[krapp]

That article doesn't show both sides of the story. It, as well as the response, paint Stallman as a moral paragon whose flaws are just points of virtue, and dismisses criticism of him as nothing but cancel culture hysteria. It doesn't even attempt to be neutral or sympathetic when portraying the "other side."

[saurik]

I would think the point was to have you read an article on the other side, not to find one magic article that presents both sides.

[krapp]

No, the point was for the author to present their inclusion of Richard Stallman as co-author of their book as some kind of valiant effort in defense of free speech and against the cancel culture she believes unfairly maligns him. The point of the response in that article was not to provide a contrary point of view but to further defend Richard Stallman and portray his critics as enemies of free speech engaged in a witch-hunt.

And no charitable reading of a comment that says "Truth always lies in the middle. I suggest to read this article by Hannah Wolfman-Jones with a response from civil-rights expert Nadine Strossen about the whole ordeal and make up your mind" implies said article will only show the pro-Stallman point of view (literally to sell a book with his name on it) while arguments pro the other side are to be left entirely as an exercise for the reader, rather than presenting a point and counterpoint.

[fsflover]

Which article shows both sides fairly?

[krapp]

If I ever see one, I'll let you know. The politics around Richard Stallman seem to be such that no one without an agenda would write such an article to begin with.

[533474]

Read Na85's and then one I shared. You get the two sides