Software Freedom Conservancy does not and cannot speak for the #FreeSoftware movement:
Either SFC weren't smart enough to fact-check the accusations against Stallman before joining the witch hunt, or they knew the accusations were false and cared more about potential PR damage to them, than about truth or justice. Which would just make them scum. Until such time as they issue a public apology to Stallman for their part in this whole sorry affair, they will never get a second of volunteer time from me, nor any kind of promotion (beyond this post), nor a single cent in donations.
What SFC describes as "reprehensible comments" include a statement:
Link 1) that sex work should be legalized. That women coerced into sex work should be helped to leave it, without criminalizing their clients *if* they are unaware of the coercion. That a 16 year old is not a "child" (in #NZ the age of consent is 16). That paying to have sex with a sex worker is not, in itself, "sexual assault".
I agree with all of these statements and think Stallman was brave to make them publicly.
What SFC describes as "reprehensible comments" by Richard Stallman include a statement:
Link 2) in support of women who choose an abortion after a positive result in a Down's Syndrome screening test, while positively asserting the human rights of people with Down's Syndrome.
A member of my extended family recently took that test, and I would have supported her decision to abort had the result been positive, or for any reason #ReproductiveRights. I think Stallman was brave to say this publicly.
In support of their criticism of Richard Stallman's "pattern of behavior that is incompatible with the goals of the free software movement", SFC offers links to a complaint that Stallman interjects too much during #LibrePlanet talks, and a link to the muckracking Medium piece that includes the false accusations related to his comments on MarvinMinsky.
So in summary, the #SFC said that "allowing Stallman to continue to hold a leadership position [at the #FSF] would be an unacceptable compromise" because:
* he has strong personal opinions on a range of controversial ethical issues unrelated to free software
* he's a bit mouthy at the FSF annual conference
* someone published some libelous claims about him on a blog site.
I think it's the leadership of SFC who should be stepping down, for supporting this hate campaign against Stallman.
@skarabrae if the were actually any ethical problems, sure. What there is mainly is inuendo (implying people said terrible things that actually weren't) and out and out falsehoods (claims people said things they didn't).
@strypey If you think this was an isolated incident, and the statement was about just one time, you haven't been paying attention.
I did break down of the things SFC cite in their piece, starting here:
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!