9 ms·

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 pr

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scoopertrooper 7y ago
The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia. Is it so hard to not endorse pedophilla? Can't that just be the one thing everybody agrees on?
- nojvek 7y ago
  Do you have citing for this? Very easy to make a wide claim like this and go on a witch hunt. I don’t know the guy but that’s a big accusation.
  - progval 7y ago
    https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#25%20May%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#25%20May%202... (second item at that date) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20...
    - cies 7y ago
      First link is not about this topic i believe. For the other statements, I dont think he's "endorsing" it, he's raising questions. I'm not AT ALL on the same boat as him wrt this topic, but I dont mind a discussion on this topic. I consider that the basis of democracy. Also, from this recent interview on the register it shows he changed his mind on this topic: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why." https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_interview/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in... I respect that people openly change their views.
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        People can and do change their views, certainly. But when a 66 year old man says that he has now learned that sex with children is wrong, do you just wipe the past clean and forget that anything ever happened? Would it be wrong for those past views to have any effect, now that he's changed his mind?
        cies 7y ago
        I dont know what his age has to do with it. And yes, I think we should not dig up old statements once he has announced he has changed his views: that's why I commented. I understand those past views will linger on, I just dont think they are protayed fairly, nor that it is adequately considered that he has changed.
      - seax 7y ago
        So it took him decades and many "conversations" to come to the conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong? You're just whitewashing his abhorrent beliefs with neutral language. So here's a question for YOU: Why do you think that there should be a discussion about whether or not the sexual abuse of children is wrong?
  - jigglesniggle 7y ago
    There is a comment of his talking about "voluntary pedophilia." This is likely (very likely) a misuse of terms, though -- having had this discussion with others on the Internet, they do not usually intend pedophilia, which is an attraction to the prepubescent. Prepubescent children have no sex drive and their interest in sex is usually taken to be a sign of sexual abuse. Consequently it is hard to see voluntary pedophilia as something that can happen. He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question. There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.
    - pseudalopex 7y ago
      He knows what pedophilia means.[1] [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(Plea_deal_for_Epstein) https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
- cies 7y ago
  See this recent interview with him, he addresses this topic and shows he changed his mind. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_interview/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in... > The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia. This is a big accusation, do you have source to back this up?
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter? I agree with the principle of people being able to change their minds and we should accommodate that, but I also have a hard time giving a huge credit when a 66 year old man says that contrary to everything he's written on the subject, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong.
    - wccrawford 7y ago
      >As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter? If changing doesn't have any benefits, would anyone change? I'm not saying there should be no lasting repurcussions for such behavior, but when someone admits they are wrong, it should matter. If admitting they were wrong doesn't matter, then it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        I agree, it should always matter. How much it matters would certainly depend on things like that. So on that scale, it would take a lot more than "I've now learned that sex with children is actually wrong" before I consider that person redeemed. But that's just me.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia Among the many things one can say about RMS, this is not one of them. This is just slander.
  - weaksauce 7y ago
    > The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html he's saying that it should be legal at the very least.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      he's also worried of governments surveillance on babies ... it's a stream of consciousness, if you wanna judge a man from one paragraph, it's your choice. is Joyce's Ulysses just the story of a man who "masturbates at the beach"? (which at the time of writing was very offensive indeed) > The UK government is accused of building a DNA database by stealth. [Reference updated on 2018-05-10 because the old link was broken.] > Meanwhile, they recently proposed to enter all newborn babies in their DNA database as a matter of course. I guess babies are not terribly concerned about governmemt surveillance.
    - zajio1am 7y ago
      Well, there is big difference between 'saying it should be legal' and endorsing. For example, i think that drinking alcohol and smoking pot should be legal, but also think it is stupid thing to do and definitely would not endorse that.
smackay 7y ago
For a little cultural orientation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter While redemption is one of the themes in the book sadly the internet has not quite developed that level of sophistication so we are stuck with denouncement/punishment.
- magashna 7y ago
  These days you might as well become a hermit or kill yourself because there is no penance great enough to be accepted by some people.
  - kgwxd 7y ago
    You are forgetting who is President of the United States. The third choice is to go all-in.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
      I support a theory that cases such as this are one of the main reason Trump got elected - some voters were just fed up. I also think that he'll get elected again, cause Dems are concentrating on impeachment instead of trying to understand & connect with his deplorable voters.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        By summer 2017, it was clear that RussiaRussiaRussia was all they had in store for the next several years. At that point, I knew Trump would be reelected. This is a fairly awful person who has actually done a number of impeachable things, many of them after he took office. Yet, they chose to dwell on something that was obviously false to the average voter. Why would they do that? I think the answer to that is related to the fact that Biden is the current pick. If in 2016 we had made a (short) list of candidates likely to lose to Trump, Biden and HRC would have vied closely for the top choice.
- kstenerud 7y ago
harshaw 7y ago
The challenge is: there is ample evidence that misogyny (and similar offenses) has been unacceptable for years, but it continues. Part of the me-to movement, the election of Trump, ( and the Epstein blowback) is that we need to just stop. And that's why the pressure is there if people can't understand that this sort of behavior in unacceptable in 2019, they need to GTFO.
- kstenerud 7y ago
  In which case, it's on MIT and the FSF to stand up and take charge, saying "You either change your ways and apologize, or else you're out." But what we've seen instead is cowardly throwing someone to the baying crowd.
anotheryou 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once. Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
  - jigglesniggle 7y ago
    There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.
    - mc32 7y ago
      Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs. —Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes. [1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers. [1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-admission-of-guilt/ https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...
      - DanBC 7y ago
5trokerac3 7y ago
I'm normally 100% on board with condemning this Malthusian environment that has sprung up in the last couple years, but I don't believe that Richard Stallman is a complete victim in this scenario. He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him! His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein. For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.
- kstenerud 7y ago
  "His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein." Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.
  - 5trokerac3 7y ago
    > Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. A dude openly defending pedos and CP, who happened to be paid from the coffers of the worst known child trafficker in history - who probably was a honeypot for getting blackmail material on famous and rich people - warrants a very large raising of the eyebrow. Stallman isn't some guy who happened to go to a single party hosted by Epstein. He worked for an org that took a ton of money from him and openly defended all the worst of Epstein's behavior. Anyone who would do that - even without the money - is wholly worth that type of scrutiny. I'm so tired of people defending someone who has been an openly hostile individual for over 30 years. This went well beyond the spectrum or social awkwardness a long time ago.
Kye 7y ago
>> "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." How many years and incidents is enough to move to removal?
- sigzero 7y ago
  People make it sound like Stallman never did offensive or questionable things. This was the veritable "straw".
dfxm12 7y ago
Who jumped straight to the punishment phase? What punishment was doled out? "Removed outright" from what? MIT? RMS chose to step down himself. That was his decision. Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob". Furthermore, stepping down from MIT is not destruction you're playing it up as being. People have done similar (and of course, worse!) things and, after being the subject of some number of embarrassing articles on the web and some larger number of angry tweets, are currently living their lives with new jobs just fine. RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake, like the US-Mexico border or Hong Kong.
- tortasaur 7y ago
  >Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob". The mob pressured MIT and the FSF to remove him from his positions. It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats. >RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake... You could just easily say "Hong Kong doesn't have it that bad, they have food and shelter. Focus on conditions that are actually bad, like starving child soldiers in Africa." This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
  - dfxm12 7y ago
    It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats. If you think the brass at MIT are in any physical danger from a bunch of angry tweeters, I don't know what to tell you. This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us. No, that's a deflection. Someone choosing to step down from their job is not an issue that can, as the parent post puts it, "destroy them at any moment without warning". Being a starving child soldier in Africa is, being locked in a cage in a foreign land is.
mc32 7y ago
Yup. There are many things I disagree with Stallman on, but I still can’t get behind mob mentality accusations and indictments. But in this day and age people want instant retribution for wrongs as well as perceived wrongs and are perfectly willing to bypass due process. Just fire them! Now! Someone said they said something bad!
ubermonkey 7y ago
RMS is not encountering any judicial or criminal sanction. He is merely encountering actual consequences for saying absurd, indefensible things -- and, likely, also finally encountering consequences for being a well-known source of creepy behavior towards women for a very long time. People lose jobs all the time for less. Yeah, he's done some good things. And maybe (MAYBE) he's actually not neurotypical. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being a creep forever.
X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
Do you not think people have tried to get RMS to stop talking about how injust statory rape is, or that he should probably stop talking about how child porn is ok? This isn't a one off and he's one of the least likely people to mend his ways.
- concordDance 7y ago
  The censorship of ideas the majority dislikes is pretty repulsive. This is one of the reasons it took so long for homosexuality to become accepted.
  - espressor 7y ago
    Can you explain how he's being censored? This event has caused his comments to be circulated more than ever. Free speech is a right, but it's not a shield. He can continue to express his opinions, and the public will continue to have the right to object to them. If public opinion on a person is negative, companies will not want to associate with that person. That's the way society has been and will continue to be. This isn't inherently good, as seen with things like race/sexuality--but conflating the long struggle of the LGBT community with one man's archaic thoughts on pedophilia is frankly disgusting.
    - concordDance 7y ago
      Censorship isn't just done by stopping someone broadcasting a view, it is also done by punishing those you express that view as a deterrant to any others out there who would want to promote or broadcast that view. Censorship can be done by governments, institutions, individuals or society as a whole. I'm not really conflating the LGBT history with RMS views, merely noting that attempting to surpress non-majority views can be bad by using them as an example.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

scoopertrooper 7y ago

The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia. Is it so hard to not endorse pedophilla? Can't that just be the one thing everybody agrees on?

nojvek 7y ago
Do you have citing for this? Very easy to make a wide claim like this and go on a witch hunt. I don’t know the guy but that’s a big accusation.
- progval 7y ago
  https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#25%20May%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#25%20May%202... (second item at that date) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 http://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_20...
  - cies 7y ago
    First link is not about this topic i believe. For the other statements, I dont think he's "endorsing" it, he's raising questions. I'm not AT ALL on the same boat as him wrt this topic, but I dont mind a discussion on this topic. I consider that the basis of democracy. Also, from this recent interview on the register it shows he changed his mind on this topic: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why." https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_interview/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in... I respect that people openly change their views.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      People can and do change their views, certainly. But when a 66 year old man says that he has now learned that sex with children is wrong, do you just wipe the past clean and forget that anything ever happened? Would it be wrong for those past views to have any effect, now that he's changed his mind?
      - cies 7y ago
        I dont know what his age has to do with it. And yes, I think we should not dig up old statements once he has announced he has changed his views: that's why I commented. I understand those past views will linger on, I just dont think they are protayed fairly, nor that it is adequately considered that he has changed.
    - seax 7y ago
      So it took him decades and many "conversations" to come to the conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong? You're just whitewashing his abhorrent beliefs with neutral language. So here's a question for YOU: Why do you think that there should be a discussion about whether or not the sexual abuse of children is wrong?
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  There is a comment of his talking about "voluntary pedophilia." This is likely (very likely) a misuse of terms, though -- having had this discussion with others on the Internet, they do not usually intend pedophilia, which is an attraction to the prepubescent. Prepubescent children have no sex drive and their interest in sex is usually taken to be a sign of sexual abuse. Consequently it is hard to see voluntary pedophilia as something that can happen. He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question. There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.
  - pseudalopex 7y ago
    He knows what pedophilia means.[1] [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(Plea_deal_for_Epstein) https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
cies 7y ago
See this recent interview with him, he addresses this topic and shows he changed his mind. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_interview/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_in... > The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia. This is a big accusation, do you have source to back this up?
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter? I agree with the principle of people being able to change their minds and we should accommodate that, but I also have a hard time giving a huge credit when a 66 year old man says that contrary to everything he's written on the subject, he has recently learned that having sex with children is wrong.
  - wccrawford 7y ago
    >As long as you can show you have changed your mind, should nothing you have said before matter? If changing doesn't have any benefits, would anyone change? I'm not saying there should be no lasting repurcussions for such behavior, but when someone admits they are wrong, it should matter. If admitting they were wrong doesn't matter, then it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      I agree, it should always matter. How much it matters would certainly depend on things like that. So on that scale, it would take a lot more than "I've now learned that sex with children is actually wrong" before I consider that person redeemed. But that's just me.
lostjohnny 7y ago
> The guy has a long history endorsing pedophillia Among the many things one can say about RMS, this is not one of them. This is just slander.
- weaksauce 7y ago
  > The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html he's saying that it should be legal at the very least.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    he's also worried of governments surveillance on babies ... it's a stream of consciousness, if you wanna judge a man from one paragraph, it's your choice. is Joyce's Ulysses just the story of a man who "masturbates at the beach"? (which at the time of writing was very offensive indeed) > The UK government is accused of building a DNA database by stealth. [Reference updated on 2018-05-10 because the old link was broken.] > Meanwhile, they recently proposed to enter all newborn babies in their DNA database as a matter of course. I guess babies are not terribly concerned about governmemt surveillance.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    Well, there is big difference between 'saying it should be legal' and endorsing. For example, i think that drinking alcohol and smoking pot should be legal, but also think it is stupid thing to do and definitely would not endorse that.

smackay 7y ago

For a little cultural orientation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter While redemption is one of the themes in the book sadly the internet has not quite developed that level of sophistication so we are stuck with denouncement/punishment.

magashna 7y ago
These days you might as well become a hermit or kill yourself because there is no penance great enough to be accepted by some people.
- kgwxd 7y ago
  You are forgetting who is President of the United States. The third choice is to go all-in.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
    I support a theory that cases such as this are one of the main reason Trump got elected - some voters were just fed up. I also think that he'll get elected again, cause Dems are concentrating on impeachment instead of trying to understand & connect with his deplorable voters.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      By summer 2017, it was clear that RussiaRussiaRussia was all they had in store for the next several years. At that point, I knew Trump would be reelected. This is a fairly awful person who has actually done a number of impeachable things, many of them after he took office. Yet, they chose to dwell on something that was obviously false to the average voter. Why would they do that? I think the answer to that is related to the fact that Biden is the current pick. If in 2016 we had made a (short) list of candidates likely to lose to Trump, Biden and HRC would have vied closely for the top choice.
kstenerud 7y ago

harshaw 7y ago

The challenge is: there is ample evidence that misogyny (and similar offenses) has been unacceptable for years, but it continues. Part of the me-to movement, the election of Trump, ( and the Epstein blowback) is that we need to just stop. And that's why the pressure is there if people can't understand that this sort of behavior in unacceptable in 2019, they need to GTFO.

kstenerud 7y ago
In which case, it's on MIT and the FSF to stand up and take charge, saying "You either change your ways and apologize, or else you're out." But what we've seen instead is cowardly throwing someone to the baying crowd.

anotheryou 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once. Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs. —Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes. [1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers. [1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-admission-of-guilt/ https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...
    - DanBC 7y ago

5trokerac3 7y ago

I'm normally 100% on board with condemning this Malthusian environment that has sprung up in the last couple years, but I don't believe that Richard Stallman is a complete victim in this scenario. He has a long history of using forums meant for technology discussion to promote borderline (and that's generous) social opinions, and of being openly hostile to people who don't tow his line. In this instance he ridiculously downplayed the most egregious instances of sex trafficking of minors, by a horridly evil individual... who happened to donate almost a million dollars to him! His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein. For all of us that don't worship Stallman - I consider him a net negative to the FOSS movement - this has been a long time coming. It would have been a deserved resignation in a normal social environment.

kstenerud 7y ago
"His previous comments about minors on his personal blog, which I don't even want to dignify with a description (you can do your own search), leads me to wonder what other connections than money he had with Epstein." Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. And this kind of tar-and-feathering is precisely why we need official processes for this sort of thing. Official reprimands leading to termination if unfixed, like all civilized peoples do. This ensures that it's made crystal clear what's acceptable and what's not, with time to mend one's ways. The alternative is arbitrary terminations, which makes everyone insecure.
- 5trokerac3 7y ago
  > Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. A dude openly defending pedos and CP, who happened to be paid from the coffers of the worst known child trafficker in history - who probably was a honeypot for getting blackmail material on famous and rich people - warrants a very large raising of the eyebrow. Stallman isn't some guy who happened to go to a single party hosted by Epstein. He worked for an org that took a ton of money from him and openly defended all the worst of Epstein's behavior. Anyone who would do that - even without the money - is wholly worth that type of scrutiny. I'm so tired of people defending someone who has been an openly hostile individual for over 30 years. This went well beyond the spectrum or social awkwardness a long time ago.

Kye 7y ago

>> "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." How many years and incidents is enough to move to removal?

sigzero 7y ago
People make it sound like Stallman never did offensive or questionable things. This was the veritable "straw".

dfxm12 7y ago

Who jumped straight to the punishment phase? What punishment was doled out? "Removed outright" from what? MIT? RMS chose to step down himself. That was his decision. Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob". Furthermore, stepping down from MIT is not destruction you're playing it up as being. People have done similar (and of course, worse!) things and, after being the subject of some number of embarrassing articles on the web and some larger number of angry tweets, are currently living their lives with new jobs just fine. RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake, like the US-Mexico border or Hong Kong.

tortasaur 7y ago
>Even if you think MIT told him to, that would ultimately be MIT's decision, not the work of some "mob". The mob pressured MIT and the FSF to remove him from his positions. It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats. >RMS doesn't need us to feel bad for him. He's still free & healthy. If you're worried about kangaroo courts and injustice, there's plenty to focus on somewhere where people's lives and livelihoods are actually at stake... You could just easily say "Hong Kong doesn't have it that bad, they have food and shelter. Focus on conditions that are actually bad, like starving child soldiers in Africa." This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us.
- dfxm12 7y ago
  It's ultimately their decision, sure, in the same way that it's ultimately up to a local business owner whether they purchase a "protection plan" from the nice salesmen with the baseball bats. If you think the brass at MIT are in any physical danger from a bunch of angry tweeters, I don't know what to tell you. This just seems like deflection. Conditions being worse elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the issues that are more local to us. No, that's a deflection. Someone choosing to step down from their job is not an issue that can, as the parent post puts it, "destroy them at any moment without warning". Being a starving child soldier in Africa is, being locked in a cage in a foreign land is.

mc32 7y ago

Yup. There are many things I disagree with Stallman on, but I still can’t get behind mob mentality accusations and indictments. But in this day and age people want instant retribution for wrongs as well as perceived wrongs and are perfectly willing to bypass due process. Just fire them! Now! Someone said they said something bad!

ubermonkey 7y ago

RMS is not encountering any judicial or criminal sanction. He is merely encountering actual consequences for saying absurd, indefensible things -- and, likely, also finally encountering consequences for being a well-known source of creepy behavior towards women for a very long time. People lose jobs all the time for less. Yeah, he's done some good things. And maybe (MAYBE) he's actually not neurotypical. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being a creep forever.

X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago

Do you not think people have tried to get RMS to stop talking about how injust statory rape is, or that he should probably stop talking about how child porn is ok? This isn't a one off and he's one of the least likely people to mend his ways.

concordDance 7y ago
The censorship of ideas the majority dislikes is pretty repulsive. This is one of the reasons it took so long for homosexuality to become accepted.
- espressor 7y ago
  Can you explain how he's being censored? This event has caused his comments to be circulated more than ever. Free speech is a right, but it's not a shield. He can continue to express his opinions, and the public will continue to have the right to object to them. If public opinion on a person is negative, companies will not want to associate with that person. That's the way society has been and will continue to be. This isn't inherently good, as seen with things like race/sexuality--but conflating the long struggle of the LGBT community with one man's archaic thoughts on pedophilia is frankly disgusting.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    Censorship isn't just done by stopping someone broadcasting a view, it is also done by punishing those you express that view as a deterrant to any others out there who would want to promote or broadcast that view. Censorship can be done by governments, institutions, individuals or society as a whole. I'm not really conflating the LGBT history with RMS views, merely noting that attempting to surpress non-majority views can be bad by using them as an example.