found suggests he is an advocate.

And yes, I realize you are just asking this question.

Asking such a loaded question when RMS can't even defend himself is just incredible cheap. If you had genuine interest in knowing whether these allegations are true, you could have asked differently (and on a different occasion). No, that's not a "Social/Moral" question, that's just a statement. I would down-vote you, if I could.

its not an allegation when you link to richardstallman.org. What he said was

"Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.

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."

The quote doesn't make it an allegation, that's right. The other parts do ("[...] that he has advocated for truly awful practices"). That "fact" is not part of the question and as such can only be refuted by invalidating the whole comment, not by answering the question (I hope that makes sense). A real (fair) question would have been something like "Here's a quote - what do you think about it?". Besides, again, it's not the right occasion.

Yes. He's a human being, with the same right to hold opinions different from mine or yours and to defend those opinions as we do. He didn't defend pedophiles - he stated a fact (that they were organizing a party) and an opinion (that he has doubts about the harm it does).

He's probably wrong about the harm, but even being wrong doesn't void his right to free speech, or to life.

He's not advocating...

The question (which is unethical to research) is "does voluntary pedophilia harm children?"

In all honestly, the answer is "probably most of the time". Right now, we can't say with absolute certainty that the answer is "probably most of the time". However, the cost of finding out the answer is via a controlled experiment too great, and given the ethics of science today, it definitely shouldn't be researched. We have a lot of reason to believe that children aren't mature enough to handle the consequences, and there are very common negative consequences associated with pedophilia that have been noted for decades. This evidence strongly points to the idea that it is bad, but it isn't proof any more than an apple falling is proof of gravity (it's a case for, but not a proof of). Our society saying "it's bad" isn't proof either.

What Stallman is writing is that he is skeptical of the claim that it is bad. That is a belief, and as already mentioned, testing it would be incredibly unethical. That doesn't make you a bad person for saying that without proof, you refuse to accept a claim.

While what he says may seem heretical, to burn him as a heretic is wrong. Until he says "we should test this" or "I support this group and/or changes of current laws", he hasn't suggested anything that would endanger/harm anyone. The proper response isn't "HERETIC", it is facts that we do know that suggest that this belief is likely (even if not proven in a formal study to be) wrong. For example, bed wetting, PTSD, sexual repression, hypersexualized behavior, extreme depression are symptoms experienced later in life. I don't know what the voluntary/involuntary ratio is, but this suggests that there are serious psychological consequences. Experts in the field would know more. The point being that in an open society, we discuss and counter, not silence and shut down.

Many people believe P = NP despite the years of no solution and a general consensus that researching a polynomial time algorithm is a waste of time. We don't have a proof that P =/= NP, so we can't counter, so we can't counter those who believe it, even if we regard their beliefs to be misinformed or likely to be wrong.

Being skeptical of a claim isn't the same as advocacy.

I agree with that, but I also know that we all make choices about which things we defend either directly or indirectly. Lawyers defend clients regardless of the repugnance of the allegations because it serves the greater good. Those of us who are not lawyers have the luxury of picking and choosing our battles.

I can’t read the man’s mind, but I do know that he has made a choice to discuss the subject and a choice to poke holes in an argument made by one side of the subject, and the choice to leave that comment right there without any attempt at balance or qualification.

> Those of us who are not lawyers have the luxury of picking and choosing our battles.

Sadly, no.

I wish we could just relax and have faith on the preservation of such basic rights as free speech, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. It's all too easy to condemn someone for having an opinion we consider dangerous and to suppress their right to state it. We all must learn to live in a world where some people disagree with us in very fundamental ways, because, if we don't, we'll end up living in a world we'd rather not.

Am I the only person to notice the word "voluntarily" (sic) ? Presumably he meant willingness of both sides. I haven't given the subject much thought, but it's certainly not in the same league as someone joining you in your bathtub against your will.

Legally, minors are considered "incompetent", the idea being that they wouldn't know if something would be harmful to them in the long run. Additionally, the level of wisdom/intelligence is just too different -- children are extremely easy to manipulate compared to adults, especially since adults are almost unanimously regarded as "authority figures", doubly so if a family member. Voluntary means little if you can't reason at the level of an adult. I don't think we can honestly say that a 7 - 10 year old child has the same reasoning and experience to make good choices.

beyond that, children really don't have a sexuality until at least puberty. There is no such thing as "voluntary" pedophilia.

Perhaps rms was talking about the legal definition (18) and not the clinical

> Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices?

He never actually advocated pedophilia, so what awful practices are you saying that he advocates?

Wow, I had no idea.

That's repugnant. Why do people still invite him to conferences? Surely there's less-objectionable representatives of his views on software.

Free speech also includes speech you disagree with and the exercise of democracy implies the need to discuss things that are repugnant to you.

I do not agree with them, but I defend their (both Dutch pedophiles and RMS) right to state their opinions. Even if I strongly disagree with both.

We completely agree. RMS has the right to make excuses for pedophiles all day every day, if he's so inclined.

That said, conference speakers are there at the discretion of the organizers. Not being able to speak is a rights violation; not being able to speak at a conference is not.

I'd assume RMS has more productive ways to spend his time than playing games of logic that induce people into misrepresenting his position ("I'm not sure about the harm" vs. "it's harmless").

I'm glad you didn't say something to the effect of "Not being able to speak is a rights violation; not being able to publish it on the web is not." but you can clearly see it's a small leap from one to the other. After all, the servers, routers and wires always belong to someone.

Um, because he's never stood up and advocated legalization of pedophilia at a conference? (Or even actually advocated legalization of pedophilia at all, but that's a separate issue.)

And this is why raganwald's flamebait is indeed flamebait; gyardley decided to run with someone else's opinion/third-hand information without researching whether or not it was true, or even in context.

Which is pretty much what raganwald wanted to happen: fear, uncertainty, and doubt have been successfully seeded.

Well, considering he considers the practice of having children 'menacing' (his words, not mine), even when it is the children of contributors to his own projects, I don't find myself really surprised.

http://edward.oconnor.cx/2005/04/rms

Bold comment. Privately, I was disappointed that he was fine after reading the news; I suspect that you're not alone in your views based on that and I had a similar moral debate internally.

I'm proud of you for lending your username on HN to remind everybody how truly awful of a person he can be, but I fear that even your clout cannot save this comment from people that love him.

Silencing dialogue, no matter how repulsive it may seem to you, is never the answer, especially in a "free" and "open" society.

Do you oppose automated hell-banning here?

It has lead to people being hell-banned for inoffensive things, the worst I've seen is someone hell-banned because their double post got such a large amount of down-votes.

HN is owned privately and everyone's ability to use it is at pg's discretion. pg has no duty, implied or otherwise, to provide a platform on which the principles of free speech hold. This is not true of society at large. You seem to be conflating the two.

Nearly every website is owned privately. That doesn't mean we still shouldn't seek free speech as a moral goal. What if Google censored your Gmail messages? You're using it at their discretion, right?

Actually, my comment on the situation was "My thoughts are with RMS, an important voice and pioneer:”

https://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/200664134960939008

I got an earful about him from other people both publicly and privately, and I also recall a thread right here on HN a while back where there were allegations of (and spirited discussion about) his interest in getting young men into his hotel room at conferences.

I’m definitely not criticizing anyone who wishes him well, wishes poorly of him, or just wishes he would step out of the limelight (there seem to be more than a few people who consider him an liability to the open source movement at the moment regardless of past contributions). I was just trying to stick my finger in the wind and ask other people how they feel, not suggest how people are supposed to feel.

Bringing up a comment he made on pedophilia and some vague allegations about him inviting young guys into his room is certainly sticking your finger somewhere.

But oh, right, other people said those things, not you. You're just reporting, in a comment thread about the man's uncertain physical health, asking if it's "acceptable" to wish him well.

Do you have a link for those spirited discussions about getting young men into his hotel room?

After a cursory search, the only such discussion I could find was about John Draper, not Stallman. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1914498

From what I understand, Stallman doesn't even stay in hotel rooms.

True enough. I have less of a problem with him than I do those who consider him infallible. They're already at work in this thread; your comment was gray when I replied to it, and the same fate is befalling those who reply to you.

Let us be generous and consider the possibility that downvotes reflect the opinion that my question is off-topic in a thread about his health rather than agreement or disagreement.

I am downvoting you because I think it's repugnant to wish someone ill health because of what they said, especially if you're pretending you're being neutral/'fair' about it.

That it was said six years ago and you dredge it up in an entirely unrelated topic shows that you are more interested in grinding an axe than discussing the matter at hand.