6 ms·

> [P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is co

> [P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. June 28th 2003: http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

mirimir 7y ago
Damn, he actually wrote that under his real name? That was unwise. I wouldn't even say that as Mirimir. Except about prostitution and adultery, of course.
- input_sh 7y ago
  There was also one that I can't be bothered to find that goes something along the lines of "teens sext each other, therefore child pornography should be legal".
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Well, there was that recent case about the tween girl who got convicted of distributing child pornography for sexting another tween. So it's obvious to me that underage sexting itself shouldn't be prosecuted as child porn. Because if they're old enough to prosecute as adults, they're also old enough to legally share naked pictures of themselves. But of course, it's arguable that third parties -- especially adult third parties -- who distribute such images should be prosecuted.
    - salawat 7y ago
      Look, this conversation right here that you're making is exactly why people beiing willing to take a stance against these sorts of "thou shalt be dumped upon for even mentioning" things is necessary. He's not a fool in that regard. He understands that as long as you can attach paedophilia to something, this type of outrage phenomena can completely sink any attempt at civil discourse, and can be weaponized in order to force through liberty/civic rights destructive measures. Think about it. We could frame an Act to implement Panopticon for the sake of catching Paedophiles, and then poof! Resistance disappears because if you dissent, you're now pro-paedophile! Yet every last civic minded person who values personal freedom/liberty should be able to tell that the inevitable result of such a system being implemented is inevitable abuse. Now replace that with LGBT rights, or women's rights, or sexual assault, or any other controversial theme under the sun. You cannot have the Nazi exception. In any form, or on any topic. Freedom is Freedom. And you can't even dismiss it with a handwave to the freedom to experience consequences either, because you're just perpetuating the sin you're willing to punish Stallman for by tolerating the outright lies of the reporter which fueled the whole thing in the first place. https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t... People need to put the pitchforks down, and go about your day. You should advise the people who started the entire hubbub that the proper place to deal with that disagreement was with Stallman himself in private, maybe with an administrator. If we resort to mob justice to get our way, we end up throwing out any semblance of Order to our country, instead we just end up with a reflexive gaggle of inflammable passions waiting for the next match to be struck. I hate to say it, but you really can't fault Stallman on this one. You can be annoyed. You can find it distasteful; but in the end he is exactly right. It is important that the more heinous the accusation, the greater the pains needed to be taken to ensure that we specifically and only read into what is actually there, and adhere to what is actually actionable by law. Otherwise you see exactly what has erupted here. An outburst of rage against someone completely uninvolved, combined with the burning down of the metaphorical village for what? A Five Minute Rage? Christ, how Orwellian! 1984 isn't even being misused as a manual. It's here and now. God help us.
      - widowlark 7y ago
  - ng12 7y ago
    > There was also one that I can't be bothered to find Then please don't post it. Lazy citation of original material is how we got here.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      There are lots of them, and they're easy to find. They're all on his website. Here are a few. RMS has made a few comments saying that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal. https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September_2012_%28Censorship_of_child_pornography%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September... > Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist. > The article does not mention that it's common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted. https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html > 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. > Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today. https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20... > Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. https://stallman.org/archives/2017-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2017-mar-jun.html > In the US, people convicted for having copies of child pornography tend to get longer prison sentences than those convicted of having sex with children. > Mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime at all. To prosecute people for possessing something published, no matter what it may be, is a big threat to human rights. https://stallman.org/archives/2011-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2011-may-aug.html > "Child" pornography is being used as an excuse to threaten all American internet users' privacy. > The term "child pornography" is dishonest. The censorship of it puts young lovers in direct danger of prosecution. > Many published works are disgusting, but censorship is more so. In the Internet, enforcement of censorship puts other rights in danger. > Please support demandprogress.org's campaign against this bill. There are loads of these. Stallman takes a hardline anti-Censorship view, and he sees any prohibition on possession or distribution of images of child sexual abuse as censorship. His argument about criminalising children who share images of themselves with other children has a simple fix: stop prosecuting children for doing stupid shit.
trhway 7y ago
man, taken seriously most of it does sound awfully wrong of course, no argument here. Yet about taking it seriously - this is the quote that follows yours a bit later : " Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. "
- input_sh 7y ago
  Ah, the old "it's just a joke" justification.
  - kragen 7y ago
    That's not a joke. He's serious.
    - input_sh 7y ago
      You may be responding to the wrong comment, because that was the point of mine.
strenholme 7y ago
I mention this elsewhere in this sub-thread, but RMS was not completely out of line in 2003 or 2006 writing those kind of things. It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. For the record, I have never endorsed those positions [1], but I also see that they were on the fringe of acceptable discussion at the time. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=4770710 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_mo... for how I felt about pro-pedophile advocacy back in 2004, in an era when a small outspoken fringe worked really hard to make it part of the Wikipedia.
- mantoto 7y ago
  Just because a few people where discussing this doesn't make it out of line. I remember 2003-2006 well enough. There was no discussion in society about this.
  - stuaxo 7y ago
    This - it may be the case that Wikipedia was discussing this, but mainstream society was just the same as now. The episode of Brass eye lambasting the scares about it actually came out in 2001, so the assertion is nonsense.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. NAMBLA and similar will take every opportunity to push pro-paedophile[1] and pro-abuse positions. Your example just speaks to the nativity of Wikipedia (and a bunch of other US tech companies) around people who commit contact offences against children. But we need to be clear: this was not in anyway a mainstream position. It was a smallish number of child abusers gaming a system. The most recent example isn't just about what he said though. It's about how he said it. And it's this that people find unacceptable. The discussion was about how to manage the potentially serious image problem when a high profile member of the organisation has been accused of sexually assaulting a child. Either he doesn't know that this is the wrong time to say those things, or he does know and doesn't care, but either way it made it harder for other people to do their job - managing the comms of having your organisation financially linked to a high profile sex offender. [1] I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable.
marvin 7y ago
These are obvious examples of «things you can’t say», e.g. opinions that are considered normal in some societies and times, and anathema in others. (For reference, in case someone hasn’t read it: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) Without saying anything about my own stance on these opinions, it’s intellectualy weak to consider it a firable offense to have uttered them thirteen years ago. People should be stronger than that, and have a wider perspective.
- input_sh 7y ago
  Those words didn't disappear and resurfaced from some secret tape or whatever. They're on his own blog, first-party information quoted all over the place, and recent email scandal just proves that he never really changed. Also, here's a quote of his about people with Down syndrome: > If you'd like to love and care for a pet that doesn't have normal human mental capacity, don't create a handicapped human being to be your pet. Get a dog or a parrot... https://twitter.com/popey/status/793384010718248960?lang=en https://twitter.com/popey/status/793384010718248960?lang=en Seriously, everyone's better off with him gone, including free software as a whole. He's not worth defending. It was about damn time he actually faced some consequences for his shitty behavior.
  - bmn__ 7y ago
    The quoted sentence addresses the parents or potential parents who purposefully make mentally handicapped children, not the handicapped children. It's easy to make these kind of reading/comprehension mistakes when one gets caught up in cancel culture and their outrage mobs.
    - throwiay789 7y ago
      He just called a human being with down syndrome the same as a pet. a human being, nobody is having problems with reading comprehension except the people that have the same mentality as him (pedos, topminds, etc.)
ng12 7y ago
Can you explain why these opinions are inappropriate? What makes someone with aggressively libertarian views unsuitable to lead the Free Software Foundation?
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  Should a 10 year old be allowed to smoke, drink, and do harder drugs? If no then why should a 10 year old be able to pick their adult sex partner(s)?
  - ng12 7y ago
    There are plenty of anarchists in the world who would respond with an emphatic "yes". Should we be taking steps to ensure anarchists aren't allowed to write software or work at a university?
    - JaimeThompson 7y ago
      Did I say he should not be" allowed to write software or work at a university"? It is concerning to me that RMS would allow kids to make adult decision while at the same time saying that adults selling software to other adults under licenses he doesn't like should be punished.
      - ng12 7y ago
        I think it's reasonably sound logic from a libertarian perspective. The more concerning thing is he's not allowed to simultaneously discuss that line of thinking while working at MIT.
        JaimeThompson 7y ago
        Libertarians typically believe in a right of contracting something which RMS doesn't so it may not be totally correct to examine his ideas from a strict Libertarian viewpoitn.
api 7y ago
Those views are pretty far outside the Overton Window even for the free love movement.

mirimir 7y ago

Damn, he actually wrote that under his real name? That was unwise. I wouldn't even say that as Mirimir. Except about prostitution and adultery, of course.

input_sh 7y ago
There was also one that I can't be bothered to find that goes something along the lines of "teens sext each other, therefore child pornography should be legal".
- mirimir 7y ago
  Well, there was that recent case about the tween girl who got convicted of distributing child pornography for sexting another tween. So it's obvious to me that underage sexting itself shouldn't be prosecuted as child porn. Because if they're old enough to prosecute as adults, they're also old enough to legally share naked pictures of themselves. But of course, it's arguable that third parties -- especially adult third parties -- who distribute such images should be prosecuted.
  - salawat 7y ago
    Look, this conversation right here that you're making is exactly why people beiing willing to take a stance against these sorts of "thou shalt be dumped upon for even mentioning" things is necessary. He's not a fool in that regard. He understands that as long as you can attach paedophilia to something, this type of outrage phenomena can completely sink any attempt at civil discourse, and can be weaponized in order to force through liberty/civic rights destructive measures. Think about it. We could frame an Act to implement Panopticon for the sake of catching Paedophiles, and then poof! Resistance disappears because if you dissent, you're now pro-paedophile! Yet every last civic minded person who values personal freedom/liberty should be able to tell that the inevitable result of such a system being implemented is inevitable abuse. Now replace that with LGBT rights, or women's rights, or sexual assault, or any other controversial theme under the sun. You cannot have the Nazi exception. In any form, or on any topic. Freedom is Freedom. And you can't even dismiss it with a handwave to the freedom to experience consequences either, because you're just perpetuating the sin you're willing to punish Stallman for by tolerating the outright lies of the reporter which fueled the whole thing in the first place. https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t... People need to put the pitchforks down, and go about your day. You should advise the people who started the entire hubbub that the proper place to deal with that disagreement was with Stallman himself in private, maybe with an administrator. If we resort to mob justice to get our way, we end up throwing out any semblance of Order to our country, instead we just end up with a reflexive gaggle of inflammable passions waiting for the next match to be struck. I hate to say it, but you really can't fault Stallman on this one. You can be annoyed. You can find it distasteful; but in the end he is exactly right. It is important that the more heinous the accusation, the greater the pains needed to be taken to ensure that we specifically and only read into what is actually there, and adhere to what is actually actionable by law. Otherwise you see exactly what has erupted here. An outburst of rage against someone completely uninvolved, combined with the burning down of the metaphorical village for what? A Five Minute Rage? Christ, how Orwellian! 1984 isn't even being misused as a manual. It's here and now. God help us.
    - widowlark 7y ago
- ng12 7y ago
  > There was also one that I can't be bothered to find Then please don't post it. Lazy citation of original material is how we got here.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    There are lots of them, and they're easy to find. They're all on his website. Here are a few. RMS has made a few comments saying that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal. https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September_2012_%28Censorship_of_child_pornography%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September... > Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist. > The article does not mention that it's common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted. https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html > 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. > Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today. https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20... > Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.] > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. https://stallman.org/archives/2017-mar-jun.html https://stallman.org/archives/2017-mar-jun.html > In the US, people convicted for having copies of child pornography tend to get longer prison sentences than those convicted of having sex with children. > Mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime at all. To prosecute people for possessing something published, no matter what it may be, is a big threat to human rights. https://stallman.org/archives/2011-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2011-may-aug.html > "Child" pornography is being used as an excuse to threaten all American internet users' privacy. > The term "child pornography" is dishonest. The censorship of it puts young lovers in direct danger of prosecution. > Many published works are disgusting, but censorship is more so. In the Internet, enforcement of censorship puts other rights in danger. > Please support demandprogress.org's campaign against this bill. There are loads of these. Stallman takes a hardline anti-Censorship view, and he sees any prohibition on possession or distribution of images of child sexual abuse as censorship. His argument about criminalising children who share images of themselves with other children has a simple fix: stop prosecuting children for doing stupid shit.

trhway 7y ago

man, taken seriously most of it does sound awfully wrong of course, no argument here. Yet about taking it seriously - this is the quote that follows yours a bit later : " Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. "

input_sh 7y ago
Ah, the old "it's just a joke" justification.
- kragen 7y ago
  That's not a joke. He's serious.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    You may be responding to the wrong comment, because that was the point of mine.

strenholme 7y ago

I mention this elsewhere in this sub-thread, but RMS was not completely out of line in 2003 or 2006 writing those kind of things. It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. For the record, I have never endorsed those positions [1], but I also see that they were on the fringe of acceptable discussion at the time. [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13&diff=prev&oldid=4770710 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophile_mo... for how I felt about pro-pedophile advocacy back in 2004, in an era when a small outspoken fringe worked really hard to make it part of the Wikipedia.

mantoto 7y ago
Just because a few people where discussing this doesn't make it out of line. I remember 2003-2006 well enough. There was no discussion in society about this.
- stuaxo 7y ago
  This - it may be the case that Wikipedia was discussing this, but mainstream society was just the same as now. The episode of Brass eye lambasting the scares about it actually came out in 2001, so the assertion is nonsense.
DanBC 7y ago
> It was an era when it was still an open question whether the Wikipedia should have pro-pedophilia advocacy in their entries. NAMBLA and similar will take every opportunity to push pro-paedophile[1] and pro-abuse positions. Your example just speaks to the nativity of Wikipedia (and a bunch of other US tech companies) around people who commit contact offences against children. But we need to be clear: this was not in anyway a mainstream position. It was a smallish number of child abusers gaming a system. The most recent example isn't just about what he said though. It's about how he said it. And it's this that people find unacceptable. The discussion was about how to manage the potentially serious image problem when a high profile member of the organisation has been accused of sexually assaulting a child. Either he doesn't know that this is the wrong time to say those things, or he does know and doesn't care, but either way it made it harder for other people to do their job - managing the comms of having your organisation financially linked to a high profile sex offender. [1] I guess we need to say that some people with a sexual interest in children will not commit offences against children, and so some pro-paedophile commentary is acceptable.

marvin 7y ago

These are obvious examples of «things you can’t say», e.g. opinions that are considered normal in some societies and times, and anathema in others. (For reference, in case someone hasn’t read it: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) Without saying anything about my own stance on these opinions, it’s intellectualy weak to consider it a firable offense to have uttered them thirteen years ago. People should be stronger than that, and have a wider perspective.

input_sh 7y ago
Those words didn't disappear and resurfaced from some secret tape or whatever. They're on his own blog, first-party information quoted all over the place, and recent email scandal just proves that he never really changed. Also, here's a quote of his about people with Down syndrome: > If you'd like to love and care for a pet that doesn't have normal human mental capacity, don't create a handicapped human being to be your pet. Get a dog or a parrot... https://twitter.com/popey/status/793384010718248960?lang=en https://twitter.com/popey/status/793384010718248960?lang=en Seriously, everyone's better off with him gone, including free software as a whole. He's not worth defending. It was about damn time he actually faced some consequences for his shitty behavior.
- bmn__ 7y ago
  The quoted sentence addresses the parents or potential parents who purposefully make mentally handicapped children, not the handicapped children. It's easy to make these kind of reading/comprehension mistakes when one gets caught up in cancel culture and their outrage mobs.
  - throwiay789 7y ago
    He just called a human being with down syndrome the same as a pet. a human being, nobody is having problems with reading comprehension except the people that have the same mentality as him (pedos, topminds, etc.)

ng12 7y ago

Can you explain why these opinions are inappropriate? What makes someone with aggressively libertarian views unsuitable to lead the Free Software Foundation?

JaimeThompson 7y ago
Should a 10 year old be allowed to smoke, drink, and do harder drugs? If no then why should a 10 year old be able to pick their adult sex partner(s)?
- ng12 7y ago
  There are plenty of anarchists in the world who would respond with an emphatic "yes". Should we be taking steps to ensure anarchists aren't allowed to write software or work at a university?
  - JaimeThompson 7y ago
    Did I say he should not be" allowed to write software or work at a university"? It is concerning to me that RMS would allow kids to make adult decision while at the same time saying that adults selling software to other adults under licenses he doesn't like should be punished.
    - ng12 7y ago
      I think it's reasonably sound logic from a libertarian perspective. The more concerning thing is he's not allowed to simultaneously discuss that line of thinking while working at MIT.
      - JaimeThompson 7y ago
        Libertarians typically believe in a right of contracting something which RMS doesn't so it may not be totally correct to examine his ideas from a strict Libertarian viewpoitn.

api 7y ago

Those views are pretty far outside the Overton Window even for the free love movement.