You haven't read it and you should, maybe it would cut down the paranoia. This is not an attack on the free software movement and this is clearly from people who do care about the free software movement values.
A document berating him for being a weirdo, while shrilly exaggerating all the "evidence" in an effort to destroy him and everything he's built over his lifetime, is not particularly useful or necessary.
The purpose of this is clear, and it's very telling that it's being fired at Stallman from the shadows by the unknown and unaccountable.
There's a reason why codes of conduct, especially the Contributor Covenant, are de rigueur in the open source world. They help keep the creeps and the fash out, and make the work environment more harmonious.
RMS is a creep who's been grandfathered in because he came from a time when creeps were much more tolerated. Times have changed, and so have values. We are far less tolerant of creeps, no matter how talented they may otherwise be because they disrupt the working environment unacceptably. It's time for that grandfather clause to end.
Drupal and Larry Garfield years ago, and most recently Python and Tim Peters.
As a measure of how trivial the charges against RMS really are, over on Mastodon the post for this report is being replied to by people getting working up about "enbyphobia", of all the who-gives-a-fuck complaints. And being boosted by the account that published this report. No-one should be taking their crap seriously. It's absurd.
At this point it's nothing more than crowdsourced bullying of an old, cancer-stricken man who doesn't deserve any of this. Shame on everyone participating in this mob.
> I don't think it is wrong to distribute "child porn" images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real children. Imaginary children can't be hurt by drawing them.
In other words: pornography involving 14, 15, 16 year olds is all good according to Stallman. He is enabling all of the above by changing the definition of what child pornography is, responding to someone who emailed him asking for advice, and then posting about it publicly.
This distinction is also made by the law in the USA, so this quote merely reflects USA law.
You can disagree with this quote and even find it gross, but to claim this quote aims to normalize CSAM is a blatant lie.