But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise.
For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth.
We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.
Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate.
Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back.
... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.
If you can slide a conceptual wedge between the free choice to use GNU over Microsoft because you believe in the Four Freedoms and the free choice to not work with FSF until they oust Stallman because you believe he's a creep, go for it.
It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.
Of course.
But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise.
For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth.
We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.
> and we choose to hold him accountable
Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.
Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate.
Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back.
... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.
Cancelling is punishing of an individual by the crowd without a fair process. It should not exist. Choosing your software is not cancelling.
If you can slide a conceptual wedge between the free choice to use GNU over Microsoft because you believe in the Four Freedoms and the free choice to not work with FSF until they oust Stallman because you believe he's a creep, go for it.
It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
> and the free choice to not work with FSF
This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.
Who's being forced? Collective action isn't forcing; it's voluntary choice.