Do you think that Stallman's life was ruined. I, and I guess lots of people, will still highly value his contributions. But at the same time I think his comments warranted moving on and passing the torch of leadership of the FSF. It is very different to work as a regular software engineer or individual contributor, than as the figurehead of a foundation. I wonder if he will still get invitations to be a speaker, and if he does, if he will be willing to do it, at least for a time.
I rather wonder the opposite. Not "what will become of Stallman, without the FSF", but "what will become of the FSF, without Stallman". Will the FSF still have the public forum it once had without Stallman using his public speaking and his standing in the free software community on their behalf? It is perfectly conceivable that Stallman will move on to bigger and better things and the FSF will sink into obscurity.
Is nobody else at the FSF capable of public advocacy? It seems to me that Stallman's unique ability was formulating the FSF's ideals in the first place, but once the platform is laid out, anyone who holds those ideals ought to be at least somewhat capable of promoting them. Even before this particular incident, it seems rms was not exactly well liked as a spokesman.
Well. The thing about these public speaking engagements of his at universities and stuff: There is image transfer going on there from a software developer celebrity to a spokesperson on copyright and related public policy issues. (Like when Bono speaks on environmental issues).
I went to see a Stallman lecture when I was at university too. They had booked the biggest lecture theatre and it was packed. But why? If my friend comes to me and says "Hey, I'm staying late today to see a talk by random spokesperson John Doe advocating free software. Wanna join?", my reaction is going to be: "Meh." You can have that any day of the week at any university that's seen as a desirable forum for public policy debate. But: "Wanna see the guy who created emacs and a billion other bits of software every one of us uses every single day? Wanna stick around afterwards for conference food and exchange a few sentences of smalltalk so that, for the rest of your life, you can tell people you ACTUALLY MET HIM?" Then "Hell yeah, count me in!"
They won't see another penny from me. I assume a large amount of people will feel the same. Can't wait for Stallmans next project, I will be donating to that instead.
Honestly? I hope not, but the guy suddenly and unexpectedly got kicked out from FSF and MIT, two institutions that form the core of his life - and I imagine self-image. And now other organizations related to the movement he started publicly disassociated from him. That had to hit hard, and as 'seanmcdirmid points out, he's also 66 and essentially unemployable now.
So if you take everything a man has in life - everything he anchors his identity to - and destroy it, and leave little to no chance of regaining it, what do you think happens? Personally, I am worried.
This is what consequences for shitty behavior looks like. It's the same if someone who has a stalwart career suddenly assaults the secretary at the Christmas party. Sure he's a hell of a lawyer, but he's become more of a liability than an asset. It's capitalism, and self determination.
If RMS commits suicide because his life was ruined after someone lied and spun his linguistic pedanticism as support for sexual crimes, if that happens, will you come back and say that "this is what consequences for shitty behavior look like"?
Also, his wrong is again his language pedanticism - comparing it to actual assault like you did just now is disingenuous and precisely what the crowd did to RMS.
"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."
And it's even worse than just that, since that's him freely associating in response to an article containing this:
> The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
and
> The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party. Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves.
