It leaves a bad taste in my mouth how quickly people will let one bad cluster of comments negate a man's entire life work. I have already outlined my opinions on this matter elsewhere but I still hope this incident doesn't ruin RMS.
It is also discomforting how suddenly people are trotting out years and years of evidence why Stallman shouldn't have held the role. A mob convened, Stallman disappears and there is a pile-on of people working quickly to expand why it was done with all sorts of rationalisations.
It is never appropriate for these sorts of controversies to play out over 1 week. If there are years of evidence of problems, there should be a few weeks of tying them all together before people resign. The knee-jerk reaction here over a mailing list comment is genuinely concerning.
And people keep quoting him while rearranging the words. We literally have a transcript here, people should be copying from it directly. No quoting of single words in a new sentence, that is just slack. :/
Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings, over several years, including several warning/remedial/probationary periods wherein people were working with him to try and improve the behavior that caused at least some of the multiple complaints over multiple years?
In other words, what makes you think this process played out over 1 week, rather than this being the most recent of a long succession of events?
I am personally saddened by RMS’ departure, and also saddened that this “final straw” seems likely to be caused by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend. That said, I also know people who interact with him far more often than I, and they almost unanimously say it was past time. It makes me sad, but it doesn’t make me think it was hasty.
People have brought up those previous comments of RMS' in the past but a lot of the community would not discuss them / reacted rather negatively to them. The news stories helped push all this out into the open.
I contend that someone who thinks that an adult should not be allowed to enter into contracts regarding software / be punished for doing so "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." yet thinks that a 10/11 year old should be allowed to pick their sex partners is something that should be openly discussed.
Just because they build up doesn't mean they're not legitimate grievances, and I don't see rms changing one bit.
Responses always seem out of proportion because media coverage creates attention and makes people reconsider longstanding issues. That might seem like a manufactured mob, but it isn't, it's just focusing all of the discontent that piled up over the years.
We need better feedback loops, sure. But we also need people that listen, and RMS would fail there already.
The one incident that got attention now stems from rms having absolutely no filter and no sense of what's appropriate to say at what time and additionally seemingly prioritising his dead friends honor over believing victims even if you want to argue him being just about technically correct by using specific wording (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none).
This is not a one off thing. When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin, when RMS asks someone their name, if they work at MIT and then if they'd like to date right away, when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them... this guy should have been told to be better or get the fuck out years ago, but instead because he's adored by nerds all over people put up with his childish insistence on doing things exactly his way, using his personal redefinition of words (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) and leaving his behavior unchallenged because you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
No one is saying tear down everything he had ever done. All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization. RMS has had a long history of getting a pass for his actions because of his skill and passion, he was excused for behaviors that would get most people fired. Humans tend to act like this, a long buildup of frustration followed by quick action once a boiling point is reached. Look at most civil wars for instance. I think RMS made the right decision by stepping back and not letting the outrage fall onto the organizations he's part of. As is abundantly clear from the comments here, RMS will never lack for support regardless of what he does, so I don't think anyone needs to be concerned about him landing on his feet, he's going to be absolutely fine.
> All that's been said is that someone with a history of being aggressive, supporting of paedophilia, unable to determine appropriate times to debate, and lacking social graces wasn't the best person to lead an organization.
That doesn't sound like what happened at all.
More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.
Notice that, fortunately, he seems to be in good spirits and has not lost his sense of humor. Look at the top line on his website (stallman.org). He says "I may not be a good leader, but at least I'm a great speaker[1]. "
With the link pointing to a video of a comically bad speech of him (which is funny, because he is almost always a very good speaker indeed).
People are not reacting the way they are because he has the wrong skin color; or, for that matter, any trait beyond his own direct control.
He's being treated the way he is because his actions and comments are insensitive at best and downright vulgar at worst, have been so for a long time, and people have finally had enough.
If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
From what I've understood, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back with Stallman. He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
I keep seeing this response, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. If Stallman's past behavior was unacceptable, then he should have been fired for that.
The fact is, the reporting around the event that actually did get him fired was beyond awful and disingenuous. By throwing up your hands and saying "yeah maybe those articles were a crock of lies, but that's fine because he actually did do some shitty stuff before too" you're contributing to an environment in which it's that much harder to distinguish honest reporting from fabricated character assassination.
I think this [0] comment from Reddit does a good job refuting the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument:
"""
Amazing how much damage dishonest media coverage can do, even though it's both trivial to prove their misquotes false and we now have an witness further supporting Stallman's original argument. Summary of events:
In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
Someone wrote a Medium blogpost called "Remove Richard Stallman" quoting the argument. Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was "entirely willing" (rather than pretending to be) and as "defending Epstein". Note the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so. Since then physicist Greg Benford, who was present at the time, has stated that she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down? We're supposed to consider a dead man a rapist for sex he didn't have because of something Epstein did without his knowledge, possibly even in a failed attempt to create blackmail material against him?
Despite this, Stallman has now been pressured to resign not just from MIT but from the Free Software Foundation that he founded. Despite (and sometimes because of) his eccentricities, I think Stallman was a very valuable voice in free-software, particularly as someone whose dedication to it as an ideal helped counterbalance corporate influence and the like. But if some journalists decide he should be out and are willing to tell lies about it, then apparently that's enough for him to be pushed out.
>He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
I also saw those accusations, but I didn't see any proof of the harassment except one girl that said Stallman asked her on a date. And bothering? you really think you can go for 60 years on this earth without bothering any person?
Said who? The basic accusation was that he was creepy (which is not really an objective problem, much less an offence...). This was illustrated by things like him having a matress in his office and him allegedly (and drunkenly) hitting on a student back in the 80s in a very bad way.
If you consider that the "viral" posts, which apparently triggered this, contained a warning of the like "if minors read this, please turn away, you might be shocked at the idea of a 17y/o having sex with an adult", you generally get the spirit of the whole thing. This has nothing to do with equality and freedom anymore, it's just about creating an "ideal" society (probably with procreation happening only after getting blessed by a priest).
Stallman never seemed like a regular guy to me. I’ve met people who are “neurally atypical” and they have weird/bad behaviour.
There was even a case in Melbourne where a slightly mentally impaired man was accused of sexual harassment because he’d try and be friendly to everyone and it came off wrong.
I’d like to think we’d have some amount of compassion for these people and help them function in society.
> He's harassed and bothered dozens of women in and outside of MIT.
No, he didn't.
Thomas Lord who worked with him says
> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.
He has stepped down as head of the Free Software Foundation and his name is being dragged through the mud. There are many out there who will try their hardest to remove him from GNU as well.
This (latest) RMS incident is the confluence of The Structure of Presidential Scandals and Outrage Culture.
The personal, character failings of public figures are tolerated until they run out of goodwill. Then a "scandal" occurs. Nothing new is actually discovered. We always knew about President Clinton's extra marital stuff. It just didn't matter, until it did.
I don't have anything useful to add about Outrage Culture. Along with everyone else, I'm still trying to figure it out. Closest analogy I can think of is candidate Gary Hart put his head in the lion's mouth one too many times.
--
My take on RMS is a little bit, um, unconventional. Having never met him, I imagine he's somewhere between neurotypical and an ultimatist and a square peg in a world of round holes. His pedantry regarding Minsky wasn't wrong, exactly. It was just unwittingly in bad taste. A common recurrence for RMS.
Unfortunately for RMS, this time it mattered. Per the bit about scandals above; public opinion towards RMS crossed some unmarked tipping point, and he doesn't have enough allies to help save his public image.
RMS will be fine.
And I'm actually okay with this kind of court of public opinion. I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant. If RMS can't or won't, then it's his time to sit down, and let someone more palatable serve as arrow catcher for a while (the job of the ultimatist).
If your dead friend gets accused of something in a wrong/misleading fassion it is in bad taste to defend them?
> I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant
No you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion, though outlining my reasoning for this would probably be around 2000 words, so not doable on a phone. (I started writing, then realized how big a topic that is)
There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
The real crux is this, "computing" and free software is not the preserve of academia anymore. It should be for everyone. Which means getting rid of deliberately antagonistic behaviour.
It serves noone.
I want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad. But they can't do that if we cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes. There is just no need anymore. It doesn't work, it doesn't make for better code.
Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
>There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
What the fuck? What percentage of consumer computing devices in the world are running free software? Windows+OSX+iOS+Android account for >96% of market share. In what world, in what possible conception, did GNU/Linux "win"?
>GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
Like: free phone OS, decentralization, federation and self-hosting, real-time voice and video chat, accessibility, an AI assistant. [1]
>cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes.
>Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
Again, what the fuck, am I seriously missing something here, or when did Stallman ever "abuse" someone? How is he a "psychopath"? A "bully"? A "nastie" (what is this, 2nd grade)?
I'm sorry, but being a rude and obnoxious person doesn't mean the local lynch mob gets to decide when you have to step down from the foundation you created in the name of ensuring human freedom for generations to come.
Linux has hardly "won". Most of my friends and coworkers use Mac or Windows. Your post is filled with short-sighted, opinionated nonsense.
RMS continues to fight the good fight despite the public turning on him so readily.
>But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
Maybe if you get formal education or go to a boot camp to learn software development. The "future of computing" is in walled gardens like Chromebooks, iPads or Windows S. Not allowing software development on them is part of the added value. Google plans on getting rid of Linux and replace it with Fuchsia once it has matured.
Comparing RMS to Jobs and Ballmer is a joke. RMS is way more capable and he devoted his personal life for the sake of good. Jobs and Ballmer are just business people.
RMS's problem is that he's too honest and anything involving women and rape is just not worth even commenting on at this point. His point was that a willing person shouldn't be considered raped based on the country they're in or the uptick from 17 to 18. I personally believe 25 is a better cutoff age for this.
I get his point, but we have to draw lines somewhere, even if they're imperfect. It's like saying speed limits don't stop all speeding, or gun laws don't prevent all gun violence. Of course not, but in both cases we have to try. We have to try to protect minors whose brains aren't fully developed as well, even if pedophiles don't like it.
RMS did walk back his comments after speaking with close friends of his on the subject, essentially agreeing with what I'm saying here.
in situations like this "one bad cluster of comments" isn't considered a mistake or a lapse in judgement but a symptom of what a person actually thinks. RMS more than likely did not form those opinions on the spot and then forgot he had them afterward. and RMS has a public history that is congruent with those opinions and how he presented them.
im sure it leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths what the leader of GNU has done and how he thinks.
Yep, spot on. And as I said earlier, RMS's crime is that he doesn't condemn unequivocally and totally, (i.e. without judgment), what is perceived as unacceptable by the society.
RMS loves freedom more than many of us, that's why "consent" is so important to him (I guess).
I think something that I haven’t heard people say is that firing him only addresses the emotional reaction to the abuse that happened but may actually make the problem more common in the future.
Part of what gave Epistine the ability to do what he did was the fear people had of speaking about what they understood to be reality when they knew it would upset their coworkers or employers.
RMS’s lack of that fear (regardless of wether his ideas truly corresponded with reality) is what got him fired. This demonstrates that those fears aren’t unfounded and empowers certain kinds of extremely abusive people far more than any semantic argument about rape or pedophilia could.
As a person that only knows RMS through his coding, what should I read to understand the context here? I'm not interested in reading foggy comments, tbh.
It wasn't just a cluster of comments. Stallman not only harassed women and made them uncomfortable, he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker who kept harassing her. Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people leap to the defense of people in positions of institutional and cultural power who behave in a way that disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people.
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
"Leah was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution."
The people involved have moved on. The internet, however, is still trying to sling mud where there is none in an embarrassing display of social lynching and lack of loyalty to people who have done so much for human freedom.
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
Just a few thoughts from and old guy who's baffled by some things in modern times...
I struggle with names at times...
And now pronouns? Uhhhh, I bet I screw it up more than 50% of the time. The differences in people (don't say god bless you you to some indians or muslims when they sneeze, for example) are more than I can keep track of at times. Does that make me a creep?
There was one guy his chose "The Great and Powerful <something>" for his pronoun. Yeah, I'll remember that...
At what point do you become a creep for not remembering? At what point do you become a target for the SJW hit squad?
I don't see anything wrong there. What is wrong with believing that victimless crimes should be legal? Also, asking someone on a date is harassment now? What?
Good for him. In this day and age I support any fightback against deplatforming. I hate that it has come down to this, where you have to take a stand just on principles. I don't know if Stallman is really a "creepy old man" who hits on his female co-workers but any chance of a fair enquiry in an appropriate manner is near zero.
The mass hysteria and instant justice demands of the twitter outrage mob has killed nuance or shades of grey from public discourse. I really really hate that anything in the center is taboo. I lay the blame squarely on the far-left for this state of affairs. They started this war and this trend. God knows where it will end.
The thing you're describing where people latch on to outrage in the social media age isn't an effect exclusive to the left. I think that human tribalism and group think in a huge instant forum like the modern internet inevitably lead to some bad conclusions and disproportionate outcomes. I think we have to find a way to give deeply considered and measured commentary the share of our collective attention it deserves. Upvotes and downvotes and likes and shares don't serve that purpose well enough.
I agree with you for the most part, but I disagree about the characterization of the phenomenon as "far-left." It's driven by middle-class conformists, in my humble opinion.
Good for him. In this day and age I support any fightback against deplatforming.
Maybe it's just me but these news surprise me most because, of all people, Stallman is a pioneer of some kinds of activism that these people also practices, like nitpicking about language or the idea of purity.
It is a big difference between just making moral claims (even about language and purity), expressing them and conforming to them perself on one side, and calling for outrage mob and deplatforming on the other side.
The first one is responsible moral position, the second one is witch hunt.
No one has ever accused him of hitting on his female coworkers. His assistant for the last 15 years is a woman. In most of his activities, hes a volunteer activist. Some of his critics are past female coworkers, but they would gladly say he has never done that. So, you actually can know that.
"the twitter outrage mob has killed nuance" and "I lay the blame squarely on the far-left" is a very funny combination of claims to have in the same paragraph. :-)
If I can be forgiven for an interesting meta observation, I think the time of day and the tone of some comments makes a big difference depending on the topic.
For example Snowdon topics posted during the European morning and then later on American users share their thoughts and comments. And then later on as Silicon Valley comes online.
same with RMS and other cultural issues, when just looking at the comments it's clear that there's differences in opinion due to different cultures.
I have not really observed these differences in pure tech stories though.
He would do well to acknowledge the controversy surrounding his recent exits--the people saying his resignations were a leap forward for tech. To ignore them lends them credence.
The one thing I hope for in this whole situation is that the F/OSS movement keeps going, and the quality of code and diversity of free software stays high, because I'm pretty sure there are individuals and companies who want F/OSS to end, and may see this as an opportunity to try to stoke further controversy and infighting to splinter and destroy the movement.
I think everyone should be able to agree that the situation, as it stands, is pretty unfortunate. Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community, and it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU, as a result.
I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions -- but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". [1]
While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
>Stallman has pretty clearly lost (or never had) the trust of many members of the community,
He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community.
> EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep".
And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps.
>He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
He didn't said that.
>he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.
> And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why?
I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces.
> He didn't said that.
He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
[1] Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault. OTOH, calling people "creeps" is totally normal behavior and isn't negative, demeaning and aggressive in any way. If somebody dislikes you, obviously it's your fault.
[2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
> Somehow we should conclude from that that RMS is guilty because somebody thinks he's a "creep", because apparently being called a "creep" by a bluecheck twitter user automatically makes you guilty of... well, whatever it is, it's clearly your fault.
Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do.
> No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
"Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.
By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.
There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong.
It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.
The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
I think this part of his emails could be constructed as that
> We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent.
His opinion on the age of consent is another matter:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Yes. This article[1], so far as I can tell, contains the full nuance of the story. He claimed (or very strongly insinuated) that if a minor sex trafficking victim presented herself as "entirely willing", then a man who had sex with her is not guilty of sexual assault. I believe that's what I said in my comment.
"it seems unlikely that he will be an effective leader and public face for GNU"
He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else.
[1] I don't read twitter, sorry.
[2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press.
[3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.
> That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press.
Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that:
>He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse.
And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it.
Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.
I know people are decrying the sudden exposure of years of actual issues (including warnings/remedial/probation), as well as skepticism about rumors that are floating around. None of this is new knowledge. I heard rumors about RMS floating back at Berkeley around 1999-2003.
So let's look at the worst case possible circumstance - that a man who repeatedly makes comments that are interpreted as pro-pedophilia and has a history of inappropriate conduct with young (albiet legal) women might actually act in ways that he has publicly justified.
In that circumstance, no one can say that the warning signals were not there. That would be on all of us, and leaving him in a position of power would continue the possibility of abuse.
For the FSF and GNU to have a future (as opposed to "open source"), they need to evolve beyond Stallman one way or other. Associating these institutions with Stallman going forward exposed them to the risk (worst case) of being the catholic church at Stallman's alter. At best, they are fighting a fight that has nothing to do with their primary mission.
Stallman has been a 'creep' for decades is all I keep hearing from people in these threads. So why is it that all his victims from decades of his 'creepy' behaviour do not come forward and LEGALLY take action against him? Is the USA not one of the most empowered countries for women? If not in the USA then where? Repeated accusations on the Internet don't count. This is just digital version of character assassination. A lot of people seem to have hated and resented him for various reasons (something that all long-standing leaders accumulate), and they seem to have seized on a suitable 'faux-pas' to whip up as much frenzy as they can and do maximum possible social damage to him. And not one will pursue credible, legal redressal.
To an outsider with no skin anywhere in this, it is just shameful how this has played out.
> Stallman has been a 'creep' for decades is all I keep hearing from people in these threads. So why is it that all his victims from decades of his 'creepy' behaviour do not come forward and LEGALLY take action against him?
Forgetting Stallman for a second - This is a weak argument. There are many reasons not to step forward with public accusations of someone; even more reasons not to take legal action; and even more reasons if that person is famous and has significant public credit.
Also, indeed, after a person casts the first stone at someone, others are quick to follow - but that doesn't mean they don't have a good reason to cast a stone; it's just an aspect of human group/mass psychology.
It's not illegal to be a creepy weirdo. I don't recall hearing of any behavior from Stallman that was illegal, just merely socially inappropriate or weird.
That doesn't mean it MUST be 100% tolerated in all capacities though - many organizations might not want to have a creepy weirdo without social graces as their president.
I don't have a personal opinion if Stallman should have been pressured to resign from the FSF or MIT it not, it's not my place to judge. I admit I've never been a fan of his though - he's always come off as incredibly grating to me.
I think the root of the this was misinterpretations of 'creep' - publicly eating something from your foot might be called creepy - but there is no law against it and it is not against women in any way.
Not knowing details of accusations, but harassment and criminal harassment is not the same thing. The legal system line on where you can use it is quite high and rightly so. I can literally verbally abuse you quite a lot before it becomes criminal or even possible to get restraining order (which is easier). Technically, groping and such are illegal, but unless you have a lot of money quite pointless to try to press the charges and court wont be eager to do whole lot against it anyway (cause they will see groping issue as waste of resources and he said she said issue).
I did not heard any accusation that would cross the legal line afaik. The accusations I have seen are all about inapropriate this or that, but I did not seen accusation of rape or anything like that.
Plus, the actual players involved in that institution seem to talk about these issues in person. Not on blogs or journals. We do not know who came forward with what in FSF or MIT.
Readit News
It is never appropriate for these sorts of controversies to play out over 1 week. If there are years of evidence of problems, there should be a few weeks of tying them all together before people resign. The knee-jerk reaction here over a mailing list comment is genuinely concerning.
And people keep quoting him while rearranging the words. We literally have a transcript here, people should be copying from it directly. No quoting of single words in a new sentence, that is just slack. :/
In other words, what makes you think this process played out over 1 week, rather than this being the most recent of a long succession of events?
I am personally saddened by RMS’ departure, and also saddened that this “final straw” seems likely to be caused by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend. That said, I also know people who interact with him far more often than I, and they almost unanimously say it was past time. It makes me sad, but it doesn’t make me think it was hasty.
I haven’t read of any evidence, just what sounds like rumor starting and spreading
Isn't that what he said in the first place?
I contend that someone who thinks that an adult should not be allowed to enter into contracts regarding software / be punished for doing so "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." yet thinks that a 10/11 year old should be allowed to pick their sex partners is something that should be openly discussed.
Just because they build up doesn't mean they're not legitimate grievances, and I don't see rms changing one bit.
Responses always seem out of proportion because media coverage creates attention and makes people reconsider longstanding issues. That might seem like a manufactured mob, but it isn't, it's just focusing all of the discontent that piled up over the years.
We need better feedback loops, sure. But we also need people that listen, and RMS would fail there already.
The one incident that got attention now stems from rms having absolutely no filter and no sense of what's appropriate to say at what time and additionally seemingly prioritising his dead friends honor over believing victims even if you want to argue him being just about technically correct by using specific wording (there is no fucking way you are oblivious to people being coerced into sex this visiting Epsteins Island, just none).
This is not a one off thing. When RMS does his church of emacs skit and keeps pointing at a young woman in the audience whenever he says the word virgin, when RMS asks someone their name, if they work at MIT and then if they'd like to date right away, when people literally cover their offices in plants because Stallman doesn't like them... this guy should have been told to be better or get the fuck out years ago, but instead because he's adored by nerds all over people put up with his childish insistence on doing things exactly his way, using his personal redefinition of words (fuck rms for shitting on singular they) and leaving his behavior unchallenged because you know he'll throw a huge tantrum if you don't.
That doesn't sound like what happened at all.
More like he dared to challenge a witchhunt against someone with a tenuous connection to Epstein, and the witchhunt turned on him.
Notice that, fortunately, he seems to be in good spirits and has not lost his sense of humor. Look at the top line on his website (stallman.org). He says "I may not be a good leader, but at least I'm a great speaker[1]. "
With the link pointing to a video of a comically bad speech of him (which is funny, because he is almost always a very good speaker indeed).
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jskq3-lpQnE
That part of the HTML doesn't seem to be written with auto-fill-mode either.
He's being treated the way he is because his actions and comments are insensitive at best and downright vulgar at worst, have been so for a long time, and people have finally had enough.
If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
The fact is, the reporting around the event that actually did get him fired was beyond awful and disingenuous. By throwing up your hands and saying "yeah maybe those articles were a crock of lies, but that's fine because he actually did do some shitty stuff before too" you're contributing to an environment in which it's that much harder to distinguish honest reporting from fabricated character assassination.
I think this [0] comment from Reddit does a good job refuting the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument:
"""
Amazing how much damage dishonest media coverage can do, even though it's both trivial to prove their misquotes false and we now have an witness further supporting Stallman's original argument. Summary of events:
In a recently unsealed deposition a woman testified that, at the age of 17, Epstein told her to have sex with Marvin Minsky. Minsky was a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab and pioneer in A.I. who died in 2016. Stallman argued on a mailing list (in response to a statement from a protest organizer accusing Minsky of sexual assault) that, while he condemned Epstein, Minsky likely did not know she was being coerced:
> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
Someone wrote a Medium blogpost called "Remove Richard Stallman" quoting the argument. Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman as saying that the woman was "entirely willing" (rather than pretending to be) and as "defending Epstein". Note the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that Epstein told her to do so. Since then physicist Greg Benford, who was present at the time, has stated that she propositioned Minsky and he turned her down:
> I know; I was there. Minsky turned her down. Told me about it. She saw us talking and didn’t approach me.
This seems like a complete validation of the distinction Stallman was making. If what Minsky knew doesn't matter, if there's no difference between "Minsky sexually assaulted a woman" and "Epstein told a 17-year-old to have sex with Minsky without his knowledge or consent", then why did he turn her down? We're supposed to consider a dead man a rapist for sex he didn't have because of something Epstein did without his knowledge, possibly even in a failed attempt to create blackmail material against him?
Despite this, Stallman has now been pressured to resign not just from MIT but from the Free Software Foundation that he founded. Despite (and sometimes because of) his eccentricities, I think Stallman was a very valuable voice in free-software, particularly as someone whose dedication to it as an ideal helped counterbalance corporate influence and the like. But if some journalists decide he should be out and are willing to tell lies about it, then apparently that's enough for him to be pushed out.
"""
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/d59efr/computer...
I also saw those accusations, but I didn't see any proof of the harassment except one girl that said Stallman asked her on a date. And bothering? you really think you can go for 60 years on this earth without bothering any person?
There was even a case in Melbourne where a slightly mentally impaired man was accused of sexual harassment because he’d try and be friendly to everyone and it came off wrong.
I’d like to think we’d have some amount of compassion for these people and help them function in society.
In the ideal world any claim like this would be backed up with evidence.
No, he didn't.
Thomas Lord who worked with him says
> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior. The general culture of inclusiveness and tolerance that RMS fostered meant that, at least when I was there alongside Bushnell, that social circle in and around the organization was feminized and all the stronger for it.
https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1243.1-1359.221
For the moment, I recommend we stick to just legal standards. (Such as if he drugged/raped someone, the way Cosby and Weinstein did.)
What did he do, exactly?
Deleted Comment
The personal, character failings of public figures are tolerated until they run out of goodwill. Then a "scandal" occurs. Nothing new is actually discovered. We always knew about President Clinton's extra marital stuff. It just didn't matter, until it did.
I don't have anything useful to add about Outrage Culture. Along with everyone else, I'm still trying to figure it out. Closest analogy I can think of is candidate Gary Hart put his head in the lion's mouth one too many times.
--
My take on RMS is a little bit, um, unconventional. Having never met him, I imagine he's somewhere between neurotypical and an ultimatist and a square peg in a world of round holes. His pedantry regarding Minsky wasn't wrong, exactly. It was just unwittingly in bad taste. A common recurrence for RMS.
Unfortunately for RMS, this time it mattered. Per the bit about scandals above; public opinion towards RMS crossed some unmarked tipping point, and he doesn't have enough allies to help save his public image.
RMS will be fine.
And I'm actually okay with this kind of court of public opinion. I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant. If RMS can't or won't, then it's his time to sit down, and let someone more palatable serve as arrow catcher for a while (the job of the ultimatist).
> I want our public figures to keep pace with the times, to adapt, to remain effective & relevant
No you really don't want your public figures to try and optimize for things that result in good public opinion, though outlining my reasoning for this would probably be around 2000 words, so not doable on a phone. (I started writing, then realized how big a topic that is)
He's perfectly capable of doing that himself.
There was a time where his style of firebrand-like vitriol against proprietary software was crucial. But that time is over. GNU/Linux won, it won years ago.
GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
The real crux is this, "computing" and free software is not the preserve of academia anymore. It should be for everyone. Which means getting rid of deliberately antagonistic behaviour.
It serves noone.
I want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad. But they can't do that if we cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes. There is just no need anymore. It doesn't work, it doesn't make for better code.
Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
No, that kind of behaviour has to stop.
What the fuck? What percentage of consumer computing devices in the world are running free software? Windows+OSX+iOS+Android account for >96% of market share. In what world, in what possible conception, did GNU/Linux "win"?
>GNU does not have the influence it once did. It is an organisation geared up to solve the problems of the early 90s.
Like: free phone OS, decentralization, federation and self-hosting, real-time voice and video chat, accessibility, an AI assistant. [1]
>cling to these idols who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes.
>Crucially it serves as an excuse to let abusers, psychopaths and other nasties continue to abuse people "because RMS, Jobs & Ballmer all did it"
Again, what the fuck, am I seriously missing something here, or when did Stallman ever "abuse" someone? How is he a "psychopath"? A "bully"? A "nastie" (what is this, 2nd grade)?
[1]: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
I'm sorry, but being a rude and obnoxious person doesn't mean the local lynch mob gets to decide when you have to step down from the foundation you created in the name of ensuring human freedom for generations to come.
Linux has hardly "won". Most of my friends and coworkers use Mac or Windows. Your post is filled with short-sighted, opinionated nonsense.
RMS continues to fight the good fight despite the public turning on him so readily.
Maybe if you get formal education or go to a boot camp to learn software development. The "future of computing" is in walled gardens like Chromebooks, iPads or Windows S. Not allowing software development on them is part of the added value. Google plans on getting rid of Linux and replace it with Fuchsia once it has matured.
Not in any real sense. There is a lot of open source[1] software in use but the current state of computing doesn't have much to do with freedom.
Open Source may have won, Free Software hasn't.
[citation needed]
Anyway, even if it was true, has him become disposable?
> want my children to follow in my footsteps, as I followed my dad
Maybe your dad wasn't such a great person for other people except you though.
Maybe I would prefer my kids being more like RMS than me or your dad or you.
What you want it's irrelevant.
> who bully, cajole and generally act like obnoxious arseholes
he's been bullied all of his life, because he never conformed to any norm.
And there are people like you keep doing that.
There's that too.
I get his point, but we have to draw lines somewhere, even if they're imperfect. It's like saying speed limits don't stop all speeding, or gun laws don't prevent all gun violence. Of course not, but in both cases we have to try. We have to try to protect minors whose brains aren't fully developed as well, even if pedophiles don't like it.
RMS did walk back his comments after speaking with close friends of his on the subject, essentially agreeing with what I'm saying here.
im sure it leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths what the leader of GNU has done and how he thinks.
RMS loves freedom more than many of us, that's why "consent" is so important to him (I guess).
Part of what gave Epistine the ability to do what he did was the fear people had of speaking about what they understood to be reality when they knew it would upset their coworkers or employers.
RMS’s lack of that fear (regardless of wether his ideas truly corresponded with reality) is what got him fired. This demonstrates that those fears aren’t unfounded and empowers certain kinds of extremely abusive people far more than any semantic argument about rape or pedophilia could.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people leap to the defense of people in positions of institutional and cultural power who behave in a way that disempowers and dehumanizes marginalized people.
See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133...
I'm sorry, but this isn't a prerequisite for working in the software industry. You are not allowed to vilify someone over having an opinion about gender, just like you shouldn't fire someone for having a different opinion on it than you.
"Leah was at the time struggling with gender dysphoria and substance abuse. Since then, she has been managing these issues. She agrees that her behaviour was rash and is determined to find a unifying solution."
The people involved have moved on. The internet, however, is still trying to sling mud where there is none in an embarrassing display of social lynching and lack of loyalty to people who have done so much for human freedom.
No proof of that.
>and made them uncomfortable
Not a crime.
>he outright fired a transgender woman from the FSF for reporting her transphobic coworker
No proof of that, no proof of the coworker being transphobic, also all of that is not a crime.
>See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
That's the same person that accused Linus Torvalds of harassment and made him quit. Coincidence?
That sounds terribly exaggerated. If this is the way to describe Stallman, what adjectives could be reserved to the much worse people out there?
You may not care about a random dude in the internet giving you an advice, but consider both sides of the coin and don't fall so quickly into manichaeism.
I struggle with names at times...
And now pronouns? Uhhhh, I bet I screw it up more than 50% of the time. The differences in people (don't say god bless you you to some indians or muslims when they sneeze, for example) are more than I can keep track of at times. Does that make me a creep?
There was one guy his chose "The Great and Powerful <something>" for his pronoun. Yeah, I'll remember that...
At what point do you become a creep for not remembering? At what point do you become a target for the SJW hit squad?
Would you mind providing a citation for this? I am legitimately curious, Leah for example retracted their comments on the issue.
> Not to mention his refusal to respect the pronouns of trans, queer, and nonbinary folks.
Please elaborate. This is the first time that I hear of such an accusation.
> See also https://mobile.twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/11736371384133....
I don't see anything wrong there. What is wrong with believing that victimless crimes should be legal? Also, asking someone on a date is harassment now? What?
Deleted Comment
https://libreboot.org/news/unity.html
Deleted Comment
The mass hysteria and instant justice demands of the twitter outrage mob has killed nuance or shades of grey from public discourse. I really really hate that anything in the center is taboo. I lay the blame squarely on the far-left for this state of affairs. They started this war and this trend. God knows where it will end.
Maybe it's just me but these news surprise me most because, of all people, Stallman is a pioneer of some kinds of activism that these people also practices, like nitpicking about language or the idea of purity.
The first one is responsible moral position, the second one is witch hunt.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
For example Snowdon topics posted during the European morning and then later on American users share their thoughts and comments. And then later on as Silicon Valley comes online.
same with RMS and other cultural issues, when just looking at the comments it's clear that there's differences in opinion due to different cultures.
I have not really observed these differences in pure tech stories though.
I don't think anyone reasonable is trying to prevent him from airing his personal opinions (contra what many people are claiming in this thread), and there are indeed many people who are open to listening to those opinions -- but whether you think he ought to leave GNU or not, it's unfortunate that he triggers such strong negative reactions from many people. Some pretty responsible and knowledgeable people such as the EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep". [1]
While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions, as two organizations have done, was the right decision[3], I also believe that that's not really relevant for this particular thread. He founded GNU. He runs GNU. He probably can't be forced by anyone to leave GNU. None of that changes the fact that he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
[1] https://twitter.com/evacide/status/1172287971220848640
[2] He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
[3] Even putting aside the forum in which he made these comments, and the things he has said and done at other times.
He lost or never had the trust of some very small but very vocal group of the community.
> EFF's head of cybersecurity have described him as a "creep".
And we must take her judgement on people as accurate? why? Also, an accusation of "creep" should not be enough to erase all his life's work. What does "creep" means anyway? Asperger? Social inept person? Modern tech were built by creeps.
>He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
He didn't said that.
>he will probably not be a very effective leader of GNU, even if he was before.
Why not? Software is created by "creeps" like us anyway, not by social activists. I don't see why a "creep" will not be effective as a leader.
Maybe it’s time to change things up a bit?
I didn't say we should. Though I trust her judgment more than, say, yours (an anonymous person on the Internet). I used it as evidence that Stallman doesn't have the trust of the community. Also "creep" is almost certainly talking about the way he reportedly treats women, nothing to do with his social graces.
> He didn't said that.
He did say that. I've posted links with evidence of that already in this thread.
[2] No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
Please re-read my comment. You're reacting emotionally and claiming that I said things I did not say. I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him, not as proof of anything he did or didn't do.
> No he didn't say that. It's easy to find the actual email and read it. Do it. No, really, please do it now. Once you have done it and came back - now you see what I meant when I said he didn't talk about Minsky not committing sexual assault because of this and that reason, and you can easily see why he couldn't have said that.
He did say that. Find the actual email and read it. No, really, please do it. I'll even link a copy of it for you. https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ He literally did say it.
"Creep" is a description of how attractive you personally feel someone is.
By that rationale it should be okay for someone to describe her as "hot", and question her professional capacity on that assessment, e.g. "she is way too attractive to be the EFF's director of cybersecurity", that is, casting aspersions because of personal preferences.
Not really? Where did you get this definition fron?
Seems like it's a pastime over at the EFF who can be outraged the most in the vilest manner (senior staff technologist):
https://twitter.com/cooperq/status/1173802200901939200
From their home page:
"The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation."
Maybe it's time to stop supporting the EFF until they decide to re-focus on their core mission instead of being a den of hypocricy.
It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.
The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
> We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that.
Stallmans defense of Minsky is reasoning that he could have been an unknowing participant who wasn't aware of the lack of consent.
His opinion on the age of consent is another matter:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Source: https://pastebin.com/658yfLj5
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/17/computer...
He never has been, if you ask me. The Unix-like operating system he invented is known to the public as "Linux", despite his repeated, loud insistence that it's a misnomer. But hell, GNU is his project; in fact it's him. GNU without RMS is not GNU, it's something else.
[1] I don't read twitter, sorry. [2] That's not what he said; you've just repeated the apparently-deliberate distortions of the tech press. [3] By "these comments", do you mean his defence of Minsky on the CSAIL mailing list? He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse. Read his actual remarks (and read them carefully; he uses precise language). Pay no attention to the way they have been twisted by Vice and TechCrunch - two publishers whose words I will in future be taking with a bushel of salt.
Please read the thread, including my extensive quotes and links. I'm not making the "distortions" that, say, the Vice article made. In fact, this proves you read my comment too quickly because you assume I did that:
>He didn't defend Epstein, he didn't excuse child abuse.
And look at my comment again. I never claimed he did. Vice did. I claimed he did something very specific, which you can find directly and literally in his email. Maybe you don't think he should have been fired over it. That's one thing. But he did say it.
Edit: I saw you were downvoted, so I've upvoted you again in the hope you aren't just here to troll. This thread is toxic enough without people getting arbitrarily downvoted, even if their opinions are wrong.
So let's look at the worst case possible circumstance - that a man who repeatedly makes comments that are interpreted as pro-pedophilia and has a history of inappropriate conduct with young (albiet legal) women might actually act in ways that he has publicly justified.
In that circumstance, no one can say that the warning signals were not there. That would be on all of us, and leaving him in a position of power would continue the possibility of abuse.
For the FSF and GNU to have a future (as opposed to "open source"), they need to evolve beyond Stallman one way or other. Associating these institutions with Stallman going forward exposed them to the risk (worst case) of being the catholic church at Stallman's alter. At best, they are fighting a fight that has nothing to do with their primary mission.
To an outsider with no skin anywhere in this, it is just shameful how this has played out.
Forgetting Stallman for a second - This is a weak argument. There are many reasons not to step forward with public accusations of someone; even more reasons not to take legal action; and even more reasons if that person is famous and has significant public credit.
Also, indeed, after a person casts the first stone at someone, others are quick to follow - but that doesn't mean they don't have a good reason to cast a stone; it's just an aspect of human group/mass psychology.
That doesn't mean it MUST be 100% tolerated in all capacities though - many organizations might not want to have a creepy weirdo without social graces as their president.
I don't have a personal opinion if Stallman should have been pressured to resign from the FSF or MIT it not, it's not my place to judge. I admit I've never been a fan of his though - he's always come off as incredibly grating to me.
I did not heard any accusation that would cross the legal line afaik. The accusations I have seen are all about inapropriate this or that, but I did not seen accusation of rape or anything like that.
Plus, the actual players involved in that institution seem to talk about these issues in person. Not on blogs or journals. We do not know who came forward with what in FSF or MIT.
Deleted Comment
Why would any victim want to destroy their careers by making a lawsuit against such a prominent person.
People like the majority of posters in this thread will call the accuser a character assassin, fame seeker or a liar.
"Is the USA not one of the most empowered countries for women?"
Lol. Just call them a liar and become president or get a seat on the supreme court.