Social Justice advocates are running a campaign to "cancel" Richard Stallman (again) and the whole Free Software Foundation board for good measure

[Lierdakil]

Summary

The "father" of the Free Software movement, Richard Matthew Stallman, widely known as RMS, announced his return to the FSF as a board member after resigning as president back in 2019 after social media backlash over controversial opinions expressed in a mailing list [1]. This sparked another wave of backlash [2] and resulted in an "open letter" that urges FSF to "remove Richard M. Stallman from all leadership positions" and "for the entire Board of the FSF to step down" [3]. The letter characterizes RMS as "misogynist, ableist, and transphobic" and asserts "[these] beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities". As a result, many companies and non-profits halted any dealings with FSF.

 

There are people who disagree with the sentiment expressed in the "open letter to remove Richard M. Stallman from all leadership positions" [4], primarily finding the letter mischaracterizing and vilifying RMS, and find claims about RMS being "a dangerous force in the free software community" at best blown out of proportion, and at worst entirely fabricated. There is an open letter in support of RMS [5], which at the time of writing has more signatures than the "open letter to remove RMS", but less "name recognition" [6].

 

Some sources [7, 8] argue that this whole affair is a smear campaign and there is little factual basis for accusing RMS of poor character, let alone demanding the removal of the whole FSF board.

 

There are voices in the "cancel RMS" crowd that call for "cancelling" the whole FOSS and replacing it with “justice oriented software.” [9]

 

Quotes

Quote

Richard Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation's board of directors has drawn condemnation [...] The letter said all members of the FSF board should be removed [...]

- ArsTechnica [2]

 

Quote

Even if there was any truth to any of the outrageous allegations, it would be self-defeating for the movement to force him [RMS] into non-existence.

- Techrights [7]

 

My thoughts

 

It's pretty hard to figure out who's right or wrong in this figurative crapshoot, but the "open letter to remove RMS" has an appendix that uses copious quote mining and selective reporting, to vilify RMS. This is easy enough to check [8,10]. Furthermore, as anyone on the Internet nowadays, I'm pretty familiar with how "cancel culture" works, and most times, people's reputations and sometimes livelihoods are destroyed over misreadings, misunderstandings, and sometimes literally nothing. I have no particular love for RMS, I disagree on many issues with him, but this campaign to "cancel" him makes me pretty sick, quite literally -- frankly it looks and feels exactly like bullying (which one might argue it in fact is). The whole "guilt by association" thing with the whole FSF board being called to be removed reeks of some nefarious plot -- I'm not usually the one to suggest conspiracy theories, but I can't really make sense of this otherwise (not that it has to make sense, mind)

 

This will have long-standing ramifications for FSF and for FOSS in general. I can't predict how this will go, but from where I'm looking, it doesn't look like it can go "well" regardless of what happens next. Either the FSF will be literally beheaded, at which point we may well expect it to become defunct, or the board refuses to bulge, at which point many corporations and non-profits will sever ties, either seeing it as a good opportunity, or fearing repercussions from the angry Twitter mob.

 

FSF isn't as influential or as important as it used to be, but we also might expect that GNU GPL licensing may at some point be deemed "guilty by association", and we'll see less GPL-ed projects. There is an industry push towards either more open (i.e. "just give us your code gratis") or less open (i.e. "here's the code, but you can't actually do anything with it") licensing schemes. Worst-case scenario, the GNU-style "free as in freedom" software might ultimately end here. Whether that's good or bad is arguable.

 

Sources

 

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344910/richard-stallman-returns-free-software-foundation-board-comments

[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-advocates-seek-removal-of-richard-stallman-and-entire-fsf-board/

[3] https://rms-open-letter.github.io/

[4] https://news.itsfoss.com/stallman-return-revolt/

[5] https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[6] https://itwire.com/open-source/pro-stallman-group-issues-open-letter,-wants-him-to-stay-on-fsf-board.html

[7] http://techrights.org/2021/03/28/oliva-on-justice-and-freedom/

[8] https://linuxreviews.org/A_Factual_Timeline_of_Attempts_to_Pressure_the_FSF_Into_Submission_(Not_to_Promote_Real_Community_and_Freedom)

[9] https://medium.com/@beewithablog/open-is-cancelled-da7dd6f2aaaf

[10] Additional context: https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/

 

[WereCatf]

8 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

Some sources [7, 8] argue that this whole affair is a smear campaign and there is little factual basis for accusing RMS of poor character

Seems to me like there is plenty of basis, like e.g. RMS insisting on handing out his "romance cards" and harassing women, even when told not to; he just moved outside the conference to do it instead of doing it indoors.

[Arika]

28 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

There are voices in the "cancel RMS" crowd that call for "cancelling" the whole FOSS and replacing it with “justice oriented software.” [9]

And with this, their opinions on the matter should be completely ignored. 

[Lierdakil]

2 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Seems to me like there is plenty of basis, like e.g. RMS insisting on handing out his "romance cards" and harassing women, even when told not to; he just moved outside the conference to do it instead of doing it indoors.

I'm not saying those sources are entirely (or indeed at all) correct, but they exist. I was trying to represent both sides somewhat. Feel free to post additional sources if you feel I failed.

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

I'm not saying those sources are entirely (or indeed at all) correct, but they exist. I was trying to represent both sides somewhat. Feel free to post additional sources if you feel I failed.

I just simply wanted to point that there's plenty of actual evidence of him being a misogynist and sexually harassing women. I don't care enough about him to dig into the rest of it, though, and sure, there are undoubtedly people who are also coming up with false claims in the hopes of getting attention -- but then again, that happens for everything, it seems, nowadays.

[Video Beagle]

26 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

RMS insisting on handing out his "romance cards"

his what?

[WereCatf]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

And with this, their opinions on the matter should be completely ignored. 

Nutsos -- on any side of a public argument -- are enormously annoying.

[WereCatf]

8 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

his what?

He has had weird business-cards printed out that he hands out to women and it seems he hands regular ones out to men:

 

Note that this was the first picture I found. I have no idea if there are other kinds or how many or anything like that. Oh, and he apparently calls them "pleasure-cards", not "romance-cards" -- I got the wording wrong at first.

[Drama Lama]

Cancel

Cancel

Cancel

Cancel

Cancel

Cancel

[Video Beagle]

43 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

He has had weird business-cards printed out that he hands out to women and it seems he hands regular ones out to men:

 

Note that this was the first picture I found. I have no idea if there are other kinds or how many or anything like that. Oh, and he apparently calls them "pleasure-cards", not "romance-cards" -- I got the wording wrong at first.

,,,,,ok....

(I had googled "romance cards" and what came up was something from the Witcher games)

Now, I'm not gonna say he's "misogynistic"  .... that's a term that gets tossed around too freely and incorrectly imho... but that's definitly on the creepy side of the spectrum.

 

EDIT: Googling around a bit, they seemed to be used in social contexts/situations, even somewhat as a humorish thing.

[LAwLz]

24 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

He has had weird business-cards printed out that he hands out to women and it seems he hands regular ones out to men:

 

Note that this was the first picture I found. I have no idea if there are other kinds or how many or anything like that. Oh, and he apparently calls them "pleasure-cards", not "romance-cards" -- I got the wording wrong at first.

That seems rather tame. Weird, but tame.

We have to remember that there is quite a bit of overlap between "likes technology" and "has autism". RMS having two different business cards, one for men and one for women, is not exactly something I'd say warrants getting him fired for. 

 

 

 

I quickly looked through Molly de Blanc's (the person who started the "petition" to get the FSF board members removed along with RMS) twitter and it's about what I expected. It's 90% tweets about how "X is racist" or "Y is misogynistic" and should be canceled. I am not surprised she is attacking RMS as well.

 

 

RMS is really autistic and often expresses his opinions in clunky ways. That makes a lot of his statements really easy to pick apart if you view them in bad faith. If you look at them in good faith however, I think you can quite easily see what he actually means.

[Lierdakil]

Just now, LAwLz said:

That seems rather tame. Weird, but tame.

We have to remember that there is quite a bit of overlap between "likes technology" and "has autism". RMS having two different business cards, one for men and one for women, is not exactly something I'd say warrants getting him fired for. 

 

 

 

I quickly looked through Molly de Blanc's (the person who started the "petition" to get the FSF board members removed along with RMS) twitter and it's about what I expected. It's 90% tweets about how "X is racist" or "Y is misogynistic" and should be canceled. I am not surprised she is attacking RMS as well.

After a bit of googling, RMS didn't hand out his "pleasure cards" (which seems to be a play on "business or pleasure" dichotomy more so than something less palpable -- remember RMS has "unusual sense of humour") in the "business" context -- he would happily hand out actual business cards. He did hand those "pleasure cards" out to people of any gender, reportedly, after he thought the "business" part was concluded (or indeed didn't even come into the picture)

[Aochan]

Why do the modern right has to refer to companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals as "cancelling" by "social justice warriors"? It's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions.

 

[Video Beagle]

8 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

After a bit of googling, RMS didn't hand out his "pleasure cards" (which seems to be a play on "business or pleasure" dichotomy more so than something less palpable -- remember RMS has "unusual sense of humour") in the "business" context -- he would happily hand out actual business cards. He did hand those "pleasure cards" out to people of any gender, reportedly, after he thought the "business" part was concluded (or indeed didn't even come into the picture)

Yeah, was just coming to edit my comment above that they seemed to be used in social contexts/situations, even somewhat as a humorish thing...

[gloop]

1 hour ago, Lierdakil said:

“justice oriented software.”

Can someone explain what 'justice oriented software' is, how it works and its purpose?

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, Aochan said:

Why do the modern right has to refer to companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals as "cancelling" by "social justice warriors"? It's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions.

I looked through this entire thread as well as every single source OP posted.

Nobody except you (and a quick note on "justifce-for-rms*) has brought up freedom of speech. 

 

Nobody here is arguing anything about freedom of speech. Nobody here is arguing politics either. In fact, I'd say that RMS is about as far from the political right as possible.

I get that the whole "freedom of speech only applies to governments" is the default argument for people who are pro corporates censorship, but you can't really use that card when nobody is arguing for freedom of speech.

 

 

*I recommend reading that source because it argues against that specific XKCD comic. I've pasted the specific section in the spoiler for those interested:

Spoiler

6.1 Consequences of speech and taboo

It is often argued that “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences”. For one example, see xkcd: Free Speech. According to that argument, freedom of speech only bars State censorship, while individuals and private organizations can punish taboo speech at will.

 

Up to a point, that argument is valid. The State’s great coercive power must be carefully limited, while private individuals and organizations have freedom of association. Indeed, individuals and organizations do not freely choose whether to be under the State’s jurisdiction and, therefore, society faces the great danger of the State becoming oppressive and trampling over rights and liberties. Even elected governments can become oppressive, because of dangers such as the tyranny of the majority. On the other hand, people choose whether to associate with (other) individuals and private organizations. If an individual or private organization becomes oppressive, it can be avoided. Therefore, the argument goes, individuals and private organizations can arbitrarily punish unwanted behavior and even taboo speech with actions such as boycotts and pressure to resign.

 

That is true, but only up to a point. A free, liberal society needs not only limits to State coercion, but also a prevailing culture of tolerance. Social exclusion is a great power and, if exerted unjustly, can cause great injustice. Lawmakers have even found it necessary to criminalize some forms of unjust social exclusion by individuals and private organizations. For example, American law forbids certain forms of discriminatory social exclusion concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing.

 

While some forms of unjust social exclusion have already been criminalized, it is naive to think that intolerant, unjust or unwise social exclusion is a solved problem. The belief that all legal forms of shunning are just rests on the assumption that the State has already criminalized all the unjust ones. The State cannot criminalize every error—if it did, it would be totalitarian. For justice and coherence, I do not campaign for all Stallman’s detractors to be punished⁹. Instead, I counter their bad (unwise and illiberal) campaign with topical counterarguments.

 

Social exclusion based on personal political opinions outside (and unrelated to) the person’s job is often counterproductive to a free society. Generally speaking, society must counter unwanted opinions with topical counterarguments or (when appropriate) harsh rebukes. Campaigns to severely punish the speaker should be reserved for a few delineated cases—e.g. fascism apologetics or denigration of subordinates on the basis of sex, race or sexual orientation by a holder of institutional power.

 

If society gets used to severely punishing taboo political opinions unrelated to the speaker’s job—and even after he retracted the most shocking one—then what happens when, on a given subject, orthodoxy happens to be wrong? How can we have an honest debate, seek Truth, and effect social change? What happened to freedom of inquiry?

 

I am not a free speech absolutist, but I do understand censorship—especially of political, philosophical or religious ideas—as a violent act (even if done by civil society) with serious long-term consequences. Complaints must be heard.

 

Indeed, according to Suzanne Nossel (CEO of PEN America and former executive director of Amnesty International USA), calling on institutions to restrict speech empowers them and “they will, on balance, deploy that prerogative self-servingly to suppress critics.” She adds:

Quote

Reflexive demands to punish errant speech discourage people from engaging in the kinds of dissent and deliberation that keep a society dynamic and prevent rigid orthodoxies from hardening. […] Throughout U.S. history and around the world in places such as China, Turkey and Iran, it is dissidents, minorities and government critics who have been most vulnerable absent robust free speech protections¹⁰.

 

 

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, Aochan said:

Why do the modern right has to refer to companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals as "cancelling" by "social justice warriors"? It's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions.

 

No one said this has anything to do with free speech...Much in the same way companies are protecting their interests, as you put it, individuals are free to criticize said companies or other people for doing or pushing for something they believe is stupid. After all it's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions, right?

 

No one is immune from criticism, ever.

[Aochan]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I looked through this entire thread as well as every single source OP posted.

Nobody except you (and a quick note on "justifce-for-rms) has brought up freedom of speech. 

 

Nobody here is arguing anything about freedom of speech. Nobody here is arguing politics as well. In fact, I'd say that RMS is about as far from the political right as possible.

 

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

No one said this has anything to do with free speech...Much in the same way companies are protecting their interests, as you put it, individuals are free to criticize said companies or other people for doing or pushing for something they believe is stupid. After all it's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions, right?

 

No one is immune from criticism, ever.

He acts like an ass and people is complaining that he is getting canceled for that. Which is the same old trite "muh freedom" argument.

[Lierdakil]

2 minutes ago, Aochan said:

Why do the modern right has to refer to companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals as "cancelling" by "social justice warriors"? It's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions.

Yes, see, the issue here is, this is not necessarily "companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals", it's more "an angry mob is out for blood". It's not the companies that are halting dealings with FSF that are doing the "cancelling", it's the angry mob. The issue is compounded of course, but it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

 

Also, you apparently pegged me as "modern right". That's nice. But you're wrong. I dislike political labels (and politics in general), but for the sake of your convenience I would identify as a left-leaning centrist.

 

Finally, "cancel RMS" is the actual wording used by many supporters of the "open letter to remove RMS" -- so I don't really understand your complaint. Feel free to suggest an alternate title if you think it would be more adequate, and we may discuss that.

[Aochan]

4 minutes ago, Lierdakil said:

Yes, see, the issue here is, this is not necessarily "companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals", it's more "an angry mob is out for blood". It's not the companies that are halting dealings with FSF that are doing the "cancelling", it's the angry mob. The issue is compounded of course, but it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

 

Also, you apparently pegged me as "modern right". That's nice. But you're wrong. I dislike political labels (and politics in general), but for the sake of your convenience I would identify as a left-leaning centrist.

 

Finally, "cancel RMS" is the actual wording used by many supporters of the "open letter to remove RMS" -- so I don't really understand your complaint. Feel free to suggest an alternate title if you think it would be more adequate, and we may discuss that.

Politics is in everything dude. Just because you think you are extraneous to it doesn't mean you don't partake in it. Even this issue is politics at the core, where one person who spouts idiotic prejudices is being held accountable for those. And I agree that giving people a pass for being asses is dangerous and creates toxic environments.

 

Yourself called out "social justice warriors" (or a synonym), putting a derogative term in the title, already setting sides.

[Tristerin]

The good, the bad, the ugly of Social "Justice".  Love it or hate it, if it affects a companies bottom line they will change.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, Aochan said:

He acts like an ass and people is complaining that he is getting canceled for that. Which is the same old trite "muh freedom" argument.

1) I don't think he acted like an ass.

2) Nobody is making the "freedom of speech" argument. At best your arguments so far have been strawman arguments. You can't just go "well it's almost the same thing" if your argument hinges on specific details and specific laws.
3) Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about people complaining about someone complaining? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me like you are basically saying "we are free to attack RMS if we want, but people shouldn't be free to defend him or attack us".

 

4 minutes ago, Aochan said:

Politics is in everything dude. Just because you think you are extraneous to it doesn't mean you don't partake in it. Even this issue is politics at the core, where one person who spouts idiotic prejudices is being held accountable for those. And I agree that giving people a pass for being asses is dangerous and creates toxic environments.

 

Yourself called out "social justice warriors", putting a derogative term in the title, already setting sides.

I think this is the type of black and white thinking that has caused politics to be become so polarizing.

The whole "you're either with us or against us" tribe mentality is what causes "toxic environments" if you ask me.

[Drama Lama]

17 minutes ago, gloop said:

Can someone explain what 'justice oriented software' is, how it works and its purpose?

I think it's like free software ( free as in freedom ) but If someone who i don't like uses it I can say no

[Aochan]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) I don't think he acted like an ass.

2) Nobody is making the "freedom of speech" argument. At best your arguments so far have been strawman arguments. You can't just go "well it's almost the same thing" if your argument hinges on specific details and specific laws.
3) Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about people complaining about someone complaining? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me like you are basically saying "we are free to attack RMS if we want, but people shouldn't be free to defend him or attack us".

 

I think this is the type of black and white thinking that has caused politics to be become so polarizing.

The whole "you're either with us or against us" tribe mentality is what causes "toxic environments" if you ask me.

I don't agree with "cancel culture", but I sure do agree that assholes can play with themselves and people is entitled to not having them around. For every person that takes idiotic jokes for being idiotic jokes, there's always a bunch that will take them at face value and reinforce their beliefs; orgs such as FSF need to defend their interests, which are important to society at large.

 

But yeah, keep arguing that he is not a douche, I don't care or complain, I just find it quite ridicolous.

[Lierdakil]

40 minutes ago, Aochan said:

 

He acts like an ass and people is complaining that he is getting canceled for that. Which is the same old trite "muh freedom" argument.

Well, "acts like an ass" is arguable. In fact, sources [8, 10] argue he's not acting as much of an ass as the "cancel RMS" crowd insists he is (with actual arguments that is). As I said in the OP, it's hard to figure out who's right or wrong here. My experience tells me everyone's wrong in some capacity.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Lierdakil
Small edit for clearer wording