
Richard M. Stallman resigns - maxdeviant
https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns
======
nabla9
RMS has called himself "borderline autistic". His socially clueless black and
white thinking makes it look like he is far in the spectrum. RMS is anal about
meanings of terms and their use. That's not working well in the current
climate where words carry perceived intent. I find myself agreeing with RMS
with most of the terminology and its use in this case. Women who tell stories
about him paint a picture of lonely socially incompetent man who makes super
creepy attempts to connect opposite sex.

I have worked in jobs where there have been very strange creepy people, both
women and men. Some are angry and tense. Some are odd and talk restless or
slightly disturbing stuff that make everyone uncomfortable. But if they do
their work well they can stay. Others give them some room. It's called
tolerance.

If RMS was just random superhacker doing his thing. I would defend him. His
boss should find a position for him where he can contribute and other people
should feel free to feel uncomfortable and avoid him.

But RMS is de facto leader and public figure in movement that is also
political. He does not deserve the same level of consideration as normal HR
headache would. Even if everything against him would be completely unjust,
there is no requirement for just treatment for top leaders. They can be sacked
for any reason whatsoever.

~~~
kelnos
Can we please stop excusing bad behavior with some form of "oh because
autism"? It's an insult to the many, many neuro-atypical people who don't say
shitty, stupid things online, who don't act creepy around women, who don't
have a sign on their MIT office that says "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot
Ladies)", who don't have a gross mattress in their office where they encourage
people to lie topless, who don't try to pressure women into dating them by
saying they'll kill themselves otherwise. All of those things describe RMS,
things that have been mostly quietly ignored and hand-waved away for decades.

We don't have to tolerate people who make women feel unsafe and unwelcome in
our (or any) industry.

You seem to be arguing the usual tired old thing: "but he's a genius and does
such great work that we should tolerate the bad things he does". I _really_
thought we'd started to move past that over the last few years.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Can you link to sources regarding Stallmans behavior towards women? It’s not
that I don’t believe you but because I tried to google “Richard Stallman
suicide threat” and couldn’t come up with anything... I do want to believe
you, but I can’t propagate information without evidence.

~~~
onemoresoop
[https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~lazowska/mit/?source=post_p...](https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~lazowska/mit/?source=post_page
-----a7e41e784f88----------------------)

~~~
gjm11
So far as I can tell the name "Stallman" appears nowhere in that document.
(I'm not 100% sure because it seems to be a scanned PDF -- but searching for
some other words I can see on the page appears to work OK.)

------
kstenerud
It's unfortunate that scarlet letter offences are still alive and well in
today's culture.

Normally, when someone engages in behavior seen as offensive, the procedure is
to pressure the person to apologize and mend his ways, and only get rid of him
if he refuses to do so.

But when a "scarlet letter" offence is involved, we jump straight to the
punishment phase, removing the person outright with no judicial process. This
is completely backwards, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. It brings a
chilling effect on everyone, because suddenly people start to realize that
they're living under the Sword of Damocles, which could destroy them at any
moment without warning. You can never be sure if something you say or do is
going to get you publicly pilloried in future, and destroy your career,
friendships, and reputation in the blink of an eye. Far better to just sit
quiet and never say anything that might offend someone. Far better not to
participate at all.

Mob justice always turns ugly in the end. That's why we have courts.

~~~
anotheryou
On the other hand even with this resignation he doesn't appologize for
anything. He could even have made his point of thinking it's a
misunderstanding _and_ appologize, but didn't.

~~~
mc32
Kevin Hart apologized for some offensive jokes, he apologized as advised by
the academy, and still got cancelled. Apologizing only serves to augment the
conviction of a mob intent on finding fault.

~~~
dfxm12
You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji
sequel, another film called Fatherhood and has been in commercials since the
Oscars.

It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on
Twitter have.

~~~
thanatropism
Cancel culture may be running out of steam, but did Kevin Hart or whomever
else know ex ante (meaning right after the scandal outbreak) what they were
going to face.

As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were
literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just
claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis
CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention.

And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in,
uh, something that's not a good look.

~~~
trenning
> And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught
> in, uh, something that's not a good look.

He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send
people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a
vile crime

~~~
thanatropism
(Sarcasm.)

------
naringas
it's rather interesting how all the information technology (social media,
etc...) is slowly moving our culture towards increasing self-censorship. One
has to have the right opinion or stay quiet.

Having the wrong opinion about certain topics is getting more expensive. Stay
away from taboos or else... never mind the fact that what we regard as wrong
changes across different societies over time.

Weirdly all the information technology is steering towards being more similar
in our opinions and in what we can say without facing consequences.

Recently I started to thing about how in spite of having the ability to share,
and change, and store information better and with more ease than ever, we seem
to be going in the opposite direction. Instead of having more transparent
institutions, everything is getting more "opaque" (so to speak) towards the
public (even it this is happening due to overload).

does anyone remember "information wants to be free"? I don't think anybody
says that anymore, but I remember reading that a bunch on slashdot in the
early 00s

~~~
bad_user
This has nothing to do with technology.

If you start expressing opinions about how sex with a sex-trafficked child
should be legal, won't your friends and family raise some questions about your
character?

Unless we're talking of morally flexible individuals. And at least parents
should raise an eyebrow, since we have this natural reaction to protect our
children.

> _information wants to be free_

Whomever said that was probably thinking of facts, of knowledge, s/he was
probably not thinking of having opinions about pedophiles.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, I think there's a time and place to argue that
consensual sex with teenagers might be ok and I think people should be free to
make that argument, the problem in this case is that the sex couldn't have
been consensual, in which case age becomes relevant, as that teenager isn't
fully developed, therefore the harm done is amplified.

And also these opinions have been delivered by a very public figure, with a
history of harassing women.

Words matter so the lesson here is don't be a jerk, as technology won't save
you from that.

~~~
eecc
Well “child”, a 17yo woman doesn’t qualify as “child” unless it’s a curious
legal definition.

These kind of comments are clumsy claims to moral authority, useless flame
fodder.

~~~
csb6
> a 17yo woman doesn’t qualify as a child

What? 17-year-olds are still in high school. They probably just barely got a
driver’s license. They can just barely see an R-rated movie without a
guardian. They can’t even sign waivers to give themselves permission for field
trips in my state. How on Earth is it fair to consider them adults and fit to
give consent for sex with older men while employed for sex services?

~~~
darklajid
I don't wanna touch the Stallman / Epstein story with a 10 foot (3.x meter?)
pole, but I do believe that standards vary.

In Germany a 17yo cannot drive, CAN drink and can have (I'm old and it doesn't
apply to me, so this might be only somewhat accurate) sex with other people
(but cannot be a prostitute), might marry (needs parents approval I believe).
Age of consent is 14 (but .. not for sex with adults as far as I'm aware).

I know that German law has nothing to do with this. But please stop and
reflect for a second: The US allows 17yo to steer 2+ tons of steel at high
velocities, Germany (as the one example I'm familiar with) lets them have
consensual sex or drink beer. The same way you say 'How can they agree to sex'
one might ask 'How can they be responsible enough to drive'.

It's cultural, not absolute. I understand the outrage, I am in no way
defending Epstein, Stallman or anyone here - but please don't present your
moral position/your upbringing as absolute truth. See it as something that you
were raised to believe and that A LOT of people disagree with on this globe.

(It's obviously not helping the fact that the girls got paid, it's a
completely disgusting, sad and shameful story with no recourse - but don't
claim 17yo can't have sex with someone older, ... just because)

~~~
csb6
I agree morality isn’t absolute, but we’re talking about Epstein (an American
and convicted U.S. felon) who as far as I know used only American children in
his scheme. What I said is relevant to what stage of life the actual victims
would likely have been in, as American teens.

------
reuven
People seem to be saying a variety of things about RMS: He's a genius, so let
him be. He doesn't understand interpersonal communication. He didn't say the
things people thought he said. People are too quick to judge. And so forth.

I was there, about 20 years ago, when he sent e-mail urging all free-software
advocates to protest a bill under consideration in the US Congress. I asked
him if he had read the bill. "No," he said, "I don't surf the Web." I saw that
as a huge cop-out; how could someone claim any moral or leadership authority
when he called for protests and a letter-writing campaign on a subject he
didn't know about first hand?

It's certainly true that RMS has been remarkably consistent over the 30 years
or so in which I've interacted with him -- starting when I was a reporter for
the MIT student newspaper, and then maintained the Emacs FAQ, and then wrote
for Linux Journal. (No, _not_ GNU/Linux Journal. Sheesh.) He's an extremist.
He's a purist. He indeed doesn't get the nuances of interpersonal
communication.

But you know what? You can't both lead an organization and be tone deaf to
people. You can't be a public figure, demanding respect, and then show such
disrespect to others. You can't expect that people will pay attention to what
you say when you have so little respect for what they say.

Stallman has long been difficult, obstinate, and rude to people in general --
and a general drag on the cause of open-source (or "free") software. But I had
no idea that he was known to be so terrible to women.

But even if he had treated women well -- which doesn't seem to be the case --
it's pretty hard to imagine anyone, anywhere defending Jeffrey Epstein in any
way, shape, or form. The guy was terrible, did horrible things, abused a huge
number of women, and amassed wealth and power in the most disgusting ways
possible. To defend Epstein, or the people who were associated with him, is
unacceptable.

Again: You want to defend Epstein in your own personal life? Go for it; you
won't have many friends or colleagues afterwards, but that's up to you. But if
you do it as the public face of a well-known activist organization? You can't
possibly stick around there.

Good riddance.

~~~
Sacho
Your argument against Stallman seems to hinge on him defending Epstein, which
is something he didn't do. He was defending his late friend, Minsky.
Specifically, he was unhappy with the language used to describe his conduct
evoking imagery worse than the actual conduct.

------
robocat
Why does this feel like such a witch hunt?

It is clear RMS was stunningly clueless to write anything about this, but
surely we all know of similar engineers that would make a similar error? If
everyone were held up to the same moral standard, we wouldn't have many people
left in power! Just to be clear: I'm _definitely not_ supporting hurting
children (directly or indirectly) - I hope I'm not falling into the same tar
pit.

I certainly respect RMS for what he created and his idealism (although last
time I saw him talk he spent about half the time negatively pontificating
about Linus and Linux, which seriously damaged his credibility IMHO).

It must be devastating to be on the receiving end of such ire.

~~~
accntwithnoname
This wasn't a witch hunt. This should have happened a long time ago. He is a
creep, and has been problematic for years. “He literally used to have a
mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to
proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it.
Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I
was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for
that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on
it…)” — Bachelor’s in Computer Science, ‘99 All this and more
[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
appendix...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-
a-a7e41e784f88)

~~~
mattst88
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't understand what the "implications" are.
Someone clear up the meaning for me?

~~~
journalctl
Sex. He implies that he has sex with women in his office.

~~~
ajxs
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that women would have sex
with RMS, let alone have sex with him on a mattress on the floor of his
office. Jokes aside, this sounds downright unprofessional. I would have
expected the institution to put this kind of behaviour in place.

~~~
javagram
considering according to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991909](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991909)
he apparently was homeless and lived out of his office for a while, yeah
that's probably the definition of unprofessional.

------
jimrandomh
Before jumping to criticize Stallman, be aware: there is a big difference
between what today's round of headlines claim Stallman wrote, and what he
_actually_ wrote. Given the relatively clear-cut nature of the lies the press
has told about him, I think he ought to be suing for libel.

~~~
nemothekid
What is the counter argument for what Stallman wrote? I've seen that the
"press is going too hard on him", but, honestly, I think they were justified.
What is the "big difference" to you? If someone, personally, said to me that
that someone be absolved of a crime, because the other, coerced, party was
"willing" at that moment, I'd seriously question their morals.

~~~
jimrandomh
Stallman wrote: "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."

Here's the Vice headline ([https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-
computer-sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)):
Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As
'Entirely Willing' (HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20965319)
)

New York Post ([https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-
vic...](https://nypost.com/2019/09/14/mit-scientist-says-epstein-victim-
virginia-giuffre-was-entirely-willing-report/)): "MIT scientist says Epstein
victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’: report"

Fox News ([https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-
ass...](https://www.foxnews.com/us/mit-professor-jeffrey-epstein-associate-
entirely-willing)): "MIT scientist defended Jeffrey Epstein associate in
leaked emails, claimed victims were ‘entirely willing’"

These headlines do not match what Stallman wrote. They wrote awful words, and
put them in his mouth, in order to support a narrative in which he said
something which he didn't. That's not okay.

~~~
nemothekid
Stallman conjured up a thought experiment where Minsky is innocent because the
minor was "entirely willing." _That_ was the defense Stallman decided, even if
those aren't his exact words. His exact words aren't any better then whatever
the media decided to run with, at the end of the day his intent was identical.
The headline could have been "MIT scientist says you shouldn't get punished
for raping minors as long as they present themselves as entirely willing." Do
you believe I have gotten that wrong? And if not, can you argue why that is
any better than what the media put out?

If Minsky could show up to court for his crimes and he said "Your honor, I
didn't know she was 15", he would still go to jail.

~~~
anm89
You are failing to parse this sentence correctly.

He explicitly does not think she was willing. He thinks she was unwilling but
was coerced to give the appearance of willingness and that the appearance of
the two from Minskys point of view were the same.

This isn't a subtle difference. You think he said almost exactly the opposite
of what he said

~~~
chipotle_coyote
So Stallman's argument was that the most plausible scenario here is this:
Minksy -- who at the time of these events had to at least have been in his
sixties, not to mention, you know, married -- went over to Jeffrey Epstein's
mansion, where Epstein presented a teenage girl to him for the purposes of
having sex (the claim she makes is that she was ordered by Epstein to sleep
with "powerful men"), and because the girl didn't explicitly _say_ she had
been ordered to do so, Minsky was fine with it all.

So, are we saying this is a particularly good defense? Because it doesn't
sound like a great defense to me. It doesn't sound like any reasonably smart
person -- which Minsky undoubtedly was -- would find themselves in this
situation and not have a question or two about the ethics.

Let's agree that the reporting did, in fact, get Stallman's meaning wrong
here. Let's even agree that isn't a subtle difference. Here's the thing: even
the most generous reading of what Stallman wrote is still, at the end of the
day, excusing Minsky's actions.

And at the end of the day, I think that's still a problem.

~~~
anm89
Refer to my comment below. This wasn't a judgment statement. I'm not defending
Stallman.

I'm simply saying he failed at the task of correctly parsing this statement in
a way that is clearly causing him to misunderstand the story.

------
favorited
Not unexpected, but I'm surprised it happened so soon after he resigned from
MIT/CSAIL.

Earlier today the director of the GNOME Foundation requested that RMS resign
from the FSF, and said severing ties with the FSF could happen if he didn't
step down.

[https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-
relations...](https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-
gnu-fsf/)

~~~
benatkin
I think there was more social pressure for him to resign from FSF, and more
institutional pressure for him to resign from MIT/CSAIL. The institutional
pressure probably wasn't as painful, but was more forceful. I think he'd
probably been holding back the pressure he felt to get the FSF thing over with
for a while, but hoping for the controversy to die down, but when he was
forced (or practically forced) to resign from MIT/CSAIL it became clear he
wasn't going to win, and he decided to get it over with. Perhaps he'll be
sleeping better tonight.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Did he resign from MIT? If so, he won't be sleeping well- he actually lived in
his office (it was also his residence)

~~~
benatkin
Yes. [0] And indeed he used to live there. He hasn't lived there in years,
though. [1]

0: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-
stallman...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870050/richard-stallman-
resigns-mit-free-software-foundation-epstein)

1: [https://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html](https://stallman.org/rms-
lifestyle.html)

------
chasing
What he said was stupid and disgusting. People sometimes over-estimate the
amount of latitude the organization they work for will give them to do this.

The technology industry is taking baby-steps towards _actual_ inclusivity and
diversity of thought -- and not this dumbass "I want to be free to say stupid
offensive shit with impunity" flavor of "inclusivity" that people around here
seem to champion. That is a Good Thing and organizations like MIT and the FSF
need to be very careful about whom they let represent them.

As far as I'm aware Stallman has neither been arrested nor has his website
been torn down, so he's welcomed to continue to make whatever good and bad
points he feels like and the rest of us are welcomed to judge him as we wish:
smart, stupid, ignorable, or maybe even abhorrent to the point where maybe he
shouldn't be representing a place like MIT. Or the FSF.

It's a free country, after all.

~~~
raxxorrax
If your "inclusivity" stops at Stallman, it seriously lacks performance. You
use the wrong word. What you desire is conformity.

edit: Additionally, because I think this isn't obvious here, Stallman opened
up the knowledge about software to the whole world and put energy in keeping
it that way. Anyone was able to profit from this.

~~~
chasing
> What you desire is conformity.

Inasmuch as any organization must have a set of goals and principles that
everyone within that organization must adhere to: Yes!

No one has taken away Stallman’s freedom of speech.

~~~
raxxorrax
Then just say that you want conformity to your social norms instead of
inclusiveness and be more precise with your statements, please.

~~~
chasing
> your social norms

I am not affiliated with either MIT or the FSF, so my social norms have little
to do with it.

Anyway, you're playing the dumb little game that people like to play with this
topic: "If you're so 'tolerant' why won't you tolerate people saying offensive
shit?"

And you've heard the answer a million times, I bet, you just won't accept it:
Because it silences higher-quality diverse voices and "asshole who says
repellent things" is already a wildly overrepresented class of person in the
tech industry.

------
colechristensen
RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex
with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island.

There is not a defense for what RMS was writing or how he was trying to defend
Minsky.

The prevalence of comments trying to turn this against "SJW"s or whatever
"other" they can because they're a fan of RMS is disturbing.

This isn't us vs. them.

This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got
fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact
to things is a bit terrible.

The firing was appropriate and reasonable, not a response to extremists,
zealots, or some other kind of witch.

I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.

~~~
eloff
How is it we value free speech, but there are certain discussions you just
cannot have, even in a rational and measured way, without risking making
yourself completely unemployable. You should be able to have a questionable
viewpoint in a discussion, without worrying about the lynch mob ending your
career.

The consequences here are out of line. You can be reprimanded to take your
discussions to a non company venue, in a situation like this, but fired is
over the top.

Stallman said “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.”

It's pretty clear with the age difference being what it is, this is exactly
what statutory rape laws are for. But it is also incongruous that somehow if
she was a year older it would be ok. It's also fucked up that if Minsky were
19, the consequences would be the same. Maybe there's a better law to be had
here, but how would we ever know if you can't even have the discussion?

I'm appalled by how free speech is under attack lately by the outrage machine.

~~~
widowlark
Stallman hasn't been silenced in any way. Free speech does not mean you can
say whatever you like without consequence from private institutions and
citizens, only that you may say whatever you like without consequences from
the government et al.

Your conflation that free speech is under attack is disappointing - That's not
what is happening here.

~~~
noobermin
This has been said before, but free speech is beyond just government
censorship and has a wider definition. Regardless of that, the idea that
someone's livelihood is under threat due to their speech can be just as
coercive as threatening a fine or jail for their speech. The idea that
government chilling is someone kinder than private chilling is wrong.

~~~
fooey
My freedom of association trumps your freedom of speech.

If people don't want to associate with a person who says awful things, it's
not a violation of their freedom of speech to disassociate with them.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet
mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life
apart.

Time will come there will be regulations aiming to fix that, because slander
laws apparently aren't enough. And _then_ people will come out and talk about
freedom of speech, but the only answer will be, "you had it, and you misused
it, and almost ripped the society apart".

~~~
dragonwriter
> But my freedom of speech should trump your freedom to spin up angry Internet
> mobs that proceed to turn my words into lies that they use to rip my life
> apart.

Your freedom of speech doesn't trump anyone else's freedom of speech. If
someone is knowingly or recklessly spreading harmful lies, you have recourse
for that, but freedom of speech includes freedom of angry speech, and outside
of harmful knowing and reckless lies, it included the freedom to be wrong in
your speech.

------
iamnothere
RMS was defending Minsky, awkwardly. As someone who has a history of social
awkwardness, he should be forgiven for this. He's been a good steward of the
FSF, which has doing important work in the service of free (read: non-
backdoored) hardware lately. I know there are good people still at the FSF,
but I can only hope they are as incorruptible and dogged as RMS.

The way this attack came suddenly out of the depths makes me suspect something
coordinated. It's too similar to how Tor was seized, and how Linus was almost
dethroned. There's something nasty afoot, and I don't like it one bit.

~~~
bbanyc
Minsky was a child molester. There's no way to defend that.

~~~
gwern
Sure there is. How about: "the deposition never actually accuses Minsky of
having sex with anyone in the first place"? Or how about, "Greg Benford says
([https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/](https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/))
he was personally present at the incident and witnessed there was no sex"?
Wow, who knew it was so easy to defend 'a child molester' for whom there's 'no
way to defend' them.

~~~
bbanyc
1\. The deposition that's been made public doesn't allege sex with anyone as
it was in a lawsuit against Maxwell for trafficking activities. That's outside
its scope.

2\. I don't find Benford credible.

3\. Minsky kept taking Epstein's money and holding conferences on Epstein's
island for over a full decade after the events Giuffre and Benford describe
took place. Is there any benign explanation for that?

~~~
offtheisland
The benign explanation is that he didn't know Epstein was a monster (few
outside the DA's office did until 2018) and that he accepted funding for AI
research.

~~~
mikeyouse
Literally any Google search of the man's name would show that he's a fucking
monster. It was never a secret, much less after he was convicted of
trafficking an underage prostitute in 2008. Nobody can plead ignorance of his
crimes. Everyone who took money from him, traveled with him (and his young
'friends'), is absolutely guilty by association of his continued crimes.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=jeffrey+epstein&biw=1345&bih...](https://www.google.com/search?q=jeffrey+epstein&biw=1345&bih=798&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2016&tbm=nws)

------
js8
I am glad that people didn't force Chomsky to resign from MIT due to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair).

Freedom of speech means that people are free to defend what other people find
morally objectionable. The idea that the "leaders" should be morally pure is
understandable, but ultimately very elitist.

It also reminds me of this article:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/neurodiver...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/neurodiversity-
truth-telling/592465/)

~~~
thundergolfer
The situation with Chomsky is not equivalent to this. Chomsky did not want
Faurisson prosecuted by French law for his views. Chomsky did not himself
express the bad views.

Stallman here was the one expressing the bad views, so he is Faurisson not
Chomsky.

~~~
js8
Like Chomsky, Stallman did nothing illegal or immoral himself, just with his
speech defended somebody who (potentially) did an illegal/immoral thing.

So if we consider "holocaust denial" to be the bad action (whether it is or
not, that is for another discussion), then the analogy holds.

------
PaulRobinson
Anybody who has spent time around RMS knows there are problematic behaviours
in almost every interaction. This is not just about this one incident, but
this one incident where he defends "voluntary pedophilia" was obviously the
last straw.

I've met him a few times, put him up on my sofa once. I'd say almost every
15-30 minutes in his presence I would stop myself from saying "that's not an
appropriate way to behave" or "please don't say that in that way, you're being
rude", for fear of insulting him. Perhaps if more people had done that rather
than being in awe and reverence (and there are many people who treat him that
way), or just looking for a quiet life (my excuse), we wouldn't be here now.

It is clear to me that he has very low EQ or at least empathy for other
people. I have spoken to others who have interacted with him who have
suggested he might be on the autistic spectrum, and whilst I am not qualified
to make a diagnosis, should such a diagnosis be made it would not surprise me.

At the weekend whilst this was blowing up I suggested he needed help. I think
he is genuinely completely unaware why any of these statements would cause
others to question his values. Freedom of speech is not a right to be a jerk,
and he is unaware that he is seen as a jerk by a lot of people because of the
many things he has said and done over many years.

It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why
suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an
adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a
'controversial opinion'. There are also people who think this is the only
thing he's done that has caused problems - it's not.

I think there are deeper issues at play here, and he would benefit from
counselling or therapy of some sort. Most people could even without his
behaviour, so I'm definitely going to suggest it would be useful in his case.
At a minimum it would help him navigate having a huge chunk of his life
disappear over the last 24 hours.

I wish him well, but like almost every ex-colleague of his I've spoken to or
who has been outspoken on social media about this: the FSF and MIT/CSAIL will
now be a better place to be for others, and I hope that RMS gets the help he
has needed for a long time.

I wish him well, but I also know that a large number of people will breathe a
sigh of relief now that they can go about their work and studies without
having to navigate _him_.

~~~
mlyle
> It seems there are many people here who likewise are blind-sided as to why
> suggesting an underage girl would be entirely willing to have sex with an
> adult and presented herself willingly would be nothing more than a
> 'controversial opinion'.

As what he said is literally presented, it is a possible interpretation of the
facts: that Minsky may not have known she was coerced because of Epstein's
instructions. How much of Minsky's culpability this erases if Minsky did
indeed have sex with her (which is disputed itself) is open to debate.

Buuuuuuut, that's a pretty nuanced point to make. It needs to be made more
carefully and respectfully to not just descend into rape apologia. Epstein's
(and maybe Minsky's) victims are still alive and have feelings. And we want to
create a better culture.

And if you're the guy who has already gone on record for not knowing why
"voluntary pedophilia" is OK--- maybe you're not the guy to make this point.
Because, after all, there's plenty of evidence that you're not so good at it,
and your history taints it all.

------
esotericn
C-x C-c.

Thank you for bringing the FSF into the world, Richard.

Whatever comes out of this and whatever comes next, your philosophy on
software freedom has influenced us in innumerable ways.

~~~
topmonk
"C-x C-c" should become a new rallying cry for valuing technological ability
over political beliefs.

~~~
UncleMeat
And what of all of the qualified developers who are excluded from the
community by ignorant or bigoted people in positions of power? What of their
technological ability?

~~~
asguy
You side-step the problem as any hacker would: on the Internet, nobody knows
you’re a dog.

~~~
ihatemondays
Thanks for the tip, I will gladly lie about who I am by saying that I'm a man,
so that I can receive respect for doing the same work I do now.

~~~
devilmoon
Not trying to be a dick here, but in the hypothetical "on the internet nobody
knows who you are", why would you need to specify if you're a man or a woman?
I've personally always loved the interactions I've had on the internet back in
the 90s-early 00s because someone's opinions/contributions could be analysed
objectively without having to fall into the trap of subconscious biases based
on the person you're speaking to rather than the object of discussion.

This is not to negate your feelings of being under-appreciated or respected
because of your gender, but I am genuinely curious as to why your first
response in this scenario would be to fake your gender rather than not caring
about it.

~~~
esotericn
The point is presumably that online interactions do not form the totality of a
career or working life in software.

Yeah, here on HN you don't need to care whether I'm a man, woman, chocolate
bar or UFO. In the real world when I take a CS course, go to a conference,
take a job etc, having my physical form is pretty useful.

------
lone_haxx0r
"What you can't say" by Paul Graham is eerily relevant today

[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
proffan
Same thought, this article is superbly written. Thank you for the reference!

------
Donald
Context: RMS waded into the MIT Epstein scandal

[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794)

> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is
> absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

~~~
AlexandrB
"Waded in" is exactly the right phrase. RMS is neither a legal expert nor a
moral philosopher. Commenting on the definition of assault and the nature of
consent is outside his field of expertise and he should have just replied with
a curt "I will not be attending".

My personal takeaway is that it's important to understand the limitations of
your own knowledge before succumbing to the urge to comment on something.

~~~
Aloha
The man is known for not keeping his mouth shut when he sees something that
bothers him. While I may not like his politics I agree that he should speak
his mind.

------
dexen
Just as much as RMS was right[1], ESR was right[2]. The "cancel culture" is
harming the free software movement by practicing human version of Microsoft's
EEE[3]. The cancel culture enters the community, establishes interests groups,
and starts knocking down prominent contributors. The demands are backed by
angry crowds on social media rather than by contributions.

It's time for us to defend each other, and to hold contributions above
outraged crowd's size.

\--

[1] "Stallman was right", countless comments here on HN, on LWN, and all over
the internet

[2] "Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs",
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)

~~~
lame88
Using the term SJW alone destroys the credibility of any substantial claim
using it. If you really want to persuade people, find a term that isn’t mainly
employed as incendiary jargon of far-right ideology to categorically dismiss
anyone left of their viewpoint.

~~~
dexen
The concern has already been raised by sibling comment[0], so cross-posting my
response. Let the last line quoted from article be a reply to you.

 _> This has nothing to do with 'SJWs'_

 _> I think it's much more likely you're clinging to buzzwords._

The ESR's article[1] you are referencing is so much more than just headline. I
encourage you to read it, and try to re-construct the events, the thoughts,
and the emotions that led ESR to post a piece that _explosive_. The comment
section alone spans some 760 responses over four years, with people chipping
in with their observations from the trenches and with their shattered dreams.
While writing, ESR was in communication with several victims of then-recent
social media mobs, and conveyed their woes.

The two bits of article that stood out to me:

    
    
      >The hacker culture’s norm about inclusion is clear:
      >anybody who can pull the freight is welcome
    

and

    
    
      >We must (...)
      >learn to recognize their thought-stopping jargon and kafkatraps
    

\--

[1] "Why Hackers Must Eject the SJWs",
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918)

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993761](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20993761)

~~~
nguoi
I did read it, much as I read the guidelines for this website.

SJW is not an antonym of hacker. Whatever hacker culture's norm is, breaking
work relationships and censorship for someone's words or actions is much older
than hacker culture and is done my many more groups than 2010s American
Democrat voters. Consider 1984, or Mary Whitehouse.

------
leftyted
I never much liked Richard Stallman.

But he's a freethinker, and freethinkers necessarily exist outside the
mainstream. So, despite not liking him, I also don't like this turn of events.

It does seem arbitrary to me that the same sexual encounter is classified as
rape in Arizona and not rape in Virginia. I suppose we have to draw that line
somewhere arbitrary. But I wonder if it was a mistake to classify what is
called "statutory rape" as "rape" at all. We can make it illegal without
calling it rape.

That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. But then
Stallman is not known for being picky about hills. People like him (or loathe
him) because he's principled, and therefore no hill is too small.

~~~
flukus
> That said, to me, this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on

I don't think he saw it as a hill worth dying on, just a random hill he
happened to be shot on. It's part of a random scattering of thoughts he makes
public.

Either way, I'm cancelling my FSF donations for caving into this witch hunt.
It's long demise will be helmed by people that stand for nothing less they
offend someone.

~~~
mgalgs
> Either way, I'm cancelling my FSF donations for caving into this witch hunt.

If the FSF experiences a drop in donations couldn't they interpret that as
people trying to distance themselves with Stallman, and he's basically
synonymous with the FSF?

~~~
edoceo
If you leave/cancel tell them why, to remove ambiguity.

------
bitwize
Something about Minsky that seems to have gotten lost: Minsky appears to have
turned Epstein's girl down, according to Gregory Benford:
[https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/](https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/)

~~~
jacquesm
The deposition is rather ambiguous about this, it says she was sent there but
not whether she did or did not have sex with Minsky.

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFx...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFxrmNhs/view)

RMS did a very stupid thing here, by attempting to defend his friend as though
he had had sex with her he cemented that picture in the minds of whoever reads
his (RMS's) screed without questioning whether or not the event took place in
the first place. It is a pity that the deposition does not allow one to
resolve this once and for all.

It speaks of her being directed to have sex with but fails to ask the follow
up question (which I would think is very much material) of whether it actually
happened in each of those cases. Pretty bad questioning.

------
t0astbread
Regardless of whether it was right to ditch Stallman as the president of the
FSF, here's my "wishlist" for his successor (in case they don't revert it):

\- Someone who is less of a hardliner: Stallman's dedication to free software
is a good thing but his absolutist style of expressing it might have put a lot
of people off who would otherwise not be opposed to the idea of free software

\- Someone who understands the problems of free/open source software
(contributors not getting paid, corporate exploitation, ...) and has
progressive solutions for it

\- Someone who everyone can (at least kinda) sympathize with and/or relate to:
I believe Stallman generally has no bad intent but a lot of his mannerisms are
just plain awkward or offensive to a lot of people. Normally that wouldn't
matter but the president of the FSF (especially Stallman) is kinda "the face
of free software". So showing that the world of free software is a progressive
and inclusive space here might just benefit everyone.

We should still honor Stallman for what he did for free software (I mean he
basically invented it) and we should IMO continue to welcome him in this space
(maybe even as some kind of executive in the FSF because after all he's
obviously not incompetent). But maybe he isn't the best person for the role of
the president anymore these days.

~~~
JaumeGreen
> Someone who is less of a hardliner: [...] his absolutist style of expressing
> it might have put a lot of people off

I think this is two different issues.

I wouldn't mind a softer talker, but I would prefer for that person to be a
hardliner and someone who would open our minds to alternatives in the openess
direction.

There are too many "money talks"/"free market solves it all" people in the
world, if the front-person of FSF is a mediator then it will grow in that
direction, instead of making the world see more spectrum.

~~~
t0astbread
That might be a better way to put it

------
mkeedlinger
There are so many judgements on both sides, both in these comments and in the
articles on the subject that have been submitted, but very little quoting of
what he said in context.

Where can I find what he said? Why is everyone talking about what he meant
without quoting what he said so I can decide what makes sense for myself?

~~~
DoreenMichele
Vice has the full transcript and it's long, which is part of why people aren't
quoting snippets. Quoting snippets is not better in this case than talking
about what you think he meant.

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)

See also:

[https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794)

~~~
hn23
Thank you for the links.

BTW: I am not sure why this question is down voted. At least here in Europe
this was not real news so it was an honest questions. The FSF site did not
explain the why.

~~~
DoreenMichele
It's politically sensitive. The lack of explanation was no doubt entirely
intentional, so asking can be interpreted as a social faux pas.

------
SllX
So long and thanks for all the code!

To be blunt, I’m not sure the FSF is worth having without someone as stubborn
as RMS at the helm, but with any luck, they can still do a proper job of
maintaining his legacy. Increasingly I find Stallman was right, and I hope he
will continue to publicly do what he can to advance free software.

------
aurelian15
More information on‒what I guess‒is the relevant backstory (RMS making
reprehensible statements related to the Epstein scandal) can be found (among
other places) in this blog post [1] by Matthew Garrett (original source
referenced in the post is [2]).

[1]
[https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html](https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html)

[2] [https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794)

~~~
fiblye
>Again, this mailing list has undergraduate students on it. It is likely some
of them are “18 years old or 17”.

What a horribly asinine point. If you’re an undergraduate student and unable
to deal with uncomfortable opinions, you are too immature to be a university
student. The further infantilization of college students, and worse, college
staff, never ceases to amaze me.

~~~
roguecoder
Do you spend a lot of time at work having your vulnerability to rape talked
about by your boss?

------
throwaway180094
Nearly the entire world considers 17 legal [1], including _most_ of the United
States. To deny there is a room for a conversation about age of consent being
arbitrary seems… really strange.

[1]: [https://philippineslifestyle.com/wp-
content/uploads/te3FQnP-...](https://philippineslifestyle.com/wp-
content/uploads/te3FQnP-960x436.png)

~~~
stevenjohns
The entire thing is odd. RMS is questioning the morality of the law and the
people opposing him are quite literally, unironically, upset because they use
the law to derive their morality[0]. More than that, their criticism is based
on an intentional clickbait-tier misreading of what Stallman was saying. And
after learning this, people are like "oh well, screw him anyway, he's a
weirdo." This includes people like Neil McGovern, GNOME Executive Director,
who used the opportunity to threaten that RMS leaves or GNOME leaves the FSF.

Living in a country where the age of consent is 16, the oddest thing I find in
all of this is that people can hold a straight face while saying that sleeping
with a 17 year old constitutes pedophilia but seem to completely ignore that
their country tries 13 year olds as adults[1] when they deem it fitting.

[0]
[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/73/Appeal-
to-the-Law)

[1] [https://oklahoman.com/article/5580060/13-year-old-boy-
charge...](https://oklahoman.com/article/5580060/13-year-old-boy-charged-with-
first-degree-murder-in-deadly-crossbow-shooting)

~~~
CathedralBorrow
That seems like a very definitive description on why you are right and
everyone who disagrees is wrong. Do you allow any room for interpretation
here?

------
Endy
Well, I'm now going to be following Stallman without the FSF around. His
(admittedly) iconoclastic views are important, and I appreciate what he says
about technology and privacy. His legal views are questionable, yes, but I
don't accept the idea that he should be removed from the FSF.

------
squarefoot
I wonder why on Earth did RMS embark in such a dangerous discussion. In modern
times talking about those topics is just like Wile E. Coyote throwing a dozen
boomerangs at the roadrunner thinking he won't be hit back by some of them.

He should have thought carefully about that: no matter if one is right or
wrong, talking about that stuff in public will expose an individual to
remotely controllable public anger in a way that will harm all other good
stuff he does through ad-hominem attacks ("he has such opinions about rape,
therefore his software sucks as do his licensing model and his opinions on
closed source"). I for one still think he's a kind of good extremist the IT
world badly needs, I agree at least on principle with most of his ideas and
recall listening to him at a conference then handshaking him about two decades
ago. Still... yeah, it was stupid from him to comment on such sensitive
topics; this could harm the Free Software world in many ways, regardless of
him being right or wrong, and probably someone will attempt to use that
weapon.

------
HugoDaniel
I have no opinion on Stallman, he could very well be that awful person.

The twitter discussion[0] seemed to me to be very polarized and targeting rage
with all the common traits of typical fake news/mass hysteria communication.
Maybe it is just the way these things naturally come to daylight.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496](https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1172283772428906496)

~~~
dtornabene
totally good faith dynamic there, calling it fake news/mass hysteria. great
stuff man, real contribution to the conversation. G-d forbid other people be
pissed about this.

~~~
HugoDaniel
What are you trying to do here ? Can you be constructive please ?

If you read carefully you might notice that I said it "shares common traits
with". Because it does.

------
jdub
Knowing how stubborn and aloof Richard tends to be, it is a huge surprise that
this has happened at all, let alone so quickly. I can only imagine there was
an immense amount of pressure from the board, partner projects, and sponsors.

~~~
smitty1e
Or maybe, as with Guido van Rossum (in an unrelated context), he's had a
bellyful of our contemporary variations on the French Revolution.

~~~
avinium
For the uninitiated, what happened with Guido van Rossum?

~~~
azernik
Very unrelated issue - he resigned after the flamewars regarding PEP 572 (the
addition of an assignment expression ':='). After it had gone on for a while,
he finally used his BDFL authority to shut down debate and approve the PEP,
and then resigned shortly after. In particular, he felt that the Python Code
of Conduct's requirement for civility was being completely ignored in attacks
on him in social media.

See [https://lwn.net/Articles/757713/](https://lwn.net/Articles/757713/) for
background, and
[https://lwn.net/Articles/759654/](https://lwn.net/Articles/759654/) for his
resignation letter.

------
liha
I'm surprised at the number of news headlines and comments saying that
Stallman defended Epstein. He absolutely did not. His entire point can be
summed up as "if person A (Epstein) coerces a 17 year old girl into
approaching and having sex with person B (Minsky), and does a hypothetically
convincing job of it, is person B (Minsky) guilty of statutory rape / sexual
assault?" His argument is valid considering Guiffre never accused Minsky of
sexual assault, and doubly valid considering there is at least one witness who
said that while Guiffre approached them, Minsky did not have sex with her.
Even for the people saying that it IS statutory rape in a court of law (i.e.
ignorance of her age doesn't matter to the court), please consider that Minsky
isn't actually "guilty" because this hasn't been proven in said court of law.

------
soulofmischief
It's funny how people flirt between law and objective morality depending on
which further serves their argument.

Controlling the language is key to controlling the discussion, and as usual
Stallman just wanted to clarify the language. He's used to dealing with a more
rational, less public crowd, and didn't realize he was poking a bed of hot
coals.

It's very sad to see such backlash and support of deplatformization of someone
who has done so much for us over one cluster of comments. Even if you disagree
with him, surely we can be allowed more than one mistake in the public eye
before the platform we helped create is ripped from our hands. This is quite
the authoritarian mindset and it worries me to find it in such prevalence here
on Hacker News.

------
neoliberal_dad
That this is being framed as a matter of free speech is preposterous. Richard
Stallman isn't some low-level engineer. He runs one of the largest and most
impactful open source foundations in the world. The question isn't whether
it's ok to have these kinds of discussions. Stallman's questions were, to my
mind, obtuse and silly, and a 74 year-old shouldn't need those things
explained to him, but some people do. The important question is this: is
somebody who is this obtuse about rape victims and the difficulties that women
face in the workforce fit to lead one of the biggest and most impactful open
source organizations in the world? The answer to that is clearly no.

------
xlii
I, as many others, never personally liked Dr. Stallman and didn’t agreed with
many of his views.

That being said, the way that that happened is absolutely terrifying. Fact,
that people rather crucify someone instead of argue, explain or prove him
wrong is the sign of our times.

End of free speech is here. It’s free only if it doesn’t offend group powerful
enough to destroy you, and it’s narrowing every single day. We’ve seen many
instances of this happening both on personal, unpopular views and gossips and
false accusations.

Want to keep your career? Best you can do is to steer out of the social media
and don’t share your thoughts with anyone. Not only controversial ones,
because what might not be controversial now, might be controversial in 10
years, and you will suffer because of it.

~~~
smallmancontrov
Terrifying is right. Look at how the telephone game evolved a debate about
what Minsky knew or didn't into a defense of child sex trafficking:

Stallman:

> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely
> willing.

Selam G.

> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely
> willing”.

VICE:

> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s
> underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.

New York Post:

> MIT scientist says Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre was ‘entirely willing’

------
coconut_crab
The Internet doesn't forget, so everyone can be branded
mysogynist/mysandry/pedophile/etc.. just by making mistakes or having taken
quotes out of context. People have limited attention and the media profits on
showing the ugliness of others. This is not how it should be but I don't know
how to fix that...

~~~
johnny22
it's not out of context. you can read his own posts.

~~~
coconut_crab
In my original post, 'making mistakes' was put before 'out of context', the
Internet doesn't allow anyone to have a 2nd chance of doing anything. Once you
are branded as something, it will stuck with you forever, erasing any previous
achievement or contribution you have done. And I don't like that.

~~~
tdb7893
To get a second chance you need to realize what you did wrong and apologize
(at least that the standard I set for kids). Until that I assume he's still
just as bad as when he made the "mistake.

------
aazaa
I've seen some online cheering Stallman's resignation from MIT. I suspect
they'll also be cheering about this resignation as well.

But this is nothing to cheer about.

Regardless of what low regard the man might be held as a person, he's being
persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating
for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of
scientific inquiry.

It sets a precedent that will absolutely lead to self-censorship on a topic
that really requires the disinfecting power of sunshine.

This strengthens the power of those who have no use for scientific inquiry and
are more interested in inquisition.

~~~
joe_the_user
I too, am a fan of Stallman's accomplishments and I am sad that debate on this
topic essentially can't happen.

That said, I think Stallman's position really is fundamentally wrong and
problematic.

Legally, sex with underaged people is rape regardless of consent. Morally,
that stance really is justified in the most common circumstance - when the
non-underaged person has more power and experience than the underaged person.
In the case under discussion, you have that in spades, double spades.

The sad thing is that individuals interested in freedom, who make serious
contributions to some things called free, don't notice that the massive
imbalances of wealth today have produced a situation where simple "free
choice" is made a mockery of.

And yeah, the thing about inquisition atmosphere, imo, is that it doesn't
reveal the rot behind all the "mere" abuse of power.

~~~
throwstallman
He seems to have expressed a couple distinct arguments:

1\. It isn't pedophilia if the person is sexually mature. Pedophilia is sex
with prepubescent children.

2\. He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes
according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible
rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't
be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if
the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.

I agree with you that in the Epstein case you have a situation with a dramatic
power imbalance. Stallman seems to consider Epstein a serial rapist (possibly
for that fact?). He seems to be more pushing back on the pedophilia
accusations.

Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US
Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women
(including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United
States. This whole aspect of the conversation seems to have melted away in the
various other controversies.

~~~
rjzzleep
I'm not going to argue one way or the other. But for those saying legally it's
one way or the other.

In Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up
(over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2]. Of course a judge can
find that the child or their legal representative not having been capable of
giving consent in which case it's still considered child abuse.

Western societies themselves have such vastly different legal definitions of
consent. To be honest I find germanies version to be the weirdest I've seen
although I don't know much about the other european countries.

[1]
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzalter](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzalter)

[2] [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__176.html](https://www.gesetze-
im-internet.de/stgb/__176.html)

~~~
rndgermandude
> Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up
> (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2].

It is not.

The general legal age of consent in German is 16 years. § 182 (3)

The special legal age is 14 and it's only legal if the other party is under
21.

Even then there are a lot of further exemptions that would make sex with a
minor illegal. Prostitution and/or pornography involving minors is always
illegal.

~~~
tpush
Not quite true.

In Germany, having sex with someone in the 14-15 range _can_ be illegal _if_
the other party is _above_ the age of 21.

Relevant passage in German, from the parent's link:

"Über die Vorschriften des § 182 StGB Abs. 1 und 2 (Zwangslage, Entgelt)
bezüglich des Schutzalters 18 Jahre hinaus, die auch für unter 16-jährige
Opfer gelten, können sexuelle Handlungen von Erwachsenen, die über 21 Jahre
alt sind, mit 14- und 15-jährigen Jugendlichen nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB bestraft
werden, falls ein gesetzlicher Vertreter des Jugendlichen Strafantrag stellt
und im Strafverfahren das Gericht feststellt, dass der Erwachsene eine – etwa
mit Hilfe eines Sachverständigen – festzustellende „fehlende Fähigkeit zur
sexuellen Selbstbestimmung“ des Jugendlichen ausgenutzt hat. _Der
Bundesgerichtshof hat 1996 festgestellt, dass der bloße Hinweis auf das Alter
der 14- oder 15-jährigen Person für eine Verurteilung des erwachsenen
Beschuldigten nicht ausreicht._ "

(emphasis mine)

To summarize: Having (consensual, of course) sex with a 14 year old is
_always_ legal in Germany if you're under the age of 21 and not a teacher or
some such, and _can_ be illegal if you're over that.

~~~
rndgermandude
yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex
with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that
for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a
case by case basis, because that's what the law says.

That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who
in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature
enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".

The point of this is not, say the lawmakers (as can be read in the
Referentenentwürfe), to give a card blanche to adults to have sex with
14-15yos, but account for the very rare case a 14-15yo actually has a far
above average developmental maturity, to the point where a special protection
by law is no longer necessary, thus making the age of consent less arbitrary
and closer related to the actual state of development of an individual.

~~~
tpush
> yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex
> with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that
> for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a
> case by case basis, because that's what the law says.

> That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who
> in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not
> mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".

The wikipedia link directly contradicts you:

"Dieser Rückgang wird in der juristischen Literatur nicht etwa so erklärt,
dass die Zahl der Sexualkontakte Erwachsener mit Jugendlichen zurückgegangen
sei, sondern dass solche Kontakte gegenwärtig gesellschaftlich weitgehend
toleriert werden und Erziehungsberechtigte nur noch selten Strafanträge
stellen.[6] Verschiedene Studien rechnen damit, dass nur jede hundertste bis
zweihundertste sexuelle Beziehung einer über 21-jährigen Person mit einer 14-
bis 15-jährigen Person zu einer Anzeige nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB (in aktueller
Fassung) führt.[5]"

~~~
rndgermandude
It does not. Parents not filing complaints is an entirely different matter to
courts letting perpetrators skate.

~~~
tpush
From everything I've read, the number of convictions following complaints by
parents seem to be pretty rare. Unless we have actual numbers on that however,
the discussion is rather pointless.

------
peternicky
I am lost for words...angry and frustrated that this has happened. There have
been dozens of things RMS has said in the past that I disagreed with and at
the end of the day, I always had (and still have) the highest amount of
respect for that man. He is the definition of "harmless as a fly".

Found the word I was looking for: DISGUSTED.

------
yosefzeev
There is no defending Epstein. Though I think Stallman has made many valuable
contributions to free software, I think he has fallen on his sword on this one
for no good reason.

~~~
meijer
He did not defend Epstein.

------
ezoe
RMS's definition of pedophile doesn't include people who feel sexuall
attraction on person who has puberty and is sexual maturity.

I think that's a fair definition.

He also argues that 17 years old has ability to consent.

Since I'm from a country of consent age of 13 years, I agree.

RMS don't encourage to violate the law, merely presenting the opinion. This
opinion isn't blaming certain group like James Watson and his comment on race
and intelligence.

I guess some people aren't civil enough to discuss theoretical problems.

~~~
bad_user
What's being lost in the conversation is that the child in the the story was
trafficked for sex.

We are not talking just about sex with a 17 year old.

~~~
ezoe
So RMS called Epstein "serial rapist". He declined to call him "Pedophile" and
that cause this outrage.

------
mgalgs
From the email chain:

> Looking through the article again reportedly points to the deposition
> itself. I visited that URL and got a blank window. It is on Google Drive,
> which demands running nonfree software in order to see it. See
> [https://gnu.org/philos2phy/javascript-
> trap.html](https://gnu.org/philos2phy/javascript-trap.html) > > Would you
> (not anyone else!) like to email me a copy of the part that pertains to
> Minsky? say "not anyone else" to avoid getting 20 copies.

Lol even in the middle of this discussion he sneaks some JavaScript hatred in
there!

------
ddtaylor
I don't agree with many things RMS says, but I am not a fan of this cancel
culture where character assassinations are orchestrated routinely.

~~~
dlp211
Cancel culture, or as most adults like to refer to it, consequences.

~~~
ihatemondays
This.

And on top of all that, he quite literally voluntarily resigned, it's in the
title.

~~~
mtrower
It is not likely, in your estimation, that he was pressured and coerced into
"resigning"?

------
hristov
I think it is unfair to hound him over his latest statement about sexual
assault. He is absolutely right that the term sexual assault includes actions
that are so different that it can be used to unfairly destroy people's
reputation. And if you are going to call someone a monster, it is better to
more precisely define what type of sexual assault he did.

I myself was sexually assaulted some time ago. I was in an ordinary nightclub,
I went to the mens room, and on walking out of the mens room some a-hole
decided to slap my ass on the way out. I gave him a dirty look, maybe I should
have had him kicked out of the club, but I don't think it was necessary to
have him fired from his job or ruin his career.

~~~
gkoberger
If he wrote that, he'd likely still have a job. But that's not what he wrote.
He took it too far.

~~~
ryan-allen
What did he write? I'm out of the loop on this.

EDIT: I think this covers it all?
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-
re...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-resign-in-
protest-over-mit-media-labs-ties-to-jeffrey-epstein)

~~~
gkoberger
If we're gonna go with Vice, this is the correct article:
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)

~~~
smallmancontrov
Holy shit, did Selam G. really just invent the primary component of this
complaint?

Stallman:

> the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely
> willing.

Selam G.

> [Stallman] says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely
> willing”.

VICE:

> Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s
> underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.

~~~
mtrower
Yes. That's exactly what she did --- and she's not alone; I've seen many other
individuals do the same (after reading the primary source). Whether they've
all read too fast, or for some other reason failed to parse the sentence
correctly, I have not yet determined.

------
rosser
I find the volume of the noise being made over whether or not the "entirely
willing" bit was quoted out of context by the media for sensationalist
purposes — which it 100% was — quite curious. To me, the place Stallman
screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have
reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that
might have constituted rape.

Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it _really_?" — literally, in
fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant.
To wit:

> _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._

Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something
constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of
their laws. _That 's_ where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at
the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being
quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, _it was_ — as
much as they want, but that just won't make it so.

This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was
selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.

EDIT: Phrasing

~~~
dropit_sphere
>Stallman quibbled over the definition of rape.

 _Hell yes he did_. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was
defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you
"quibble"?

>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction
where that constituted rape.

So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your
morality to the legal system like that.

If Minsky did something bad, _say he did something bad_. But don't launder
your outrage through the VI's laws.

~~~
rosser
Really?

You're going to make a moral comparison between a minor traffic violation (not
even a primary offense!) and having sex with a _coerced child_?

~~~
sincerely
Either you tie morality to legality, or you don't.

~~~
CathedralBorrow
Are there any available positions in between these polar opposites?

~~~
sincerely
No

------
eecc
I’m not so sure ambitious competitors aren’t riding moral panics and polarized
reactions to get rid of incumbents and take their place.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

------
speeder
I would like to point out that the court documents have written on them:

A woman, testified that Epstein told her to offer sex to Minsky.

What it DIDN'T said:

That Minsky accepted the offer.

Also there are a witness (someone that was present, Greg Benford) that claims
that Minsky didn't accepted the offer.

------
wyldfire
RMS is indeed a visionary and deserves credit for the good works he's done in
his life. He may also be a bad person. Or maybe he's a good person who shows
extremely poor judgment. I don't really know much about the allegations so I
won't defend him or persecute him.

But this is a good move for FSF. RMS must have realized (or been made to
realize) that he is now a net-negative contribution to FSF.

------
javagram
A good comparison by another poster today here between RMS’ statements on the
mailing list and the lies the news media published about them
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990426)

I wonder what this means for the influence of the FSF in general. And will RMS
stop working on emacs and other software?

~~~
rrss
> and will RMS stop working on emacs and other software?

Has he still been contributing code? My impression was always that he wrote
the first versions of emacs,gcc,... many years ago, and many other people have
taken over in the intervening decades. I'm quite confident he isn't working on
gcc anymore.

~~~
javagram
I knew he no longer works on GCC and many other projects but I thought he
still contributed to emacs. Looking at the recent commits on GitHub, it
appears I was wrong about that.

Did he have mainly a supervisory role at the FSF or was he just giving talks
lately and no longer actively contributing?

------
syrrim
Email chain is here:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html)

------
DoreenMichele
This is the end of an era, regardless of what you think about the events
leading up to this point.

------
chj
All this happens because he tried to make his friend look less bad, in a
situation that most people will try to keep a good distance.

Things we take for granted today wouldn't exist without this man. To name just
one thing, gcc. Yet people are more eager to punish him for what he said than
to praise him for what he did.

------
typon
This is actually the best outcome for the FSF. Unwittingly, the FSF might now
need to find a leader who isn't a known weirdo/creep who's "genius" people
merely tolerate. This might be the best news for FSF fans like me.

~~~
jordigh
I kind of agree. As another free software fan, I've been uncomfortable with a
number of things that RMS has been doing. Free software is good, no
compromise/no surrender is good, and fighting against proprietary software is
good. Doing it the ways RMS has been doing it is often not good.

~~~
enriquto
I do not feel at all identified with that view.

Mine is just a particular case, but as a mathematician I was attracted to
computer science (as a legitimate field with important real-world effects)
thanks to a talk that RMS gave in my university. First I liked his personality
and sincerity in the way he explained the printer driver story; then I
listened and read everything else he said (especially "the right to read") and
it ressonated with my thoughts very powerfully. I guees the same thing happens
to many people.

------
dropit_sphere
Since they can't be made too visible: Stallman's actual comments:
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html)

------
solotronics
When will someone make a Licensing Agreement that strictly excludes the
thought police. It's seriously ridiculous that anyone thinks it is important
to criticize with a microscope every single thing someone says, some people
think out loud it's called discourse. There are quotes from antiquity that it
is the mark of someone truly wise who can seriously consider an idea and
either accept it or reject it based on its merit, the point being if you can't
even bring up something as a topic of conversation that is mentally
handicapping yourself.

People will seriously have to reconsider these arbitrary rules when every
single word we all say is recorded from birth. That day is not far away.

How Orwellian the situation we have built for ourselves.

------
markslicker
My other comment was censored, I just strongly disagree with the cancel
culture that led to Stallman's resignation.

The person Sarah Mei seems to be leading this fight against Stallman even
going so far as renouncing the concept of free software and the GPL because of
the association with Stallman.

This is entirely wrongheaded, you can agree with the concept of free software
and the GPL and disagree with the political views of Stallman. Personally I
don't agree with Stallman's political views but he is right on the issues of
software freedom and without that I don't think we would be where we are
today, having legally protected operating systems, compilers and so forth free
for anyone to use, study, or improve upon.

------
newnewpdro
I think this is an awful way for the life's work of someone as dedicated and
impactful as Richard's to come to an end.

It's an utterly disproportionate consequence for Richard's missteps which
amount to nothing more than a discussion in a mailing list.

------
JulianMorrison
Some people here seem to need it explained why RMS's comments were wrong.

\- Minsky is accused, by a credible victim of a non-credible, convicted
pedophile, of receiving sexual contact with a woman who was underage at the
time, and who was dispatched to him as part of her employment.

\- RMS says the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to
Minsky as entirely willing. He also says that the difference between 17 and 18
is a minor detail and it's an injustice to refer to it as a sexual assault.

\- RMS fails to understand that an adult with a teenager is unacceptable
creeping due to the imbalance of power in several different ways, in this
context he's right that 17/18 is a minor detail _because both are
unacceptable_. But 17 is also illegal. What if he didn't know she was 17?
Irrelevant because he surely knew she was a very young woman, and by
implication relished the power imbalance rather than properly backing away. In
fact, Minsky should never have accepted friendship with Epstein who was
clearly creeping on teenagers in a completely overt way. And RMS shouldn't be
defending it.

\- RMS also fails to understand how the employer-employee relationship
compounds this with yet another axis of undue power, and how these together
make the presentation of being "entirely willing" _impossible to tell apart
from having no choice_. This impossibility is why age of consent laws exist
even though teenagers can speak and express their opinion. They don't have the
structural power to speak freely. To be honest, 18-year-olds don't either.
When someone has sexual contact with someone who has no power to say no,
that's sexual assault, or it's rape.

\- By taking the side of a man he knows, who was doing wrong, over a woman who
was vulnerable, and by brushing off the implied possibility of coercion, RMS
shows that he is part of the systemic problem of sexist, exploiter-friendly
men in tech which the Epstein scandal has uncovered.

~~~
UserIsUnused
He doesn't understands power relations because he ignores them. He doesn't
bend, which makes him a general outsider of society, but he expect other to
act in the same manner, of not bending, because he doesn't understand social
ties.

There are various few occasions that you see RMS bending. Like plane travels
(which require IDs), that he just does when he needs to cross oceans. So to
him, a person that dd something because of a power relation with an employer
is just weird.

~~~
JulianMorrison
He "doesn't bend" because he's never had to. He's been able to leverage his
privilege into a lifestyle of not bending.

You know what happens to people who "won't bend" and must? They break and die.
So people in dire circumstances learn to bend.

Not personally being in dire circumstance is the luck of the draw. Not
considering them, or playing "I wouldn't bend" and belittling them, is a
refusal to care.

------
atomashpolskiy
> At least Richard Stallman is not accused of raping anyone. But is that our
> highest standard? The standard that this prestigious institution holds
> itself to? If this is what MIT wants to defend; if this is what MIT wants to
> stand for, then, yes, burn it to the ground…

…Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the
ashes.

Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign

If this isn't literally "revolution [of free speech and thought in cyberspace]
devouring its' children", then I don't know, what it is.

------
flippinburgers
It is unfortunate. I hope that what Stallman brought to the world due to his
personality is not overshadowed by this. I think that the people who, for lack
of a better term, are frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to attack him
don't have a true understanding of the degree to which free software has
changed the world, powering companies and huge parts of the economy. It
baffles me. Maybe they just don't care. I'm not sure, but I feel that he is
being wildly misrepresented.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
It's mind boggling. What the media says is a terrible misrepresentation. What
he actually wrote can be found here:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html)

Someone tried to intimidate him saying this exchange will be leaked to the
press. Stallman answered people at MIT should seek the truth without being
afraid.

What sad times we live in! First Linus, now Stallman...

------
gomijacogeo
I guess it's ok to update the abort() documentation now.

------
tboyd47
Can anyone please provide context on this? Why did RMS feel the need to
personally step in and weigh in on the Minsky allegations? Was it indeed just
carelessness on his behalf, as many are speculating? Or were his comments part
of another conversation inside the FSF that has not been made public?

I've read the email chain that's been circulated but it does not go back far
enough. It's the "comments about comments" discussion.

~~~
sneak
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)

actual source email thread embedded at the bottom of the vice article

~~~
tboyd47
I'm re-reading it now. Maybe I'm just not able to follow the text-based email
chain format, but it doesn't seem to include RMS's original email with his
comments except quoted as part of another email, which leads me to think that
part of the conversation is being covered up. Maybe I'm reading too much into
it.

~~~
sneak
His original emails are there in the embed, in full.

~~~
tboyd47
How do you know it is "in full" if all you have seen is the embedded quote?

~~~
sneak
I mean the embedded frame. It contains the full original emails from Stallman,
not just quotes. Keep scrolling.

------
dlitz
I don't believe rms is seriously in favor of child sexual exploitation, but
that's a red herring.

The concern for me is has been the accounts of far more directly-relevant
behaviour, such as (iirc):

    
    
      * repeated phone calls to someone from different phone numbers
    
      * leering
    
      * breaking the ground rules for an event, and justifying it on the basis that he's personally exempt from any rules
    
      * singling out a teenage girl attending one of his talks (as in "oh wow, a GIRL")
    
      * single her out again while telling his questionable 'EMACS virgins' joke
    
      * saying in an interview that he didn't know any women who have contributed to GCC, when there had been at least 4
    

It all adds up to several accounts of people saying they've left the free
software movement (or avoided it entirely) because of his behaviour combined
with his stature. As a community leader who supposedly leads by example, he
needs to do better, and if he doesn't, the community needs to hold him
accountable. That's happening now.

Personally, I think this is a good thing, and I'm glad that he's made the
decision to step aside (even if under pressure) rather than fight bitterly and
see the community divide along these lines.

It also seems like a good opportunity for him to pass the torch and see what
happens, or at least take a long hiatus to get some caring advice and to sort
himself out, like Linus did last year. The FSF will _eventually_ need to
become an institution that can carry on its mission without him, and this will
be a good test of that. If things go off the rails, he can pen another
manifesto and I'm sure a bunch of us will read it.

------
jellicle
I think Stallman did great work with the FSF and GNU.

I also think the FSF will be hugely better off without him around, and it's
insane that it took this long.

------
Guthur
Anyone who has actually read the email thread and considers it a defence of
sexual assault, the topic of the thread, is as intellectually bankrupt as the
media witch hunts rms was warning about and fell victim to.

We should be all concerned that media witch hunts like this can in act such
results. It is abhorrent that any discussion that triggers a progressive
dominated media can destroy people's lives.

~~~
colechristensen
I read it.

There was some irrelevant quibbling about how accusations are worded.

Then there was the speculation that the seventeen year old girl who is
accusing his 73 year old friend of a sex crime would have appeared willing in
the exchange with the implication that this apparent willingness made the
situation not Minsky's fault.

Doesn't matter if it didn't happen, defending statutory rape like that is
really inappropriate, and with a ~60 year ago gap it doesn't really matter
about the details. It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.

Stallman was defending it, it wasn't just some intellectual problem with the
wording of accusations.

Not a witch hunt, not a victimization of an innocent intellectually curious
man, it was a measured and reasonable response to a very inappropriate
conversation.

~~~
dropit_sphere
>, defending statutory rape like that is really inappropriate

See, the thing about statutory rape is that it is illegal, and sexual assault
is _also_ illegal, but (surprisingly!) that does not mean that they are the
_same_ thing. (It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if this applies
to other pairings like, say, "public drunkenness" and "murder in the first
degree.")

Stallman was not "defending statutory rape": he was saying, "Words mean
things, and the words "sexual assault" suggest an image of 75-yr-old Marvin
holding girls down and raping them, and that it is unlikely that that, you
know, actually happened."

>It was a very creepy situation and indefensible.

Oooh, so _creepy_! Too _creepy_ to think about, even! Nazis were pretty
creepy: let's accuse them of violating the CFAA, before there were computers!
Anyone defending them against this is defending Nazis, and worse, _creepy_
Nazis! They are likely _creepy_ as well! This _creepy_ stuff seems to be
contagious...

Since it can't be made too visible, Stallman's actual comments:
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html)

------
Andrew_nenakhov
That's depressing news. As is the fact that your have to overcome a sense of
hesitation when disagreeing with internet mob tribunals.

------
voldacar
What exactly is the endgame of this outrage mob culture that tries to consume
anyone who holds even a slightly unorthodox opinion?

------
flippinburgers
Politics is sports and this is a chance to see which jersey you happen to be
wearing. Personally, I find one side is actually attempting to argue from a
logical standpoint whereas the other is concerned about the emotion evoked by
the situation. This is apparent because you will be labelled insensitive if
you attempt to point out the flaws.

------
w323898
I don't know what the correct standard is for an organizational leader when it
comes to this stuff, but I don't understand why they need to inflate Stallman
saying "presented herself as entirely willing" to him saying she was "entirely
willing".

------
kube-system
Regardless of Stallman's opinions, whether perceived or actual (I couldn't
care less about his non-tech commentary), his poor communication skills have
long made him a subpar leader.

------
dangerface
The blog[0] that started it is a disgrace, the only value they act on is
spite. The movement they claim owner ship should reject any association with
them, I do.

> our movement will only be successful if it includes everyone. With these as
> our values and goals > We call for Stallman to step down

[0] [https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-
spea...](https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-
us/)

------
dang
The previous thread was
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989696](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20989696).

~~~
favorited
It's good context, but that one was focused on his MIT resignation, & predates
his resignation from the FSF.

~~~
dang
When there is significant new information in a major ongoing story, standard
practice is to have a new thread about the latest development, and let the
earlier thread fall off the front page.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query="significant%20new%20information"&sort=byDate&type=comment)

------
antisemiotic
Stallman's career of relentlessly pissing upwind is ended by a disagreement on
the implications of the phrase "presented to". A weird time to be alive.

------
zenhack
One thing a lot of folks are missing is that this was not an isolated
incident; the fact that this is the straw that broke the camel's back isnt'
that important in the grand scheme of things. I made the same point in more
detail in the comments for the article about his MIT resignation:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990574](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990574)

------
Fice
The most alarming thing about witch hunts like this, is that big social
corporations have all the means to control which panic will spread or be
shunned. And if Stallman's FSF colleagues endorsed the panic and pressured him
into resignation instead of protecting him, it might mean that FSF has just
lost it's independence from corporate power.

------
dandare
From Vice.com:

Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is
that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being
trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual
assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition
statement that she was forced to have sex with him.

In response to a student pointing out that Giuffre was 17 when she was forced
to have sex with Minsky in the Virgin Islands, Stallman said “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.”

>>Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it in the Virgin Islands.

>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'.

>I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term
"sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when
accusing anyone.

[https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-
sci...](https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-
richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)

------
utopianeyes
Stallman is a revolutionary. In our dystopian times of surveillance
capitalism, he has spent his life trying to fight for a utopian alternative.
He is a hero and this reaction is completely unwarranted. The man is famously
eccentric, but he is not evil. Posterity will not look kindly to these events.

------
salawat
You know, I keep seeing everyone saying getting rid of Stallman is a good
thing for the FSF.

For what it's worth, I think it is a tragedy.

The man is an idealist who has stubbornly managed to hold on and thrive in a
pragmatist's world.

There are too many claims to which he is a shining counterexample to the
assertion that "Nobody really does that!"

So what if he's a bit of an odd duck? Show me a good programmer who doesn't
have quirks! MIT is, in fact, famous for their tradition of living with, and
embracing unconventional behavior, while still furthering the State-of-the-
Art.

The Free Software Foundation, which has accrued greater and greater
entrenchment and influence by non-free software makers and projects alike has
always owed to Stallman at least a degree of toleration and begrudging due
considering the movement basically started with him last I checked.

I read through the email chain in the Verge articles. It's enough even
redacted to give me a solid enough basis from which to say there was _nothing_
untoward about Stallman's posts. I got out of it a caution to read only into
what was actually written down, and to avoid letting an unproven narrative
whisk the entirety of a man's career away until all the facts were in. At a
later point he even states he's read that poster's sources and was unable to
locate any evidence conclusively saying that Minsky did anything against her
knowingly, and if anything happened, while still being a crime, characterizing
it as assault adds a layer of meaning to the accusation that is not
immediately obvious from the presented evidence. He's even open to the
possibility he hasn't seen something the emailed had, tried to find it, and
asked if they'd be willing to send him a copy due to hos commitment to not
trafficking services dependent on abusive practices.

If that gets you foisted on the stake these days, I think the Spirit of Salem
must be blowing through Massachusets, and it's discovered the fires of the
Internet burn hotter than any mere log.

I do not see a malicious intent or an attempt to defend/justify what may have
happened to those women. Only an exhortation to not get ahead of what results
the System has actually managed to discover as fact.

As the last poster in the email thread the Verge decided to post mentions, as
Scientists, we must ask those pesky inconvenient questions which seem to so
stifle the actions and catharsis of following our passions, and seek only to
know the truth.

And from what I was able to read in the minutes I can dedicate,it is far from
a sure thing, but misrepresentation off the character and context of the
conversation has already spread like wildfire.

I hesitate to even post this, because to be honest, if people can turn
Stallman of all people into a Pariah over just those two emails, heavens
above, I'm not sure there are many others behind the cause who can say as
honestly to have practiced what they preach to the degrees he has. What chance
do the rest of us have? That is exactly the type of chilling effect that this
type of behavior and manufactured outrage, combined with the uncertainty of
knowing from whence it may come is so adept at propagating.

There is a point where hysteria, and the flames of the passions must stop.
Ruining a person's life and reputation for anything more than what can be
proven is one of them. That doesn't mean I'm trying to cover up harm, or
protect pedophiles. It means I'm committed to the System, due process, and the
tenets of rational scientific inquiry.

It is not appropriate that any person should be hung by any segment of the
population for endorsing letting the chips fall where they will, or asking to
have more compelling physical evidence provided.

The world post 1980 has seen more than anyone would like of wrongdoings not
punished as thoroughly as they may needs be, but it is _not_ in anyone's
interest that the System be any looser in the Standard of Evidence to be met
before officially taking action against someone. No one should want to let
slip the Dogs of War in that regard, especially given the number of lives that
have been given in ensuring a country existed where that was explicitly
prevented at great effort from being possible.

Good luck, Richard. I pray you and the movement survive this without
irreparable damage...but I'm not even sure the damage isn't already done.

------
regardless9394
Stallman puts himself up for scrutiny by being in the public eye.

I may agree with his political positions regarding free software, but his
talents are otherwise rather run of the mill at this point.

This is the free market. Thanks for your contributions. But you’ve since lost
first mover advantage.

------
hdfbdtbcdg
I hoe that the moderators will crack down on the outrageously defamatory
statements being made on this thread...

If the aim of HN is to run a better forum for discussion then lying in a
defamatory way about people should not be tolerated as part of civil
discourse.

~~~
hdfbdtbcdg
And yes failure to make yourself aware of basic facts before defaming someone
is as bad as lying.

------
ameixaseca
Stallman was questioning an absolute statement by using some logic and common
sense, building a most-likely scenario for what happened - which could maybe
better reflect the situation based on knowledge he had about the deceased.

He did not transfer the guilt to the victim nor defended anything wrong that
Minsky may have done.

This scenario seems entirely plausible for me. The deceased is not here to
defend himself, so I guess it's up to his friends/family/coworkers to defend
his reputation.

Also, about the age of consent, I find it ludicrous that a number of people do
not know the age of consent on most of the western world is usually 16 or
less. Some are even saying "some european countries still have 16 or 14 y/o as
age of consent..." as if the age of consent is going to increase in the short
term.

Spoiler alert: USA is the odd one out, and it's more in line with Turkey than
Western Europe. Let this information sink in for a moment.

------
thrownaway954
And this is why you NEVER get politically involved in anything and learn to
keep your political comments to yourself. Nothing good was going to come of
this no more how he put it. Bottom line is he should have just kept his mouth
shut.

------
mikeash
I’m allowed to criticize him after reading what he actually wrote, right?
Because I did and came away from it with the conclusion that he’s evil and
shouldn’t be anywhere near anything resembling a leadership position.

~~~
scrollaway
He is many things, and shouldn't have been in a leadership position for a long
time, but he is definitely not evil.

I have a hard time even imagining how you reach the conclusion that he might
be evil. Even the worst out of context headlines on his recent quotes just put
him in the "gross" category.

I say this, and I'm very glad he stepped down. I've argued for years that he
should have stepped down a long time ago.

~~~
mikeash
Evil is fundamentally a lack of empathy and I see no empathy from this man.
He’s not a cackling crazy Hitler figure, but he seems to have a difficult time
figuring out just what the problem is with having sex with children and with
child slaves, and chooses to dedicate a great deal of mental energy defending
the more powerful people in this scenario.

~~~
scrollaway
The definition of evil is always … a heated topic, but the common theme
usually is that the suffering evil inflicts is not accidental.

In your reply here, you're describing sociopathy. I wouldn't describe Stallman
as a sociopath but I could definitely see the arguments for it. But even the
most repulsive things I've seen this man say/do never got me to think "Yeah,
this dude wants others to suffer".

Edit: And no, I don't think he has a difficult time "figuring out what the
problem is".

~~~
mikeash
I think that’s a facile Hollywood idea of evil. People like that exist, but
plenty of evil people don’t care about suffering.

A psychologist assigned to the Nuremberg trials put it better than I ever
could. “In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I
was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to
defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all
the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I
think, is the absence of empathy.”

~~~
AstralStorm
Thus, American justice system is evil? Law knows no empathy. Politics is even
worse. Media didn't consider it worth it a split second of thought to gauge
impact on life of this man.

~~~
mikeash
Of course. The American justice system is horrendously evil.

------
Siira
It’s enlightening that the mob that uses Apple’s locked down devices (which is
“cool” instead of “gross”) is able to fire RMS over his comments on semantics;
The Nash equilibria are clear.

------
erikrothoff
I just want to say that I’m glad consequences are coming to people who behave
badly. We can’t as a community or profession let these people dictate the tone
for the rest of us.

------
collyw
Where can I see a link to what he actually said? As usual everyone is giving
their own interpretation of his controversial remarks with their own spin.

~~~
mtrower
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf)

This is an excerpt from the CSAIL mailing list archive, so start at the bottom
and work your way up. All names aside from RMS have been redacted.

Some people are also bringing up this post from April, so here is that text:
[https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-
apr.html#25_April_201...](https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-
apr.html#25_April_2019_\(Plea_deal_for_Epstein\))

But the main content is the mailing list.

------
LeoPanthera
Mirror, since the site is having problems:
[http://archive.is/h48kp](http://archive.is/h48kp)

------
paxys
People going on about how he made some harmless comments which have been
misrepresented have no clue about how toxic RMS has been for decades. The
latest comments (especially coming while the nation is still reeling from the
Epstein affair) are the absolute tip of the iceberg. He has been openly
sexually harassing female staff and students for a long time now, and has been
tolerated or enabled by other powerful figures. Getting booted from his
positions was a matter of when, not if.

~~~
dijit
Citation needed.

Not saying it is or is not true. But these are powerful claims to be marking
with no sources.

~~~
paxys
Lots of citations at [https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
appendix...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-
a-a7e41e784f88)

~~~
dijit
I read the "citations" and I was left feeling a little skeptical, added to the
fact that the daily beast is not considered by many to be a credible news
outlet. Regardless; The tone of this article itself uses such emotive words
that I would struggle not to define it as a hit-piece.

it seems I'm not alone in my assertion:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/d5a4dz/_/f0l50w4/?co...](https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/d5a4dz/_/f0l50w4/?context=2)

~~~
CathedralBorrow
"Citation please"

"Here's an article"

"I'm skeptical. Also lots of people don't like that messenger. And I don't
like the tone of the article. Also I found someone who agrees with me."

Would you care to address the points raised in the article rather than
dismissing it because you don't like the source?

~~~
dijit
hackernews puts a high emphasis on civility, so I’ll be succinct because I
find what you said to be absurd.

We do not take for granted that every website is 100% truth or fact. And when
presented with something that has only emotion and no fact then we are right
to dismiss it. This is why we do not link to things like Obama’s tan suit
being Marxist and meaning it[0].

I read into it more, I saw only emotive language and some women who called rms
creepy 20 years ago, nothing else. And, yes, I find rms creepy (toe skin
eating, anyone?). It is not valid reason to persecute. However, I’m totally
open to the idea that this man has horrible ideas and opinions about women and
paedophilia. But this is not a compelling citation unless you’re swayed by the
kind of language the author uses.

For what it’s worth there are good comments on this article here that indicate
something rms previously said about the age of consent in the Netherlands
being lowered to 12, and he later changed his opinion on that. It’s a
troubling opinion that he had, but I, personally can’t get too bent out of
shape if someone changes their mind from something problematic when presented
with evidence.

[0]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/28/tan-suit-
sc...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/28/tan-suit-scandal-
obama-trump/)

~~~
CathedralBorrow
Thank you for the civil response. Good primer on the websites as well, so far
I've been taking every written word everywhere as 100% truth and fact but your
point is something I had never considered before.

If a 66 year old man tells you that contrary to everything he's written on the
matter, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong, is
that a moment where you wouldn't personally get too bent out of shape about
it?

I mean, yes we all change our minds about things. But is there no nuance to it
at all? Do you erase someone's entire past as soon as he says "I've changed my
mind, child rape is wrong"?

~~~
dijit
Yes I change my mind on a person who changed their values. Although it’s not
as if I change it to be completely 180° from my original estimations of the
person.

I think it’s soulless to never allow a person to grow or change when presented
new information no matter what age they are.

Or, are only young people allowed to change their minds? Or is nobody?

I mean I’ve had pretty stupid ideas about things ranging from communism as a
good political ideology to believing that the UK would be better outside of
the EU. But when presented with new information I changed my opinion. I would
hope people don’t treat me as a communist or a brexiter.

~~~
CathedralBorrow
> Or is nobody?

I think I've made it clear that my position is that absolutely no one should
ever be allowed to change their minds. Again, thank you for being civil.

~~~
dijit
That’s your prerogative I guess. I definitely don’t subscribe to the same
ideology.

In fact I find it worrying that you do. To each their own I guess.

Thank you for being civil. :)

------
lazyjones
Could someone please make a comprehensive list of the people and media
accusing him of misconduct? It's time to start keeping track of them and being
aware of their toxic characters every time we're dealing with them in some
way.

First on the list: This guy: [https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-
foundation-relations...](https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-
relationship-gnu-fsf/)

------
cpach
This is definitely not the first time RMS has made damage to the free software
movement by saying stupid things.

------
Fej
The man is 66. Regardless of the circumstances, it is probably a good time for
him to retire.

The FSF could use a shakeup.

------
kazinator
"Famed Lisp hacker and author of GCC resigns from Python kindergarten."

About time, man!

------
YeGoblynQueenne
I move that we flag and bury this thread now. It's choke-full of flames and it
has the highest level of personally abusive comments I've seen in the last few
months on HN. It's getting like reddit in here.

I just don't think we can discuss this issue sensibly, even on HN.

------
godelmachine
Would anyone please care to explain why did Mr Stallman resign?

~~~
scoobyyabbadoo
Mr Stallman said in an email that Marvin Minsky probably wasn't a rapist.

------
ohiovr
Well that is news to me. Other than that I offer nothing else.

------
enriquto
If you read the infamous CSAIL thread you'll probably see that there's nothing
wrong with it. This is a rather tame argument between civilized people. I'm
very sad that they got him for this ridiculous thing.

------
2spicy_thrwaway
Question for those who think Stallman getting forced out is great news: There
are people in this forum arguing that Stallman's statements weren't that bad.
Should they be fired from their jobs?

Yay for throwaway accounts, I guess.

~~~
ufo
The key issue at hand here is that people in leadership positions must be held
to higher standards. Doubly so when they act as a very personal figurehead and
spokespearson for the community they represent.

------
Zardoz84
Related -> [https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-
fec6ec21...](https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794)

------
rpmisms
This is a sad day for the FSF. Yes, he's got bad opinions, but he's also done
an incredible amount to serve the Free-as-in-Freedom community. He's a Great
Man, but not necessarily a good one.

------
lanevorockz
They rather just close the FSF, nobody will care once Stallman is gone. Maybe
all this fake outrage is nothing more than large companies trying to end open
source.

------
qbaqbaqba
Another victim of a twitter lynching mob.

------
bythckr
What happened? This seems sudden.

------
lanevorockz
Activists Ruins yet another thing, will there be anything left in the world
once the Mao Moral Police arrests everyone ?

------
pugworthy
This post is nothing but trouble

------
manfredz
Maybe Microsoft can hire him.

------
vasili111
Can anyone please share original link that Stallman wrote?

~~~
mtrower
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/091320191...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf)

Start at the bottom.

------
hn23
What did he do? Forgive me, I am not on Twitter et.al.

~~~
DoreenMichele
He said some socially unpalatable things. Some woman decided he should be
"removed" because of it. Somehow, she got her way it seems.

Some sources with the backstory:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991756](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991756)

------
Uhuhreally
my god the fragility of people who expect their free speech to be consequence-
free

------
manfredz
Maybe Microsoft can hire him?

------
al_form2000
Nathaniel Hawthorn raising.

------
flippinburgers
The modern day Letter A.

------
HNLurker2
He did the Epstein

------
panny
I never thought in a million years I'd see the Silicon Valley bubble become so
deranged that they'd reverse polarity. Watching HN eat their own liberal
legends like Stallman, at the direction of Fox News and NY Post. This is truly
astonishing.

~~~
cpach
Both RMS and ESR are nut jobs. There are other people who can be better
ambassadors for FLOSS than they are.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Yeah, RMS is a "nut job" alright. RMS developed the free software movement at
great personal cost because he so strongly believed in it that he was
intermittently homeless while tilting at these windmills.

Only a "nut job" would make a choice like that.

Joan of Arc was also a "nut job." She was an illiterate teenaged girl who felt
compelled by hearing voices to put an end to The Hundred Years War and play
handmaiden to the birth of modern France.

 _The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man._

\-- George Bernard Shaw

------
marble-drink
I'm so relieved to find that at least on hacker news people can still evaluate
this situation with reason. Out there it's a witch hunt and Stallman is now a
witch.

RMS is a great man but sadly has difficulties communicating with the wider
world. This has been true of many great minds throughout history. It's sad to
see it happen to one of my own heroes but I believe history will do him
justice if we continue to fight for free software.

I wish somebody would have simply advised him not to speak on such matters
because nothing good could become of it. Maybe he needed a PR manager. That
sounds awful, but apparently this is what the world wants: carefully filtered
speech that doesn't stray far from what people already agree with.

~~~
colechristensen
There are a chain of media reports which inaccurately portray what Stallman
was saying.

But look past that into what was happening.

Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone, a teenager,
nearly 60 years younger than him on a billionaire's private island. There
isn't an imaginable circumstance where what happened there was not, even in
the best possible light, incredibly creepy.

His intellectual arguments were understandable in a way, but in the context of
defending Minsky and in the venue they were wildly inappropriate and
indefensible.

It doesn't matter how "great" you are or how socially awkward, any institution
should fire you for doing something like that.

~~~
jaxbot
It also wasn't in isolation; he made very similar remarks in 2006 on his blog
that he got flak for, but people mostly brushed aside as 'oh, Stallman..'

Comments here seem to mostly equate this situation to a Cancel Culture outcry
over an isolated remark. That's not what happened here. rms has had decades of
inexcusable behavior for any individual, much less someone affiliated with MIT
and heading something as large as FSF. He had to answer for this eventually.

I sincerely appreciate his contributions to this world. But I also sincerely
feel that we can't give people free passes for their behavior (see: courtesy
cards at conferences) just because they've done well in other respects. We
need to end the acceptance of Brilliant Jerks.

~~~
freedomben
I think I mostly agree with you, but what _should_ happen to people with
"inexcusable behavior?" should they be fired once? Should they be unemployable
for all time? Is justice served after decades of living in a gutter? When we
react with outrage mob justice we make people toxic to all future employers.
It's extremely hard to ever rebuild your life, especially now where everything
on the internet lives forever. I agree that we need to turn around acceptance
of "brilliant jerks" but the Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases
seems way worse than the original problem we were trying to solve.

~~~
KirinDave
RMS is not going to have a problem finding employment in six months or so.
He's just going to have to spend some time demonstrating he's not a sexist
liability before he can take leadership positions again.

That seems reasonable and fair.

> I agree that we need to turn around acceptance of "brilliant jerks" but the
> Law of Unintended Consequence here in many cases seems way worse than the
> original problem we were trying to solve.

Which is... what exactly? You're appealing to a slippery slope but from my
perspective we climbed UP said slope to get to holding RMS to account for
years of bad behavior, and even now reprehensible folks are using awful
excuses like, "They're just on the spectrum" as ammo in the "Yes but he's a
powerful man" argument they've been winning for a long time.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
RMS is unemployable at this point. He is also 66, so he could just retire as
an option.

~~~
jackbravo
Why is he unemployable?

~~~
javagram
RMS hasn’t had a paid job as a programmer for 40 years as far as I know.
People say he was homeless and living in his office at MIT while working on
GNU in the 80s.

Isn’t he basically a speaker and advocate nowadays? That career is unlikely to
be very successful now that all major organizations dumped him and he has fake
news headlines saying he defended Epstein following him everywhere (backed up
by apparently two decades of known antisocial personal behavior).

He doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of person you’d hire to work as a
normal developer nor would that comport with his strange ethics of refusing to
use any non-Free software.

------
lostjohnny
This is one of those cases where Reddit > HN

 _" Context: 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
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.

Some SJW responded by writing a Medium post called "Remove Richard Stallman".
Media outlets like Vice and The Daily Beast then lied and misquoted Stallman
as saying that the woman was likely "entirely willing" and as "defending
Epstein". He has now been pressured to resign from MIT

Furthermore the deposition doesn't say she had sex with Minsky, only that
Epstein told her to do so, and according to physicist Greg Benford 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?

Edit: He has also resigned from the Free Software Foundation, which he
founded. Grim news for free software, since I think true-believing purists
like Stallman are vital to prevent various kinds of co-option."_

source:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/d5axzu/why_...](https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/d5axzu/why_isnt_there_any_discussion_about_the_stallman/f0l21m3/)

------
AviationAtom
I have no doubt there will be one of these incidents where the mob mentality
that is out for blood leads to catastrophic consequences. I have a hunch that
perhaps then people will approach these situations with at least a bit of
caution. The guy messed up, but it does not change his contributions. When is
his punishment going to be seemed sufficient?

------
geofft
> _Washington had slaves, that doesn 't mean we should hate him._

Counterpoint: yes it does.

Judging Washington _by the standards of his time and his peers_ , slavery was
abhorrent. Take the case of Quock Walker, who sued for his freedom in 1781,
for instance. The chief justice of Massachusetts (and later Washington's own
nominee for chief justice of the US) wrote:

> _As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans
> in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and
> cattle [...] nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a
> usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the
> European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the
> then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments
> have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example
> of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more
> favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate
> desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion,
> or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this
> ground our Constitution of Government [...] sets out with declaring that all
> men are born free and equal [...] and in short is totally repugnant to the
> idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery
> is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no
> such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature [...]_

As recorded by Washington's contemporary James Madison, Washington's
contemporary Gouverneur Morris denounced the three-fifths compromise during
the 1787 constitutional convention:

> _He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious
> institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed.
> Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble
> cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery
> & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other
> States having slaves. [...] Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall
> be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and
> let them vote. [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when
> fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who
> goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of
> humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections &
> damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt.
> instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa.
> or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice._

We should not so facilely dismiss the difficult challenge that Washington is
seen as the father of this nation and yet owned slaves. _Other founding
fathers_ understood that the American norm of liberty was clearly incompatible
with holding slavery in anything other than contempt. _Other founding fathers_
called his behavior "repugnant" and "nefarious" \- why should we shy away from
criticizing him? It seems far more sensible to me to worry that Washington
(along with many others) led our nation into believing a compromised, twisted
view of liberty and the natural rights of man, with lasting consequences for
the country which hardly ended in the Civil War.

~~~
RHSeeger
I'm not saying that Washington thought he was right to have slaves. He was
wrong to have slaves and it reflects poorly on him that he did. Rather, I'm
saying the amount of good he did for this country far outweighs his wrongs.

~~~
geofft
I'm making a subtler point: the good he did for this country was inescapably
intertwined with his ownership of slaves.

One view you can take, which seems defensible, is that he grew to agree with
the anti-slavery view late in life, yet as a calculated measure to hold the
country together when half the economy was dependent on slavery, did nothing
about it, and also was too weak to give up his own station in life which was
similarly dependent on slavery. Yet he freed his slaves in his will, both for
their own sake and in the (ultimately vain) hope that he would inspire others
to do the same.

The other view is that he never actually believed it, or he would have made
freeing human beings a political priority. He was embarrassed into freeing his
slaves after Martha's death, but he fundamentally thought that it was more
important for himself and Martha to live their last years in comfort than for
his slaves to live in freedom, and that the negative peace of the new country
holding together was preferable to the positive peace of meaningful liberty.
And that therefore the "good" he did for this country was to set us up for the
Civil War and for many more decades of viewing certain people as not fully
deserving of human rights.

And relevantly to RMS and the free software movement - if Washington _hadn 't_
been there, if instead William Cushing or Gouverneur Morris had been in a
similar role, what would they have done? Or even if Washington were still
there but he did not use his leadership position to say, "I don't like
slavery, but we have to keep it for now," what could Cushing or Morris have
accomplished? Washington presided over the convention where Morris made his
ultimately ineffective argument.

Washington wasn't the only founding father, nor the only skilled military
leader among the revolutionary forces. In a world without him, would the US
still have won and would it have been better set up to fight slavery? (Would
the revolutionary forces have allowed black soldiers in earlier, and moreover
had more morale among the black soldiers, thereby leading to an earlier
victory?) If such a scenario is plausible, then the good he did didn't
outweigh his wrongs.

------
paggle
So did Stallman just assume that the Minsky allegation is true? Does he know
something we don’t or is he just jumping to conclusions?

------
stanulam
This rapist is out - CANCELED!

------
dangxiaopin
"When the forest is chopped down,

the chips fly"

\--Joseph Stalin

------
linsomniac
For those, like me, who missed the story behind this story... TL;DR: Richard
Stallman has resigned from MIT and the FSF over comments he made defending
Marvin Minsky "partying" with Epstein, and donations made to MIT. Joi Ito, the
Media Lab director resigned over covering up the donations. Nicholas
Negroponte "shocked" with his defense of these donations. Lawrence Lessig
wrote about trying to rationalize the donations.

------
alexnewman
While we are throwing rms under the bus, can we also throw left wing philsophy
away
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws)

------
nec4b
Revolution devours its children.[Jacques Mallet du Pan]

------
tehjoker
This is very sad that the leader of the FSF took such actions. We benefited
from his insights and advocacy on software, but the defense of Epstein, who
essentially had a child abuse production line and defense of pedophilia is not
something I can support and it is proper that someone new takes over.

Stallman's views were a variety of American libertarianism. While there are a
few good points within that tradition regarding personal freedom, it's kind of
sad that he carried some of the other baggage with his obsession with age of
consent laws.

~~~
codyb
From reading his comments isn’t he defending someone named Minsk who had sex
with a 17 year old and didn’t know she was being coerced into it by Epstein?

It seems to be a bit of a far fetched theory to me that this guy would meet a
17 year old through Epstein and not really be aware of what Epstein was doing,
but it doesn’t really seem to be a defense of sexual trafficking, pedophilia
or rape.

That being said this is from my reading of the above thread so maybe I’m not
getting the full picture here.

~~~
hncomment
In they were in Massachusetts, Minsky might have asked, "Are you here
willingly, and how old are you?" And he could have received the reply,
"Absolutely, I'm having the time of my life with Jeffrey and all the famous
people he introduces me to, and I'm 16."

And the sex might then have seemed consensual and legal to Minsky, because
even now in 2019, the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Deleted.

~~~
hncomment
That's not what I see when I click on that link! Just in case we're seeing
different page-versions, what does a frozen copy of the Wikipedia page from a
third site show? Also "16":

[https://archive.is/n3Nfs](https://archive.is/n3Nfs)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Oops, I mistook Massachusetts for New York. My geography sucks.

------
radres
I am sad to see the top comments on HN are whining about free speech. The guy
is sick. I am glad he is kicked out.

------
jarek-foksa
It's worth mentioning that Stallman was appearing on Russia Today on a regular
basis, usually to support the Russian narrative rather than to advocate the
Free Software. If you are shilling for foreign oligarchs, expect the US
disinformation machine to be used against you.

------
mlindner
Unfortunate witch hunt against an innocent, if strange, man. I could go on but
people don't want to hear anything other than the hateful things that they
believe.

~~~
mikeash
Nobody’s burning him at the stake or putting him in jail. He can go on living
a perfectly good life. What he can no longer do is act in a leadership role in
the community and corrupt that community with his crap.

~~~
mlindner
He's not corrupting anything.

------
krick
I'm obviously late to the party and I have no idea what happened there and
what are you talking about, so let me express my sincere condolences in case
if this is another SJW victory or something, but more importantly: what did he
do as a president and a member of board of directors of FSF anyways? I never
quite understood what is it's actual real-world function for the last like 20
years.

------
rrss
Eh, stallman's career was basically always about pontificating from his moral
high ground. Makes a lot of sense to me for him to step off the pulpit when he
expresses himself so poorly, has so many people complaining about his super-
cringe behavior towards women for the last 3 decades, and becomes infamous as
the "is it _really_ ok to refer to statutory rape as 'assault', or does that
give people the wrong idea" guy.

------
djrobstep
This is a good step.

Stallman has been a liability as a figurehead for a long time, and software
freedom deserves better standard-bearers.

I saw Stallman once at a public lecture. He was incredibly rude, but is
seemingly oblivious to how obnoxious he is being (he struck me as somebody
heavily on the spectrum).

I hate to think how many people have written off the cause of software freedom
as a joke because of his conduct.

People around him ought to be telling him in stronger terms that his views and
general manner are unacceptable.

~~~
mirceal
you know, i saw Stallman at a conference once and the nice people at FSF were
also there. FSF as a whole is doing important work and liked the talks they
gave and how they were talking about some of the issues ivolved.

Stallman on the other side came across as a nutjob. And it wasn’t because of
his principles (which if you think about it are great and something to
actually aspire to - at least in connection to software) but because of his
behavior. Being antisocial or making a claim without paying attention to the
social context or the setting the way he managed to do leads me to believe
that he may have some sort of mental health issues. again: all respect for his
work and principles when it comes to software dissolved by anti-social
behavior.

~~~
robocat
Note that "nutjob" and "mental health issues" are name-calling and I suspect
against the HN guidelines e.g. see
[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20name-
calling&sort=byDate&type=comment)

------
jzymbaluk
I'm pretty damn disappointed with the discourse here. What RMS wrote in the
MIT mailing list was so reprehensible, that I'm pretty sure the people here
defending him must have not read it. So here is the comments he wrote to a
major MIT mailing list where he victim-blames child sex trafficking victims in
the wake of MIT media lab accepting money from credibly accused sex trafficker
Jeffrey Epstein:

> The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:

> “deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of
> Epstein’s victims [2])”

> The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault”is so
> vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims
> that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much
> worse than X.

> The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports
> the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See
> [https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-
> jef...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-
> epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.)) Let’s presume that
> was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).

> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some
> unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they
> had sex.

> 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.

> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is
> absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

> Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a
> specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.

You can (and we must) acknowledge Stallman's contributions to the field while
not condoning his pattern of bad behavior. because if we let a leading figure
in the industry act this way publicly, it reflects bad on all of us. We cannot
claim to be an industry that accepts and welcomes diverse viewpoints and
experiences while still holding up a man who has such a long laundry list of
reprehensible behavior as a leader and respected figure in the industry.

~~~
mtrower
No, you just have a _wildly_ differing opinion from the people you speak of
(well, most of them, anyway... there does seem to be more than one crowd of
defenders).

It goes both ways - Stallman's words seem pretty accurate to me, and it's
totally alien to me that you would find them reprehensible. In particular, I
cannot understand how you came to the conclusion that he "victim-blames"
Giuffre - even though he writes that she "was being coerced into sex" and "She
was harmed".

------
mikeash
Tech bros: “I wonder why tech is so disproportionately male. Must be something
biological.”

Also tech bros: “I can’t believe RMS got forced out just for going on a crazy
rant about rape on a CS mailing list. Why, any one of us could be next!”

~~~
balaksakrionon
The "tech bros" trope is getting quite tired; it would be more constructive to
avoid such generalizations and stereotypes

~~~
mikeash
I think it’s quite appropriate in this context, where tons of them come out of
the woodwork to defend this bullshit.

------
smsm42
It is interesting that Stallman has been expressing very harsh opinions,
unpopular among many people, for decades. Nothing happened to him, on the
contrary, he was well respected even among people who did not share his
political views and who were frequently on the receiving end of his criticism.

But as soon as he dared to veer a little from the party line in one particular
question, he has been unpersoned in literally couple of days, despite all
apologies and attempts to explain he didn't really mean any heresy. I guess
that shows who you can disagree with and who would _really_ hurt you if they
even suspect you might disagree (even though you don't).

------
simplecomplex
People have to have a path to redemption. Stallman apologized and admitted he
was wrong. Why is it not acceptable to make a mistake with words? Isn't it
impractical to expect everyone to never say something they regret? These are
_words_ we're talking about. It's not like Stallman raped a child.

Kicking him out of FSF and MIT seems quite excessive for somebody saying
something and then apologizing for it. Whether they are Stallman, a student,
or anyone really.

Do the people involved at FSF and MIT hold themselves to the same standard
they're holding Stallman to? We'll surely find out because humans tend to say
a lot of stupid shit over the course of their lifetime.

~~~
eropple
Constructing a situation in which Marvin Minsky somehow was blameless for his
relationship with a known pedophile and child sex trafficker and situations
directly resulting from that relationship, then projecting the reactions of
other people through that situation, is not merely a _mistake with words_.
Coupled with his at-best-real-gross chinstroking about minors, consent, and
statutory rape in the past, it demonstrates a pattern. And it's a pattern
that, obviously, made enough people uncomfortable as to want to not associate
with him--as is their right.

MIT doesn't _have_ to give Richard Stallman a do-nothing job. The FSF doesn't
_have_ to give Richard Stallman a (nearly) do-nothing job. Everybody makes
mistakes, sure. You make up for those mistakes by doing good and doing right
and if Stallman wants redemption, literally nobody is stopping him from going
after it. They're just not bankrolling it. There's a difference here.

~~~
simplecomplex
> is not merely a mistake with words.

Yes. Yes, it is. Are we talking about the same story? We’re talking about
something Richard Stallman said. That is his offense and the reason for him
being kicked out of FSF and MIT.

Since you dodged the whole point of my comment by reiterating that Stallman
said something offensive, I’ll restate my point clearly as a question: In your
opinion, can someone be forgiven for saying something wrong? and how do they
seek that forgiveness other than apologizing and admitting they were wrong?

I’m sure like everyone you’ve said horrible shit over your lifetime, whether
in public or private, whether strangers or family. If we brought out those
people hurt by your words over your lifetime, wouldn’t you want to be
forgiven? Don’t hold other people to a different standard than you hold
yourself.

~~~
eropple
_Being the kind of person who would do what he did_ , having a history of
being That Guy in shitty and gross ways ("tender embraces" cards, opining
about "natalism" on emacs-devel, pedophile apologia over a couple decades) is
why this became the straw that broke the camel's back. _Saying_ is a
reflection of _being_ , and that is what is so often elided by a certain crowd
getting all hot under the T-shirt right now.

Particularly for figures with significant platforms, the way to redemption is
through demonstrating that one has learned and improved, not merely quickly
saying "I'm sorry!" and moving on. Perhaps a good way to start would be for
RMS to spend time working with an organization dedicated to helping survivors
of sexual assault, learning from that experience, and using his broad platform
to discuss what he learns with people who, as this thread amply demonstrates,
could sorely use the perspective.

~~~
simplecomplex
> Being the kind of person who would do what he did

And what kind of person are you? You’re a “good” person and Stallman a “bad”
one? Stallman’s evil but you’re just ignorant? Ha!

I’m not a fan of Stallman, but your shit stinks too.

~~~
eropple
My shit does stink, yes. Never felt a need to cape up for pedophiles, but I've
certainly said and believed some real unfortunate shit. I used to be a shitty
little "libertarian" when I was younger who, through _saying_ things, _did_
hurt people. Had the modern MRA/GamerGate funnel existed when I was young I'd
probably have fallen into it. As it is, I've spent most of my adult life being
coached out of and in many ways _deprogramming_ myself out of being a selfish
reactionary, and working (deeds, not words) to make up for being shitty.

I'm not a particularly good person--but I'm _working on it_ in a conscious
way. He can, too.

------
big_chungus
My goodness, Stallman just got cancelled. I think it's absolutely fair to
criticize statements he's made (I absolutely disagree with his statements on
pedophilia), but not to pressure him out of the work to which he's devoted his
life. Kicked out of MIT and the FSF? That's gotta be rough for the guy.

Always nice to see a few angry people on the 'net with out-sized voices manage
to bring down an icon of computer science. No one should have his life ruined
by a kangaroo trial in the court of public opinion. People don't make good
decisions when they try to react and "do something"; it would make more sense
to let things die down a little and get the facts on what actually happened.
Then make a decision on how best to go forward.

------
roguecoder
It is very clear that many people are here to defend statutory rape or recite
talking points from Reddit. The thing is, you couldn’t be around OSS for more
than a month without tripping over Stallman harassing women or producing a
six-page rider or yelling at parents on mailing lists for having children.
This wasn’t a sudden or unexpected event: this is a troll finally discovering
the boundaries of what the community would tolerate.

------
jacquesm
RMS is a fool. He should have kept his mouth shut because he is one of the
least qualified people to speak on this subject, given his own admission of
having problems relating to others in an empathic way and his previous very
insensitive comments on adults having sex with minors.

On top of that he does Minsky a huge disservice:

Minsky can't defend himself anymore and RMS has now made a direct connection
between Minsky and having sex with underage girls _when in fact this may never
have happened at all_.

The deposition is unfortunately ambiguous about this fact:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFx...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZOEKwoBnDKUFI1hLbFJH5nsUFxrmNhs/view)

Page 204, the question is 'Where did you go to have sex with Marvin Minsky?';
then further down that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with him but
crucially never asks her whether or not it actually happened, and at least one
person is on record that Minsky turned her down:

[https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/](https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/)

------
cujo
So the next time someone does something bad, and a group of people rally to
support them despite it being obviously bad, we should all look back to this
thread.

RMS is a figure in the hacker/tech community so the hacker/tech community has
done most of the excusing for his behavior.

It's sad. There's room for argument in how much backlash he should receive,
but if you're arguing that what said is fine, I would argue that you may be
fooling yourself.

Consider some public figure you dislike (politician, celebrity, etc). Now
pretend that person said these things. Would you be so forgiving? Maybe you
would. But if you find the answer to be no, then you're just protecting your
own. Quit that.

------
Kye
I've always heard the person who brings a company to a turning point might not
be the one to make the turn. Maybe it's the same for movements. Open source
went a long way with his poor behavior, but now it's likely to become a
liability as open source spreads further into a world of collapsed context and
diverse experiences.

