Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

meribold.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 274 posts

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#21

Post by junon »

joana035 wrote: post #11
yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.

I think both comments above have taken the argument to the extremes on both ends.

OHO, I think RMS is making a point about the excuses governments and LEOs make in favor of censorship/anti-encryption - a good one, at that.

OTOH, he does a pretty piss-poor job describing it in that blurb. I'm not convinced this is an argument in favor of child pornography. I'm simply choosing to believe it's poor wording on RMS's part trying to make a point about encryption and he's not actually in favor of child pornography.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#22

Post by why_Mr_Anderson »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #9

RMS is a terrible spokesperson for free software. I wish the FSF could just fire him and move on. How do I know he's a terrible spokesperson? Because we're talking about him and not about free software. It's that simple. I want the FSF to focus on free software and I want the discourse around the FSF to be about free software. Not RMS.

But RMS is one of the main reasons why there is any free software in first place. Without his obsession, it would be long destroyed.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#23

Post by joana035 »

yur3i__ wrote: post #18
joana035 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.

That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".

You are taking his arguments out of context.

Everything out of context will sound strange.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#24

Post by yur3i__ »

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #14
yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

If a 16 years old girl sends nude photo her 16 year old boyfriend in Germany, it's fine. If she does the same in US, he's pedophile. This is what RMS was talking about.

>But even when it is uncontroversial to call the subject depicted a "child", that is no excuse for censorship. Having a photo or drawing does not hurt anyone

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#25

Post by henearkr »

yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

He seems genuinely ignorant (to his defense) that those are not just still pictures, images, "doing no harm", but that they have a story, they have been taken at some point, sometimes under duress, and then that some people are paying to get them, so it's a whole economics, and it's powerful enough to crush the weak at the bottom end, including non-consentant enslaved children.

Then again, maybe what should be prohibited and punished is the sale and the buy, rather than just the possession. But is it technically feasible?

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#26

Post by _y5hn »

yur3i__ wrote: post #18
joana035 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.

That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".

Does he still assert that still, or are examples of past being re-used over and over?

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#27

Post by Zanni »

A critique of "A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS": the author claims that Stallman's transphobia is down to Stallman proposing a set of singular, gender-neutral pronouns other than 'they', 'their' and theirs'. Which Stallman indeed does, but if you read on, Stallman also says he'll flat out refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns if they disagree with his scheme. To overlook that in a critique of a critique is a massive oversight at best, it not outright disingenuous.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#29

Post by gnfargbl »

joana035 wrote: post #11
yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

Since the sky is blue police has been using CP as an excuse to break encryption, search electronic devices, etc. RMS is not wrong.

Alternate take: child exploitation has been a pervasive and damaging disease in society "since the sky is blue", and in more recent decades law enforcement has begun seriously attempting to counter it.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#30

Post by truculent »

why_Mr_Anderson wrote: post #14
yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

If a 16 years old girl sends nude photo her 16 year old boyfriend in Germany, it's fine. If she does the same in US, he's pedophile. This is what RMS was talking about.

That is the most generous possible interpretation, and frankly, I do not think it's supported by the actually linked text.

The only line that could be interpreted in that way would be:

> This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared.

And even then, it is ambiguous.

Post reply on HN