[lisp-missionary]

I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind. What makes other people's feelings or even thoughts so much more important that action should be taken against him if he's honest about what he thinks. By the way, some of the comments he's being demonized for would mean demonizing hundreds of millions of people living in much more civilized societies than America's.

[dragonwriter]

> I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind.

He doesn't have to be.

Of course, equally, they don't need to at all be concerned with his thoughts or feelings when exercising their rights, either.

Now, if he wants them to give favorable consideration to him when exercising their freedoms, well...

[lisp-missionary]

He's been fired. That's not the same thing as using your words and yoy know it.

[dragonwriter]

> He's been fired

Yes.

> That's not the same thing as using your words

It's an exercise of property and association rights, rather than speech rights, so, sure, it's a different thing on a precise enough level.

On the other hand, it's the same thing on the level of exercise of rights in which others thoughts and feelings need not be considered outside of voluntary (e.g., contractual) commitments or legal mandates.

Dr. Stallman is free to exercise his rights in manners which disregard the thoughts and feelings of others. He should not, however, be surprised that his doing so is reciprocated.

[mthoms]

>why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind

He's absolutely free to speak his mind. Similarly, people and organizations are free to disassociate with him if they find his opinions offensive (or even just distracting).

[humanrebar]

You miss the argument.

The question isn't whether people should have the freedom to disassociate. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise. The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way.

[mthoms]

The parent seemed (here and elsewhere) to argue that RMS was having his freedom of speech hindered vis-a-vis the fact that people were disassociating with him. Further arguing that RMS should be able to say anything he wants as long as he's honest (paraphrased).

I only argued about freedom of association to counter that simplistic thinking. That is, yes it's your right to say whatever you want, but it's my right to disassociate from you if I don't like what you're saying.

> The question is whether it's wise or beneficial to use that freedom in this way

I agree whole-heartedly with this more nuanced take on it. In a round-about way, that was kind of my point - That the matter is not as simple as being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have repercussions.

[lisp-missionary]

No he was fired for not agreeing with other people on a topic completely unrelated to his responsibilities. Software liberalism at its finest.

[kazinator]

The thing is, there are very different kinds of responsibilities. One person's responsibilities are to perform some assembly line step in a factory. Another person's responsibilities consist of being a representative of an organization.

If a person has responsibilities as a representative, then there isn't a clear cut separation between their private conduct and that representation, and they have to be aware of that and accept it, however reluctantly that may be. Anything that leader says and does may be interpreted by the public, rightly or wrongly, as being part of the representation.