He did literally nothing wrong. What happened to freedom of speech?

There was never a "concept".

shut up didnt read dont care. fat retard got owned LMAO did nothing for free software. pedo ass

>What happened to freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech never left. It's just people who were indoctrinated with negative behaviors.
Not checking facts is on. For example this could have been avoided if people either had read the MIT themselves instead of reading a news article saying what they should think or if they had asked politely to RMS.

>nothing wrong

I don't think the victims of Minsky agree with that statement, user.

It died when this country stopped killing communists for their beliefs.

>If there is no freedom from consequences, then there is no freedom. Granted there are things that have natural self-inflicted
I disagree. We must distinguish social consequences from legal consequences. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right, meaning it's a right of the people protected from the law. Meaning, only freedom from consequences under law is guaranteed. Freedom from consequences in society is not guaranteed, nor can it be guaranteed without infringing upon the essential rights of other private citizens.

He resigned because he has cancer you conclusion-jumping need to get your skull hammered in piece of shit

>fat fuck makes dumb comments and retires from a private organisation to limit the damage
How is this case relevant for freeze peach? He's a free man and has nothing to fear from the state.

source user?

There's no proof they actually had sex.

Freedom of Speech was only supposed to protect you from being prosecution by the government for telling them to suck a fat one.

Attached: ClXTo2vWgAAiO-w.jpg large.jpg (702x394, 40K)

I'm being sarcastic my friend. Whenever a "liberal/progressive" tries to justify their unliberal/non-progressive attitude it's usually a long-winded rant on how people should be free to say whatever they can, as long as they can throw the first rock. It sucks, of course, but that's what happens when revolutionaries become the status quo.
In my opinion, the only wrong-think Stallman is guilty about is thinking rational arguments could convince an angry mob, or any arguments for that matter.

>What happened to freedom of speech?
That doesn't exist for you shitlords.

>say something unpopular
>lose social and economic power

and somehow "leftists" think this is a good thing?

If everyone can jump to totalitarian boogeymen because they have trouble cleaning their own rooms, I can say he has cancer and give it just as much weight. Look it up. I'm sure someone has info somewhere. Why wouldn't they

>rational argument
"How could a professor tell that the sex slaves on pedo island belonging to a well know creep could possibly not be willing to fuck a nasty piece of shit?"

More like hiding from responsibility in wilful ignorance.

>I'm entitled to social and economic power even though I'm a Nazi

>doesn't understand what freedom of speech even is
never change, Jow Forums

>fat fuck makes dumb comments and retires from a private organisation to limit the damage
stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Statements_about_Epstein)
>I want to respond to the misleading media coverage of messages I posted about Marvin Minsky's association with Jeffrey Epstein. The coverage totally mischaracterised my statements.

>Headlines say that I defended Epstein. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a "serial rapist", and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said.

>I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.

Read the MIT thread
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/09132019142056-0001.pdf

Do those private citizens have an essential right to form a black bloc and punch innocents as a means of enacting a "consequence in society"?
I get and overall agree with the idea you're getting at. You don't have the right to be liked, or for people to care about you, but there are so many ways to abuse such a fence-sit.
also fuck you.

No. Punching people is assault.

>What happened to freedom of speech
You commies killed it
Dont you remember?

Good job on proving my point. Next time quote what the man said word for word.

>freedom of speech
His website is still up. This may have changed the world, but it certainly hasn't changed his personal life any more than he chooses to let it.

Lol, the most ironic possible proof that it's fucking over for arguments.

It's not that you're aren't free from consequences, it's that other entities are free to do what they want to you. This could be anything from articles published about what you did to the fbi busting down your door to arrest you. Society is a big game of moral fagging and you have to think about what you're saying and who you're saying it to at all times.

>"How could a professor tell that the sex slaves on pedo island belonging to a well know creep could possibly not be willing to fuck a nasty piece of shit?"
Did RMS and co know at that time that Epstein had a slave island ?
We make imaginary portraits of these things but we are far from knowing how it goes.
Don't you think that Epstein would let a stranger have his way with one of his slave if that said slave wasn't menaced or brainwashed ?
Have you ever heard of operant conditioning ? How you never seen all the patents that exist on subliminal technologies ?

I'll remember this every chance we get to take away boomers' social security.

>not giving zero fucks about this issue
Jesus fuck, way to get sucked into pointless controversy. RMS is a weirdass pedo and freefuck and the fuck he talked about is an amoral fucktard. I say fuck all of them and install OS/2.

>say something unpopular
Bit of an understatement for rape and pedo apologism.

Besides, social consequences are simply unavoidable. The politics don't really matter. If you tell people that you love to eat your own shit, they will unlikely want to associate with you. Same if you tell people that your buddy who raped a teen maybe didn't know it was rape and hey, what is rape anyway? It has nothing to do with ZE LEFT. How long will the pope last if he starts talking about swallowing his boyfriends cum? How long will a kindergardener who tells you how she wants to fuck your kid even if she never acts on it?

No one gives a shit about the dumb headlines about Epstein. He said nothing wrong about him and indeed was misquoted. His comments about Minsky where he suggested that he rapist buddy didn't know he was raping the chick shows how out of touch he is, or that he defends a rapist.

Please, do make an argument how someone not mentally impaired could presume teens willingly fucked a nasty old fuck.

>Did RMS and co know at that time that Epstein had a slave island ?
Minsky clearly did. RMS generally should've just kept his ignorant trap shut instead of jumping to the defence.
>Don't you think that Epstein would let a stranger have his way with one of his slave if that said slave wasn't menaced or brainwashed ?
It would be still apparent for anyone non braindead that they were even before they fucked. Simply having an island with teens is a good warning sigh. No sort of brainwashing would turn a kid into an actor good enough to fool an old fuck that they actually wanted to fuck him. A fucking professor at that.

How long before he commits suicide after realizing a leftist lynch mob ruined everything he earned? It's so funny too because he's super left wing and his own people cannibalized him.

Based, fuck Unix/Linux/BSD and fuck Guhnoo.

yes, all people are entitled to economic and social power. That's the whole point of socialism.

Social consequences aren't unavoidable. They're a matter of laws. If I decided to say that I think Jesus is the savior of mankind, I couldn't be fired for that, because we have religious protection laws. We should have the same thing for ideology.

There's really no distinction between religious and non-religious belief systems.

Good thing I'm not a socialist.

>waaaah why don't people like pedos

back to plebbit with you

>I couldn't be fired for that, because we have religious protection laws.
But if you lived in a word where everyone hates religious people and your co workers wouldn't want to work with you; your presence in the company would create a disturbance, lower performance, turn away customers and give reasons to fire you.

Incidentally, stuff like pedophilia or rape apologism aren't too popular. Besides, it's not like anyone fired RMS, he understood that his presence would harm the reputation of the organisation he represented and did the reasonable thing for a change.

>dude social consequences
Funny how journalists and these twitter mobs lie through their fucking teeth and slander like nobody's business, yet suffer no social or legal consequences for it.

He wasn't fired from anything. He voluntarily resigned. And pedophilia is not a belief system. And you sure as hell can be fired for your beliefs if they are a distraction to the company. A company is not forced to keep a controversial figure employed.

>But if you lived in a word where everyone hates religious people and your co workers wouldn't want to work with you; your presence in the company would create a disturbance, lower performance, turn away customers and give reasons to fire you.

yeah, that's why it's illegal to do that, and why there are lawsuits all the time to prevent and punish exactly that behavior.

yeah of course you can be fired for beliefs (as long as they aren't religious). I'm saying we should expand these employment protection laws to apply to all belief systems.

Companies should be forced to keep controversial figures employed.

He failed to take into account that people don't actually care about context or even the truth any more. If you say something which can be used against you (even if it's a small snippet taken completely out of context), you can be sure that it will be. Most of the headlines I've seen reporting his comments outright say that he went to bat for Epstein and defended him. That is, verifiably, a lie. Yet nobody really cares and are happy to stoke the flames regardless, and the "journalists" who are explicitly and intentionally misrepresenting his viewpoint aren't called out or censured for it.

Honk honk.

Attached: ....jpg (115x109, 5K)

VICE, huffpo, and guardian journalists get no social repercussions for defending pedophilia, keep that in mind.

This fake outrage is just because the powers that be wanted to oust a neckbeard like Stallman with no social influence or power as he was one of the few things preventing *full* homo corporate takeover

Attached: gtoss.png (987x994, 557K)

>Companies should be forced
Wow, ok, HITLER

That's not free speech. Entities should be able to not associate with you for any reason including religion, race, and sex. That is true freedom.

Ah yes, what you believe in matters
Keep telling us your opinions. More opinions, please!

>Besides, social consequences are simply unavoidable.
Bullshit, my friend. The fact that one can say they like to take it in their rear in front on children and be all fine and dandy shows how one can be protected from social consequences. Or how about the social consequences of telling lie after lie and conduct a bullying campaign against an old man? Nonexistent.

OK, well that's not our current reality, and it never will be. Let's have real solutions.

>NOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST PASS LAWS

It's illegal to fire someone for being religious. In the scenario the person would be fired for the impact it had.

Besides for specific cases it actually matters, if you worship Baal and are into child sacrifices, your beliefs would make employment at a kindergarden rather tricky. If your beliefs prevent you from washing your hands, you couldn't work as a doctor. Etc, etc.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DEAD

Cool, time to get a job at a lockheed martin-type company and hope nobody minds my pro-CCP/ISIS/DPRK/Iran nuclear proliferation related paraphernalia.

That should be acceptable.

There are social consequences. Those people are disliked by you. It just turns out that being disliked by a bunch of worthless NEETs on an anonymus board does not matter much.

dead along with freedom it self and democracy. The real question is did they ever exist to begin with?

This simply means these things are accepted, hence there are no negative social consequences. Even simple as stuff like deciding to wear a red shirt over a blue shirt would have social consequences, but if the society you live in accepts either, you're fine. If they hate red shirts, you're fucked.

It's living in a society 1o1, there are unspoken rules and norms.

>"durr u think the working class should have ideological freedom"

yes.

they are unspoken rules and norms that are engineered by the ruling class. What is and isn't "socially acceptable" is completely arbitrary and purely a side-effect of material conditions. This is why it's important to treat ideologies as things outside the control of the minds they inhabit.

being a nazi should have no greater social stigma than being gay. Both are a product of your genes and environment.

Material conditions are the only conditions that matter, and if throwing gays under the bus means we can throw nazis under the same bus, then I'm all for it.

>Both are a product of your genes and environment
That's shouldn't be an automatic get-out-of-jail free card, though.

Maybe now Emacs will use a sane scripting language, like Perl(6) or Ruby or Python.

For harmless things like sharing your opinion, it absolutely should be. Having to constantly police your own thoughts to avoid economic ruin makes for a very unhealthy society.

No, it means these things are tolerated, not accepted. It takes a certain amount of rationality to tolerate something you disagree with, which is why tolerance is a must when you engage in rational argument.
>But Stallman defended a rapist! That should not be rationally defended
Have a problem with whatever Stallman said? Good, I do too. In fact I have problems with many things Stallman has said and done. But guess what? Having a problem with something Stallman said doesn't mean I have a problem with Stallman existing. I can refute whatever Stallman said and hope he learns from our exchange, or be a little bit bummed that he didn't. These people can't because they can't refute anything. Their entire worldview is based on appeal to authority, so of course they're going to get the biggest piece of authority to shut you up. People have to point this out over and over so they stop getting away with it.

Surprised no one has complained that they are basically bullying him over being autistic. Effectively persecuting someone over a disability. SJWs routinely do this, autists and some other disorders have very poor social and communication skills, SJWs systematically target them in tech and science as they can't defend themselves.

And the alternative is the government constantly policing people for what reasons they can and cannot have for disliking someone else.

>that are engineered by the ruling class.
You give them too much credit. A lot of this stuff is decided by society at large.
>What is and isn't "socially acceptable" is completely arbitrary
Not completely but mostly, yeah.
>and purely a side-effect of material conditions
Care to elaborate? Sounds too simplistic to boil it down to one factor.
>Both are a product of your genes and environment.
Both also impact how you interact with your environment and how the environment interacts with you. You being a faggot or a nazi might be the result of billions of coincidences and not your fault per se; be it'd still make no sense to ignore the final outcome. Expecting some of the typical nazi targets to work with someone who openly wants them dead is just not realistic and would cause unnecessary tension.

Like come on, imagine opening a kosher shop and hiring a well known nazi as a casher, during the breaks the guy posts on FB about gassing the jews and tweets bits from his fan-fiction about bombing the local synagogue. The business isn't going to make you many shekels.

How many people actually have a problem with him existing? Him working as a representative of an organisation that depends on popular support is simply a bad call for the organisation after he lost social support.

>to avoid economic ruin
Avoidable with basic income.

Sad but his downfall is highly predictable if you watched him for more than 10 minutes.
He can NEVER dial down even a little bit of what he argues for and he never accepts that he is anything but totally correct and precise. Pretty much has the same narcissistic tendencies like Trump. It's probably autism but eventually the internet mob will get you if you operate this way.

There's such a thing as harassment moron. Try organizing a campaign to financially and socially ruin someone for being gay and watch what happens.

that would be nice as well. I don't see why we couldn't just have both laws.

Well you could still have codes of conduct about how to behave while at work. You should be able to have total freedom outside of the workplace is what I'm suggesting.

The constitution was only designed to protect you from government consequences. This is why you can't be a door greeter at Walmart and scream "NIGGER!" at everyone who walks in and expect to keep your job, although you can expect to not be arrested. Murder, on the other hand, does have the expectation of governmental consequence, where you run the risk of being caught, tried, imprisoned, and maybe even executed, all by government employees.

You have about a 7th grade understanding of what the Constitution is. It only limits the government, not private individuals.

Yes, much like they currently do. Here's how it would work

>you share your opinion on a topic, and it's controversial
>obese marvel fans try to get you fired from your Cashier's job
>your boss caves to pressure and fires you
>you sue him for wrongful termination and win

after enough wins, companies would be afraid to cave to the mob. It's about balancing incentives to make society better.

>How many people actually have a problem with him existing?
Many, seeing how people bandwagoned using #cancelstallman as a banner. Besides, how is calling for the ousting of a man from the public sphere not having a problem with him existing?

Go fire someone for being a fag

And yes, expressing faghood is as much of a choice as expressing opinions

>they are basically bullying him over
Because SJWs using literal bullying tactics on purpose is not news in any way. Even Tumblr used to call itself out on that.

Can I host porn on your home computer? If not, why do you hate free speech?

Except none of those cases ever win because that's not how the law works.

>And yes, expressing faghood is as much of a choice as expressing opinions
Not according to the law. It's an identity. Your opinion on what is and is not an identity has no bearing on the legal system as it currently is.

it is, though.

this fuck's just being held to his own standards. If you read his political notes then you know he's completely onboard with cancel culture as long as it's not one of his MIT cronies being accused,

No one is trying to financially ruin him, and that campaign would do nothing because most people don't care about someone being gay.

Yeah, I'm sure the Google memo guy case is going great right?

fuck your faggot law, it's not going to matter when the global east rises up and grinds your decadent, pathetic cum filled asses into dust. My final revenge will be laughing at you as we both face the firing squad for what the west deserves

that's the first amendment retard. Freedom of Expression is an Enlightenment concept of Natural Rights, meaning it is a moral crime for a human to deprive it from another.

lmao look at this hysterical loser

Stallman is expressing himself just fine.

None of that has anything to do with the Constitution, or free speech. It's pretty obvious that you're just super bum-bothered over what happened to Stallman, so much so that you can't think logically.

>I don't see why we couldn't just have both laws.
Because one guarantees people freedom without fear of economical ruin while the other would create dystopian work environments, that would also harm the business and hence the other workers. A team consisting of a terf feminist, rape supporter, hardcore catholic, flamboyant faggot, a jewish tranny and a nazi wouldn't be too effective.

>codes of conduct about how to behave while at work
Hence I used examples that wouldn't break these, yet still would cause a negative impact.

More of calls to fire him for his job due thinking he isn't fit for it. Not nice by any means but hardly calls to jail him or kill the guy. People do similar shit when it comes to actors, musicians or recently the GoT writers. If you have a public facing job and the overall public mood is against you, you end up being not fit for it.

Can I host gay furry porn on your home computer? If not, why do you hate free speech? You are depriving me of my free speech.

Attached: free_speech.png (566x577, 52K)

You can think that all you want, but while you have the right to express yourself however you like, I have the right to disassociate myself from you for doing so.

tick tock westies

Attached: 28nj2b.jpg (940x1444, 581K)