[Latty]

Well, my point was that this article actively avoids answering that question.

From what I can see, yes, he does. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership.

His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ):

> Due to the vagueness of the term "sexual assault" together with the dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, we cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj was found to have committed. So we can't begin to judge whether those acts were wrong.

> I see at least three possibilities. Perhaps those acts really constituted rape — it is a possibility. Or perhaps the two had sex willingly, but her parents freaked out and demanded prosecution. Or, intermediate between those two, perhaps he pressured her into having sex, or got her drunk.

It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser.

This position of regarding the ability to sleep with under-aged people as more important than defending under-aged people from abusers is one incompatible with keeping a community safe, in my opinion.

[sildur]

He has since changed his view on the subject [1]:

> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

[jaywalk]

> fundamentally makes contributors less safe

Please explain the actual link between contributing to free software and sex with minors.

[Latty]

I contributed to plenty of open source projects as a minor, interacting with maintainers and other people in the communities around them.

Grooming and abuse is a real problem. If Stallman thinks it can be justified to sleep with a child if consent is given, then he wouldn't act to defend a child in that situation if they were being preyed upon unless it was clear to him it was abuse.

That's not good enough. There should be no wiggle room because abusers can abuse that. That's why these laws exist, and that is the standard we should hold projects to, to allow children to safely contribute.

[jaywalk]

Why would Stallman, personally, be in a position where he's the only one who can defend a child in that situation? Your hypothetical doesn't make any sense.

[Latty]

The "only one"? It doesn't matter if other people might do the right thing, if he doesn't, he shouldn't hold the position.

If someone reads this, it makes them think they won't be taken seriously when they come forward if they are abused. That both makes them less likely to do so if they are abused, and less likely to even start engaging with the community.

If they do come forward, Stallman has indicated he may not take them seriously. Given that he's arguing about this with others in leadership positions, even more than that he might pressure others to do so as well.

Everyone in one of those positions should be taking such an allegation seriously, and if they don't, they shouldn't hold that position.

[sh1989]

I wrote a proper response to this, then deleted it.

Because seriously, you're asking why a clear demonstration of how someone doesn't understand/is ignorant of power dynamics isn't a sign that person shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power and influence?

And maybe the explaining that needs to be done is yourself.