I think there's a
lot of rhetoric that implicitly, or even explicitly, insists that there are easily defined bright lines here: "Say [thing X] and you should definitively be out, full stop" vs. "Anything you say or do 'off the clock' has no bearing on your work whatsoever, no way no how." I'm extremely doubtful those lines actually exist. Context matters, and in practice -- for both good and ill -- the social norms and mores of the time, place, and organizations in question
are going to come into play, and it's just unrealistic to expect otherwise.
And, sure, this is political in some real sense, but it's not just the politics of "the other side." A C-suite executive at Patagonia is likely to be not-so-politely asked to find other work if they start publicly pushing Trumpworld's stolen election propaganda; a C-suite executive at a Catholic hospital is going to face capital-Q Questions if it comes out that they've donated tens of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood. What you do "off the clock" matters to your employer if they feel it reflects badly on them. This is not some kind of brand new thing that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for those angry millennials with their twitters and their social justices. What's changed over time are the specifics of Things Perceived To Reflect Badly.
With respect to RMS, there have been reports about his bad social behavior for decades. In the last few years, our attitudes toward harassing behavior has grown a lot less tolerant, and "Ha ha, that's just ol' creepy Bob, what are you gonna do, am I right" is no longer seen as a sufficient response. "Sure, Bob is a creep, but he's done such great work, so just suck it up, Buttercup" sends a message to prospective employees, customers, donors, sponsors, vendors, etc., that companies and organizations are increasingly deciding that they do not want to send. I understand that this sucks for the ol' creepy Bobs of the world, but is that really sufficient reason to default to taking Bob's side?
The pro-RMS thread that runs through these comments[1] is, and I am only barely paraphrasing here, Stallman's contributions to the free software movement are so important they excuse his documented mistreatment of others for decades. In other words: be a big enough name in free software and you can get away with anything, baby.
And maybe you're comfortable with that message. But I'm not at all sure you should be.
[1] There is also a pro-RMS thread running through these comments which I can paraphrase as "but he was only hypothetically defending pedophilia and it's so dishonest of the media to present that as if it were weird and disturbing in any possible way," which, I mean, look. There's a reasonable discussion to be had about how "Think of the Children" has become the third rail of all internet discussions, but this ain't it, chief.