Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF [LWN.net]

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 8:58 UTC (Tue) by krig (guest, #92101) [Link] (7 responses)

All of this is in the context of RMS being the President of the FSF. That is why the things he say are inappropriate. If he was just some guy with weird opinions, it would just be his personal problem. As it is, it becomes the problem of everyone who supports the FSF.

It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of expression.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 12:13 UTC (Tue) by evad (subscriber, #60553) [Link] (6 responses)

Your legal rights to freedom of expression are not affected by being the President of the FSF.

His opinions are not a problem for you as a supporter of the FSF, its only a problem if you disagree and you're a supporter of him personally. Otherwise you'll soon find you cannot support basically any organisation because there will always be people in an organisation who and express beliefs you disagree with.

You're essentially arguing for a society where anybody in any leadership role must hide their opinions and must renounce their right to freedom of expression, and that is not a society you'd want to live in, and certainly not one I want to live in.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 16:03 UTC (Tue) by krig (guest, #92101) [Link]

No one is restricting his right to express himself. The only thing in question is whether he is a good representative for the FSF, as its President. Not as a member. He is free to remain a member of the FSF. But increasingly, people both within and outside the organisation feel that he is not suited to be its primary representative.

I don't understand how this is difficult.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 18, 2019 12:01 UTC (Wed) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

As a supporter of the FSF, I could not in good conscience give them my money knowing now the public opinions of their leader.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 19, 2019 7:15 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link] (2 responses)

Just like it's fine for Bill Clinton to cheat on his wife... O wait! It wasn't!

Your position is a bit like saying: most married people cheat, so what's the big deal about the POTUS cheating?

Maybe that's why it isn't fine for the President of the FSF to be expressing personal opinions that are unsound?

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 22, 2019 10:46 UTC (Sun) by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966) [Link] (1 responses)

Well I never understood the flack Clinton got for cheating on his wife.

I mean it's not a nice thing to do sure but it was a problem between him and his wife and not illegal so I don't see why it became a public problem.

Though I think part of it too was lying to a court when asked about it and that I *can* understand being a problem.

But Americans seem to have strange views on this type of thing to most Europeans.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 22, 2019 15:02 UTC (Sun) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

Clinton wasn't impeached for cheating. He was impeached for perjury (lying about it under oath--to a grand jury, not in open court) and obstruction of justice (for concealing gifts and suggesting others should avoid or change testimony). He was acquitted of all charges.

It became a public problem because the Republican-appointed special counsel investigator made it a witch-hunt when they couldn't prove the original crimes the special investigation was set up to look into (related to real estate deals etc.) They discovered the affair and decided they could box him into lying about it, and succeeded. There was nothing illegal about what he did, only in the fact that he lied about it.

As with everything in American politics it seems, the cover-up is what does you in not the act itself and no one ever seems to learn the lesson. Clinton's vaunted political instincts definitely failed him here: his ego was big enough to believe he could get away with it. He should have admitted the affair, said it was a private matter, then turned around and discredited the special counsel by saying he was just trying to dig up personal dirt on the president rather than finding real crimes. Even with Republicans sending out the report just before the elections, they ended up losing five seats on the House of Representatives so clearly the public was not on board.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 20, 2019 16:15 UTC (Fri) by Dissident (guest, #134517) [Link]

"evad" wrote,
>You're essentially arguing for a society where anybody in any leadership role must hide their opinions and must renounce their right to freedom of expression, and that is not a society you'd want to live in, and certainly not one I want to live in.

I'm afraid we /already/ live in such a society. As evidenced by countless examples that could be cited, exactly what you have described has increasingly been the reality for some time now. (The case of Brendan Eich is the most salient one I am aware of in the FLOSS world.) And it's not limited-to those in /leadership/ roles either. Any employee who expresses a view or makes a remark that runs afoul of the ever-narrowing, ever more totalitarian confines of the prevailing PC/"Woke" orthodoxy can expect to lose his job. Business-owners and the self-employed are not immune either but subject to threats such as denial of essential services by the dominant tech and finance monopolies.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 9:03 UTC (Tue) by DrMcCoy (subscriber, #86699) [Link] (5 responses)

In addition to krig: also, there *are* and (*should* be) opinions that, while legal, should be not acceptable.

(Also, legal depends on the jurisdiction. Take holocaust denial, for a crass example. Not legal in many European countries, legal in the US, but should still be unacceptable everywhere.)

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 12:25 UTC (Tue) by evad (subscriber, #60553) [Link] (3 responses)

Let us assume that I agree; there are opinions that are legal but not acceptable.

What does that mean in practice? If its legal, and thus the mechanisms of courts and police are not relevant, what does it matter if you or I believe them acceptable or not?

I'm trying to understand what you're saying or perhaps proposing? Do you mean its not acceptable to you, and thus, its your opinion that his opinions are not acceptable, or something else?

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 12:37 UTC (Tue) by DrMcCoy (subscriber, #86699) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm proposing that it's perfectly fine to campaign for people to removed from places of power, even if everything they do is legal. Society is not solely defined by legality, morality and ethics also play a part.

Take, again, the holocaust denial example. Assume there's a person that denies the holocaust happens (or even says that it should have happen) in a country were it is legal to say this out loud. Would you then shrug and let this person be a elementary school teacher, because after all, it's legal so it's fine?

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 13:21 UTC (Tue) by evad (subscriber, #60553) [Link] (1 responses)

Agreed! I was objecting to the original comment of people not expressing opinions at all; campaigning to get somebody removed or to resign is fine.

To answer your question; I would hope that schools and educational facilities have appropriate remedies to ensure that teachers are teaching facts, as best we can define them. This is a very different scenario though. In this case he has opinions on an entirely different subject to his role (or rather, what was his role).

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 18, 2019 16:47 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> Agreed! I was objecting to the original comment of people not expressing opinions at all; campaigning to get somebody removed or to resign is fine.

Campaigning without bothering to think through the LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES of your own beliefs? That is pretty much the definition of the word "prejudice", and it leaves the world very much the poorer.

We're heading back into a world of thought police and "the tyranny of the majority" where it is a crime to dissent against the prejudices of those in power (whomever those may be). A complete travesty of "freedom of speech" - which was intended to protect the dissidents from those in power!

Cheers,
Wol

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 18, 2019 16:43 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> legal depends on the jurisdiction. Take holocaust denial, for a crass example. Not legal in many European countries, legal in the US, but should still be unacceptable everywhere.

The difference between holocaust denial and the age of consent is that the holocaust is a historical fact. The evidence says it happened (I've known and met Auschwitz survivors. I was lucky that, to the best of my knowledge, none of my family ended up there - it was a close run thing).

The age of consent is a social thing. What is acceptable to one society in one age is not acceptable to another society or another age. Interactions in the law cause weirdos like a British honeymoon couple in the US could be arrested for child sex. And even just in one country (Britain), the mere change of date could cause what *was* perfectly legal (an under-age couple) into a crime because one of them turned 16.

PLEASE use some logic. You may not like the consequences, but don't let YOUR prejudices condemn someone else because their prejudices are DIFFERENT. That way lies witch-hunts and lynchings, and YOU could be the victim ...

Cheers,
Wol

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 9:12 UTC (Tue) by cevin666 (guest, #960) [Link] (6 responses)

Actually free speech does not mean, that you can say anything and nobody is allowed to contradict you or even call you a horrible person. It just means you can't go to jail for speaking your mind. I too have the right to speak my mind and if somebody writes publicly that there is something like consensual pedophilia I will call him out on it and say very loud that I at least think it means promoting child abuse.
I'm really sorry, if I harm his reputation by that but he harms actual lives by saying stuff like that especially as he is a cultural hero to many of us.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 12:10 UTC (Tue) by evad (subscriber, #60553) [Link] (5 responses)

> Actually free speech does not mean, that you can say anything and nobody is allowed to contradict you or even call you a horrible person.

I agree, but I also didn't say that. I said we should not castigate (punish) him.

We can contradict him, and we can call him horrible, but we should not *punish*.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 15:39 UTC (Tue) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (3 responses)

Stallman isn't being sent to jail. He's been pressured out of positions that put his opinions in the spotlight moreso than your average person. It's entirely appropriate for a community to call for the removal of a figurehead who doesn't speak for the broader community, particularly when that figurehead insists on being spectacularly offensive to norms of that community, whether or not they are directly relevant to their title.

If Stallman had said "you know, I've decided proprietary software is OK sometimes" a lot of the people defending him for his current statements would be calling for his dismissal. It's ridiculous for people to defend him for saying things far, far, far worse that actually pose real harm to people who should instead be protected by society.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 20:05 UTC (Tue) by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966) [Link]

>If Stallman had said "you know, I've decided proprietary software is OK sometimes" a lot of the people defending him for his current statements would be calling for his dismissal

Yes but that would be in direct contradiction with the aims of the FSF.

Obviously if someone's opinions in the field of action of some organisation go against the aims of said organisation there is a problem.

But I don't think that most people should be forced to leave an organisation for any opinions they may hold that have nothing to do with the domain of activity of that organisation.

It's a bit different for politicians because they, by definition, handle everything.

If there is *legal* case to be made then he should be prosecuted, otherwise left alone.

That's not to say I agree with his previous opinions on pedophilia. I certainly don't, but I don't think it has anything to do with FSF.

Removing people for unpopular opinions that have nothing to do with their function sets a very dangerous precedent .

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 18, 2019 16:55 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> It's ridiculous for people to defend him for saying things far, far, far worse that actually pose real harm to people who should instead be protected by society.

Are they harmed by the fact that they CONSENTED.

Or are they harmed by the fact that society said they should not be allowed to consent.

Or are they harmed by the fact that they realised, POST FACTO, that society disapproved of their actions.

Personally, I think the third one is far more harmful than the first. BUT I DON'T KNOW. And more importantly, you don't know either! As is so common, you are taking speculation as fact, probably confusing cause with effect, and as the saying goes, "for every complex problem, there is a solution which is both simple and WRONG".

As I said elsewhere, where do you draw the line? The only SAFE place is to outlaw sex completely ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 19, 2019 7:28 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link]

The answer to: "Where do you draw the line?", is refreshingly simple: it's wherever the society you live in draws the line. No?

If you don't agree with the line, you are free to raise logical objections.

However, if you raise unfounded, or unsupportable objections, you should not be surprised at general backlash, particularly if you happen to be a public figure.

Stallman publicly expressed opinions of dubious psychological value, on deeply sensitive social issues. Stallman was President of the FSF.

Hardly surprising then, that there was this backlash.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 20, 2019 20:08 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

You simply don't have free speech if there aren't social consequences for speech.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 10:49 UTC (Tue) by camhusmj38 (subscriber, #99234) [Link] (7 responses)

Lots of opinions are dangerous, some literally so.
"I think vaccines cause Autism." is dangerous and has lead to people dying.
Also, you are entitled to your opinions but if you express them that doesn't mean you won't experience consequences only that the govt won't punish you.
The FSF is free to say that it doesn't want to associate with someone who expresses such opinions.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 12:15 UTC (Tue) by evad (subscriber, #60553) [Link] (6 responses)

I'm afraid I must disagree.

The opinion that 'vaccines cause Autism' is not dangerous. Claiming there is proof, and evidence, that vaccines cause autism, or seeking to persaude others not to vaccinate children, *that* is what is dangerous.

The mere opinion, by itself, is not itself dangerous.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 14:18 UTC (Tue) by edomaur (subscriber, #14520) [Link] (4 responses)

Well... No.

A dangerous opinion is a danger by itself. Claiming that vaccines cause Autism is dangerous, because it is a lie that cause harm.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 18, 2019 16:58 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

But it's your opinion that his opinion is dangerous. Are you sure it's not YOUR opinion that's dangerous?

As someone with personal experience, I would actually say that the opinion "vaccines are safe" is extremely dangerous. (And no, I'm not anti-vaccine. Vaccines ARE dangerous. But the alternative is worse.)

Cheers,
Wol

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 19, 2019 13:46 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

Dangerous vaccines are very rare. I'm only aware of one recent case, a dengue vaccine. I suspect that if the disease in question is like almost all diseases (i.e. the first exposure has worst symptoms), any vaccine you're allowed to prescribe in modern societies which wasn't made by a bottom-barrel quack merchant is far safer than the lack of that vaccine. (Dengue is a *very* special case: it's unusual enough that there have been articles about it all over the scientific press in the last year or two simply *because* having vaccines that turn out to have negative consequences like this is so unusual -- and also because it was given to hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren and may have led to a dozen or so landing in hospital with severe dengue years later. That's how rare severe vaccine reactions are, even in cases generally acknowledged to be severely problematic.)

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 19, 2019 15:34 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I'll just give the example I know of. A friend of mine took his son to the doctor for a normal childhood vaccine. He pretty quickly had a reaction to the vaccine, unusual swelling iirc.

A few days later the parents noticed something more serious. This lad is now nearly 30, and without medication he would need to drink some 20 or 30 litres of water a day to avoid dying of dehydration.

The medical opinion was that "vaccines are safe. This can't have been the vaccine". Circumstantial evidence says "it has to be the vaccine - he had a reaction and was taken ill about that time".

And there are PLENTY of cases (my list is pretty old, I would expect there are plenty of newer ones) where severe adverse reactions have been swept under the carpet - the girl who walked in for a rubella vaccination, was wheeled out in a wheelchair and never walked again - "it can't have been the vaccine's fault!"

Such reactions ARE rare. Without vaccines life would be far worse. But assuming that vaccines are safe causes real harm to real people, and believing the issue away makes that harm much worse than it need be.

Cheers,
Wp;

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 20, 2019 12:19 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Vaccines are the single most successful public-health intervention in history. Millions of people per year would succumb to debilitating and often fatal diseases like smallpox, polio, measles, diphtheria, … if it wasn't for vaccines.

Vaccines aren't “safe” in the sense that it is 100% guaranteed that getting vaccinated won't ever cause anyone any problems. But nobody is seriously making that claim – and insisting on perfect 100% safety for vaccines is as foolish as insisting on perfect 100% safety for anything. Certainly for the commonly-administered childhood vaccines the risk/benefit evaluation is overwhelmingly in favour of vaccination.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 15:07 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

Suppose that a research actually has proof that vaccines cause autism, your opinion would potentially affect if and how that research is received. Is your opinion dangerous?

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 17, 2019 15:27 UTC (Tue) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link] (1 responses)

"but we live in socities defined by the freedom of expression."

And part of that means, if you say something that a lot of people find abhorrent, they're going to express the opinion that they will not support institutions that employ them as a spokesperson.

"I also don't think its wise to charaterise personal opinions published on a personal website as 'harmful'."

Supporters and detractors for Stallman seem to agree on this much, at least: He's influential, and people take his opinions on topics seriously - not just about free software, but on many things.

As such, Stallman's "personal" site is not just read by his immediate circle of friends, but any number of people who want to know more about how he sees the world, etc.

Stallman's comments about underage sex are being distributed to a lot of people, some of whom are going to be influenced by his opinions. Whether they be about free software or politics or the appropriateness of having sex with people who are considered too young to consent.

So - if you find the idea of it being OK to have sex with underage people "harmful" (I do) then it's absolutely harmful for him to be using any platform to spread this idea. It is also creepy, and does not reflect well on any institution he represents.

He, and his supporters, seem to happily accept the positives of his being able to speak on things inside and outside the realm of free software and be taken seriously. You cannot have the one without expecting that if he decides to opine on age of consent and so forth that it will be considered "personal" and out of bounds to consider in the light of his roles with MIT and the FSF.

If, instead of finding these views repugnant, people were in agreement with him I doubt anybody would be rushing to say "oh, no, don't read Richard's private blog. Those thoughts are personal. You shouldn't be paying attention to *that*."

"As soon as we start to categorise some opinions as harmful we start down a road where we can decide which opinions are acceptable, which are not, and catstigate accordingly."

We already live in that world. And we should. Some opinions _are_ harmful, full stop. It's ridiculous in 2019 we're debating whether or not an underage person "presented" as "willing" in the contexts of Epstein's victims. It is time to stop defending this kind of thing. There is no room for debate or discussion - it's wrong.

Richard Stallman resigns from the FSF

Posted Sep 20, 2019 16:16 UTC (Fri) by Dissident (guest, #134517) [Link]

"zonker" wrote,
>Some opinions _are_ harmful, full stop. It's ridiculous in 2019 we're debating whether or not an underage person "presented" as "willing" in the contexts of Epstein's victims. It is time to stop defending this kind of thing. There is no room for debate or discussion - it's wrong.

From whence do you assume the authority to make such pronouncements? Who determines what opinions are "harmful" and which have "room for debate or discussion"?

What is to stop /someone else/ from defining the limits of acceptable debate or discussion in a way that would exclude one or more of /your views/?

You may be smug in the knowledge that none of your views run afoul of the current ever-narrowing, ever more totalitarian PC/"Woke" orthodoxy but what if that were to change? What if you suddenly found yourself deemed a /crimethinker/ by the powers-that-be?

(For examples of how rapidly the Overton window can shift, one need look no further than any number of recent past but since-reversed positions and statements by public figures as prominent, mainstream and widely-respected as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Or have a look at the Paul Krugman column, written in 2006 linked-below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-b... )