Well, their problems *may* be down to Aspergers, but if they are this does not reflect well on them.
See, Aspergers is sort-of-curable. It takes large amounts of time and effort, but unless you have noncommunicative autism, by the time you're thirty or forty you have coping strategies that can lead you to appear mostly normal in most non-extreme social interactions (e.g. don't ask us to function at weddings).
But RMS, for instance, is in his mid-fifties now. If he doesn't grasp the elementary atoms of social intercourse by now it is because he *has not tried*, and that's nobody's fault but his. I know formerly-noncommunicative autistics who dragged themselves to near-outward-normality in less time than that. Plainly, if he has an ASD, he has overcome some of it: he can give public speeches without disintegrating, which either indicates a successful coping strategy in one domain or the absence of an ASD.
Note: I'm not saying here that it is incumbent on all autistics to spend huge amounts of effort acquiring coping strategies to function in normal society. I'm saying that if they don't, then that is their choice: and the consequences of that choice are also theirs, at least insofar as they extend to things like social ostracism. If they turn themselves intentionally into a community leader, as RMS has done, then it is sheerest foolishness not to acquire such coping strategies in advance, as that is a social position in which the interpretation of social cues is of paramount importance. So RMS is in a dilemma here: either he doesn't have ASD, and has shown himself to be a boor, or he does, and has shown himself to be a fool. A man can be a fool in one area and brilliant in another, so the latter is quite possible: but I can't see a third alternative at this point.