[nverno]

He apologized for all this, though. His initial comments read, to me, as basically someone who is pretty clueless about those topics. But this is the exact kind of speech that should be protected- he wasn't trying to offend or antagonize people, but voicing his philosophy/opinions. He then heard other people's perspectives and they seem to have led him to him reassessing his own, which is how this sort of thing should work, instead of publicly shaming or what have you.

[psychphysic]

I agree. I don't really think he should even need to apologise as that itself has a chilling effect on use of these freedoms.

If your organisation believes that it knows which topics should be talked and thought about it's a church not a university.

[nverno]

Personally, I wouldn't require or expect an apology either, but as the OP said, the discussion was sent out to CSAIL mailing lists which hardly seems like the proper venue. I don't think social graces are Stallman's strong suit, but most people would know blunt discussion of pedophilia/sexual assault in that manner would probably offend a number of people in this public setting - nobody signs up for those lists expecting this sort of discussion - so I think an apology was in order [but shouldn't have been a requirement to keep his position].

He was hypothesizing their motives, and definitely down-playing the severity of the abuses, which understandably could offend people who have been in similar situations. I think part of his message was "don't jump to conclusions" which is good, but he went a lot further than that. In a leadership role, he should strive to be as unoffensive as possible imho - he doesn't want to alienate people.

[psychphysic]

That makes sense. Then perhaps a "retraction" would be better with a statement it wasn't the correct forum for such a discussion.

On your second point however I must disagree. I'm afraid being inoffensive is a losing battle. If people see you try to avoid offense they simply start nitpicking harder. Desire to not offend should never stifle academic speech.

[nverno]

> On your second point however I must disagree

No, I agree with you in general, and from an ideological point of view, but from a practical standpoint, you have to choose your battles - I think it's usually worth the effort, even when it seems tedious, to go out of your way to not offend people you're working with in order to reach your goals.

Plus, once you've offended someone, you have very little chance of influencing them. Once you've established mutual respect, people won't take things you say in bad faith, so discussing controversial topics can actually be a discussion instead of a heated argument.