Thank you, Bryan Lunduke, for breaking this.

It looks like the hardcore left is turning on its own.

<https://lunduke.locals.com/upost/6232184/the-stallman-report-a-hit-piece-on-the-free-software-founder>

<https://stallman-report.org/>

Richard Stallman (aka “RMS”) is the founder of GNU and the Free Software
Foundation and present-day voting member of the Free Software Foundation
(FSF) board of directors and “Chief GNUisance” of the GNU project. He is
responsible for innumerable contributions to the free software movement,
setting its guiding principles, organizing political action, and
directly contributing to a flourishing free software ecosystem. The
majority of Stallman’s political activity has been of priceless value to
society at large.

However, Stallman has been the subject of numerous allegations of
misconduct. Stallman has also incited numerous controversies for
advancing a political agenda which normalizes sexual misconduct and
advocates for reforming our social and legal understanding of sexual
conduct in a manner which benefits the perpetrators of abuse.

On the basis that Stallman has not demonstrated an understanding of his
misconduct; has not apologized for allegations of misconduct, alleged or
corroborated; continues to publish his harmful political program; and
does not acknowledge or apologize for harm done in the course of this
program, this report reiterates the position that Stallman should be
removed from the board of directors at the Free Software Foundation.

To support this case, we have catalogued the following:

Primary sources documenting Stallman’s political advocacy for:
The normalization of sexual relations between adults and minors [1]
Defense of individuals both accused and convicted of sexual crimes,
including the rape of minors, sexual assault, and sexual harassment [2]
Dismissal of legal norms regarding sexual assault [3]
Dismissal of legal norms regarding sexual harassment [4]
Support for the possession of child sexual abuse material [5]
Legal and social normalization of sex between humans and animals [6]
Legal and social normalization of sex with corpses (necrophilia) [7]
Credible allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Stallman [8]
Misconduct of the Free Software Foundation board of directors [9]
Calls from the free software community for Stallman’s removal [10]
Recommendations for reconciliation and closure [11]
Content warning: This report catalogues and directly quotes hundreds of
statements from Richard Stallman of an extremely offensive nature on
subjects including rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, sexual
exploitation of children, and more. Sensitive readers are strongly
advised to proceed with caution.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of sexual violence, help
is available. The United States National Sexual Assault Hotline can be
reached at 800-656-HOPE (4673), and is available for live chat online
24/7. You can speak to a trained expert for confidential support at any
time.

International readers are directed to HotPeachPages for resources in
your location and your language, and Child Helpline International
provides international resources specifically aimed at the needs of
children and young people.

Statement regarding Stallman’s medical situation
We understand that Richard Stallman was diagnosed with follicular
lymphoma in 2023.1 We are pleased to hear that his prognosis is good and
his cancer is in remission. We wish Stallman good health, a peaceful
recovery, and many more years of health.

We are not of the opinion that Stallman’s cancer diagnosis absolves him
of responsibility for his actions, past and present. We urge Stallman to
reconsider his controversial political positions and issue retractions
and/or apologies to the extent that his health permits him to do so, and
draw attention to the fact that Stallman continues to forward his
controversial views following his diagnosis. We also urge the free
software community to hold Stallman accountable for his actions and to
contend with our history of sexism and tolerating abuse.

Why publish this report?
Richard Stallman has a profound influence on the free software community
and our movement. He is responsible for defining the four freedoms that
steer us, he has written all of our principal philosophy, he founded our
foundational software projects, and he is venerated as our ideological
leader.

Richard Stallman has also embarked upon a decades-long political project
to normalize sexual violence. Under his ideological leadership, the free
software movement is unsafe, particularly for women. Women represent
just 3% of the free software community,2 compared to 23% of industry
programmers generally.3 This is no accident. There is a pervasive
culture of sexism and a stark lack of accountability in free software,
and it begins with Stallman’s unchallenged and reprehensible behavior.

The case against Stallman is clear, and yet the free software community
has failed to act, in particular at the level of institutions and
leadership but also in the form of grassroots support for Stallman. Many
defenses of Stallman rely on a comfortable ignorance: ignorance of the
scope and depth of Stallman’s political campaign against women and
victims of sexual violence, or a comfortable belief that Stallman ceased
his problematic behavior following his 2021 re-instatement in the Free
Software Foundation. Some believe that Stallman’s speech has not caused
material harm, or that his fringe views are not taken seriously; we
provide evidence to dismiss all of these arguments in this report.

Ignorance of the case against Stallman is due in part to the scattered
and disorganized nature of information regarding Stallman’s misconduct.
Many of those who raise a defense of Stallman have heard one or two
uncorroborated allegations of misconduct or one or two examples of
years-old problematic quotes, and understandably find it easier to
excuse it as such. Furthermore, those most directly accountable for
Stallman’s behavior are the members of the Free Software Foundation
board of directors, and their misconduct in handling the case is not
widely known; this report brings this misconduct to light. By carefully
organizing information about Stallman’s misconduct and the misconduct of
the FSF board of directors into a single, comprehensive and exhaustively
cited report, the appeal to ignorance is no longer applicable.

This report collects hundreds of primary sources from 2003 to 2024 which
clearly demonstrate Stallman’s harmful political program and misconduct,
meticulously cataloged, analyzed, and subject to factual rebuttals. If
the free software community cannot address the blatant misconduct of
Richard Stallman in the face of overwhelming evidence, the free software
community is not safe, and cannot be made safe. Our institutions and our
community must act. We have made several recommendations for such
actions at the end of the report.

First, we will justify our unqualified condemnation of Richard Stallman.

Stallman’s political statements
Richard Stallman maintains a collection of political notes on his
website.4 He frequently publishes short political opinions on his
website here on a wide variety of topics. In this report we draw
attention to his political program on sex, drawing from his political
notes as a primary source.

Note that all quotes sourced from Stallman’s website for this report are
direct quotes of material publicly available at the time this report was
prepared in September 2024.5 You may click any citation to view it on
Stallman’s website.

Analysis of Stallman’s published comments
We have catalogued comments published by Stallman, mostly in the
political notes section of his personal website, and categorized
comments of interest. Each link leads to a page which provides a
complete list of comments applicable to each category. Some comments
have been reproduced in multiple categories.

Category Dates applicable Occurrences
Total Retracted
Yes No
Distinction between "children" and other minors 2003-2024 124 n/a
Support of child sexual abuse material 2003-2019 55 0 55
Defense of sexual misconduct 2006-2023 37 1 36
Support of sex between adults and minors 2006-2019 34 5 29
Misrepresentation of sexual assault 2015-2024 24 1 23
Misrepresentation of sexual harassment 2014-2018 13 0 13
Support of bestiality 2003-2018 12 0 12
Support of necrophilia 2003-2013 3 0 3

Normalization of sexual relations between adults and minors
Richard Stallman has consistently advanced the political position that
minors can consent to sex with adults. Stallman’s position on minors
having sex with adults is the only position addressed in this report for
which Stallman has issued a retraction:

Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex
between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to
understand how sex with a child can harm per6 psychologically. This
changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I
am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

– stallman.org, 14 September 2019 “Sex between an adult and a child is
wrong”

However, as we will show, Stallman’s retraction is misleading and does
not cover the majority of his past statements on the subject. In short,
we will show that Stallman’s 2019 retraction only addresses his views
regarding sex between adults and pre-pubescent minors, and this
retraction does not account for minors above the age of 12 or 13.

Our report catalogues 34 political comments from Stallman making a
political case for sexual relationships between adults and minors. A
strict reading of the retraction applies it only to the singular
political note that it references, which Stallman has updated accordingly:

This quote is covered by Stallman's 2019 retraction. Click to show.
Stallman has not updated similar comments with the same retraction.
However, in good faith we have assumed that the retraction applies to
any comments which would apply to minors under the age of 12 or 13, or
explicitly refers to “children”. Accounting for this, our catalog of
Stallman’s 34 comments in support of sex between adults and minors
indicates that four have been fully retracted and one has been partially
retracted.

Appendix: Stallman on sexual relations between adults and minors

We justify our interpretation by citing 124 primary sources in which
Stallman insists on a distinction between “children” and other minors,
in particular teenagers. Our sources are dated from 2003 to 2024;
Stallman has emphasized that teenagers are distinct from “children”, on
average, once every 9 weeks since 2003. Stallman has made this
distinction 42 times following his 2019 retraction, an average of once
every 6½ weeks since the retraction.

Appendix: Stallman’s idiolectical use of “child”

To understand Stallman’s remarks on sexual relationships between adults
and minors, we must show how Stallman distinguishes between “children”
and other minors.

Stallman is particular about his use of language, and a reading of his
political notes must be paired with an understanding of his idiolect.
Stallman uses numerous unconventional definitions and terminology in his
political notes and does so with rigour and consistency. In order to
assist the reader in interpreting Stallman’s political notes, he
provides two resources on his website: a glossary7 and an “anti-glossary”8.

Consider the following political note:

The company Dataminr tries to scan all posted tweets to find anything
suggestive of possible violent intent, and report it to the thugs.

– stallman.org, 16 October 2020, “BIBO: company reports tweets to thugs”

Out of context, the reader may be confused as to who the “thugs” are.
The glossary answers:

Thugs: the armed, usually uniformed marauders that attack protesters and
blacks, and make false accusations against them.

Usually only a few thugs commit the physical violence, but when one thug
makes a false accusation, the rest lie to support it. That’s why they
deserve the term “thugs” as a group. They are so habituated to perjury
that they have their own word for it: “testilying”.

A few members of thug departments are upright and refuse to support the
others’ lies. They are the honorable exceptions, and I express my
respect for them by calling them “police officers”.

– stallman.org, “Glossary”

It follows that when Stallman says the word “thug”, he is referring to
the police, and indeed his use of the word “thug” is consistent with
this in thousands of his political notes. Many banal words and phrases
are given a similar treatment in his political notes and the two
glossaries serve as a guide for readers to interpret and understand his
political notes as such.

Notably, the following definition also appears in Stallman’s anti-glossary:

Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they
become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of
infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”.

– stallman.org, “Anti-Glossary”

That Stallman’s use of the word “child” is consistent with this
idiolectical definition and is re-enforced throughout Stallman’s
political notes. He has drawn a distinction between children and
teenagers numerous times, which this report catalogues in an appendix.

Appendix: Stallman’s idiolectical use of “child”

Stallman has made this distinction most recently in June 2024:

Please do not use the word “children” or “child” to refer to anyone
under age 18. A 17-year-old is not a child. A 13-year-old is a teenager.

– stallman.org, 16 June 2024 “Online addictive-feeds law NY”

Stallman’s insistence on distinguishing children from other minors, in
particular teenagers, is often made with sexual overtures. For example,
in December 2023:

The intended purpose of that law is to prevent minors from accessing
porn sites. To exclude everyone under 18 is unreasonably strict. They
try to justify this by referring to all minors as “children”. Even a
person of age 17 is a “child” according to them.

To exclude only children – real children – from porn sites might be ok
in principle. But how to determine whether a given user is under the
specified age? The methods mentioned in the article either directly
require a user to identify perself, or indirectly require per to make
perself vulnerable to being identified.

– stallman.org, 6 December 2023 “UK age verification for porn sites”

Or in April 2018, explicitly making this distinction in support of
sexual activity between adults and minors (denying the experience of two
rape victims in the process, see defense of sexual misconduct):

It sounds horrible: “UN peacekeepers accused of child rape in South
Sudan.” But the article makes it pretty clear that the “children”
involved were not children. They were teenagers.

What about “rape”? Was this really rape? Or did they have sex willingly,
and prudes want to call it “rape” to make it sound like an injustice? We
can’t tell from the article which one it is.

Rape means coercing someone to have sex. Precisely because that is a
grave and clear wrong, using the same name for something much less grave
is a distortion.

– stallman.org, 30 April 2018 “UN peacekeepers in South Sudan”

This report considers Stallman’s idiolectical use of “child”,
established in his “anti-glossary” and re-enforced throughout his
political notes, supports the interpretation that his retraction only
addresses sexual relationships between adults and children up to the age
of “12 or 13”, and that political notes which remark upon sexual
relationships between minors above the age of 12 or 13 are not covered
by his 2019 retraction.

We now offer a rebuttal of Stallman’s political position regarding
sexual relations between adults and minors.

Appendix: Stallman on sexual relations between adults and minors

Sexual relationships between adults and minors are prohibited by social
and legal norms because a differential of life and sexual experiences
between adults and minors enables adults to manipulate minors for the
purpose of sexual gratification. This bears out in statistics that
highlight the risks sexual relationships with adults impose on young
girls in particular.

Older men often manipulate minors into unsafe sexual practices, leading
to undesirable outcomes for their victims. Young girls are often
unprepared to negotiate the use of contraception with an older partner,
resulting in teenage girls having unprotected sex at a rate that
increases by 11% for each year older their partner is. (Manlove, Ryan,
Franzetta 2007)9 Minors who have sexual relationships with partners 5 or
more years older are 3.7 times more likely to experience an unwanted
pregnancy (Planned Parenthood, 2004; Darroch et al., 1999)10 11 and
twice as likely to acquire a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than
peers who have partners similar in age (Ryan, Franzetta 2008).12

Young women aged 15 to 17 who have had a relationship with a partner
five years or older than themselves have been forced to have sex at
twice the rate of young women who have only had similar-age
relationships (Darroch 1999).11 Minors who experience these rapes have
poorer life outcomes than their peers; women who are raped before the
age of 18 are twice as likely to be raped in adulthood (Tjaden, Thoennes
2000)13 and experience significantly higher incidences of domestic
abuse, mental health problems, low self-esteem, and long-term intimacy
problems in adulthood (Flemming et al 1999).14 Abuse involving sexual
intercourse increases this risk by a factor of two (Flemming et al 1999).14

Note on the sexual abuse of young men:

This report does not deny the experiences of young men who are victims
of sexual abuse. However, young heterosexual women are at a much higher
risk of exploitation than young heterosexual men (about 5× higher). The
academic literature tends to focus on the experiences of heterosexual
young women as a result, creating a gender bias that is unfortunately
reproduced in our report due to a lack of reliable sources. However, it
is noted by Manlove et al. that young boys who have sex before the age
of 16 with an older partner are more than twice as likely to father a
child as a teen than young boys with similar aged partners.9

Stallman often makes the claim that it is normal for adults to be
sexually attracted to minors. On one occasion he has likened
condemnation of this attraction to homosexual conversion therapy:

Research found that men generally find females of age 18 the most
attractive.

This accords with the view that Stendhal reported in France in the
1800s, that a woman’s most beautiful years were from 16 to 20.

Although this attitude on men’s part is normal, the author still wants
to present it as wrong or perverted, and implicitly demands men somehow
control their attraction to direct it elsewhere. Which is as absurd, and
as potentially oppressive, as claiming that homosexuals should control
their attraction and direct it towards to the other sex. Will men be
pressured to undergo “age conversion therapy” intended to brainwash them
to feel attracted mainly to women of their own age?

– stallman.org, 21 August 2018 “Age and attraction”

The presumption that adult attraction to minors is “normal” is difficult
to characterize. The prevalence of adults with an attraction to
post-pubescent minors is unknown. The prevalence of adults with an
attraction to pre-pubescent minors is better studied, but poorly
estimated; estimates for men are generally around 5% (Seto 2009).15
However, the editors note that pedophilia is understood as a
psychological pathology by the medical literature and is noted as such
by its inclusion in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).16

Additionally, it is factually incorrect to assume that sexual abuse of
minors is motivated by a sexual attraction to minors. Studies show that
only about 50% of sexual exploitation of minors is motivated by sexual
attraction.

Although this preference increases the risk of engaging in CSA, only
about 50% of all individuals who do sexually abuse children are
pedophilic (Blanchard et al., 2001; Schaefer et al., 2010) and not every
pedophilic individual actually has abused children. The other 50% of
individuals that have abused children are those who do so without a
sexual attraction to children; i.e., they lack the necessary social
skills to develop and maintain emotional and sexual relationships with
appropriately aged peers and look to “replacement partners” in children
as a kind of “surrogate” (Beier, 1998; Seto, 2008; Mokros et al.,
2012b). (Tenbergen et al, 2015)17

Defense of sexual misconduct
Stallman’s political notes frequently respond to news articles about
sexual crimes by downplaying the severity of the crime and advocating on
behalf of the offender. Stallman’s political notes consistently
contribute to a broader harmful discourse which silences the experiences
of victims of sexual violence.

This report catalogues 37 examples of Stallman expressing a defense of
individuals accused of or convicted of sexual harassment, sexual
assault, or rape (statutory or otherwise). The report only considers
occasions where Stallman acknowledges or assumes that the sexual act
took place, or presents his arguments as if it had taken place. We have
omitted other occasions where Stallman does not presume the act had
taken place, for instance occasions where Stallman emphasizes the
presumption of innocence in legal proceedings.

Appendix: Stallman’s defense of sexual misconduct

Among these sources we have identified at least 567 separate victims of
sexual misconduct whose experience was downplayed or dismissed by
Stallman.18

It is demonstrable that Stallman’s defenses of sexual misconduct cause
material harm to victims. Rhetoric which denies or downplays a victim’s
experience of sexual misconduct causes harm:

One of the most important factors that predicts severity of post-trauma
symptomatology in any rape victim is the post-trauma response received
from the environment. For example, where a victims’ experience of rape
is ignored (deliberately or as a result of people simply not knowing),
not recognised, minimised, or both; and where victims are blamed, judged
as culpable, met with further violence, violation, or both. Lack of
empathy and understanding can, therefore, reduce the prospects for a
recovery. (Mason, Lodrick 2013)19

The symptoms of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) in
victims of sexual assault which are exacerbated by rhetoric similar to
Stallman’s are severe. It is also noted that the symptoms of
post-traumatic stress disorder in sexual assault victims are exacerbated
if the victim is very young.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is an extremely distressing and disabling
condition. Intrusive symptoms such as flashbacks, nightmares and feeling
as though the assault is reoccurring are profoundly upsetting to
individuals who experience them. Their psychological response is often
to become avoidant of thoughts, feelings, places and other reminders of
the assault. (Mason, Lodrick 2013)19

Exposure to Stallman’s rhetoric not only harms the victims of the
incidents to which he refers, but also harms victims of similar
experiences which are exposed to his remarks.

Stallman’s defenses of sexual misconduct rely on a number of recurring
premises. A common defense relies on Stallman’s insistence that minors
over the age of 12 or 13 are sexually mature and can meaningfully
consent to having sex with an adult. Consider Stallman’s remarks on the
case of Cody Wilson:

Cody Wilson has been charged with “sexual assault” on a “child” after a
session with a sex worker of age 16. (…)

The article refers to the sex worker as a “child”, but that is not so.
Elsewhere it has been published that she is 16 years old. That is late
adolescence, not childhood.

Calling teenagers “children” encourages treating teenagers as children,
a harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.

In this case, the effect of that mislabeling is to smear Wilson. It is
rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to
children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to
adolescents. Since the claim sbout[sic] Wilson is the latter, it is
wrong to present it as the former.

– stallman.org, 23 September 2018 “Cody Wilson”

Laws regarding rape are more general than cases of outwardly apparent
coercion. We have provided a general rebuttal of Stallman’s political
position on sexual relations between adults and minors elsewhere in the
report.

Other defenses of sexual misconduct by Stallman focus on an insistence
on appropriate use of language in order to establish the “gravity” of
the crime in order to determine how the public should “judge” an
offender. This defense is often associated with Stallman’s fixation on
the term “sexual assault”, which we cover elsewhere in this report.

Jelani Maraj (who I had never heard of) could be imprisoned for a long
time for “sexual assault”. What does that concretely mean?

Due to the vagueness of the term “sexual assault” together with the
dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as “rape” even if they
are willing, we cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj
was found to have committed. So we can’t begin to judge whether those
acts were wrong.

I see at least three possibilities. Perhaps those acts really
constituted rape — it is a possibility. Or perhaps the two had sex
willingly, but her parents freaked out and demanded prosecution. Or,
intermediate between those two, perhaps he pressured her into having
sex, or got her drunk.

– stallman.org, 13 November 2017 “Jelani Maraj”

In this comment, Stallman belittles the experience of a rape victim20
and argues for the following positions:

Adolescents can consent to sex with adults (rebuttal)
Pressuring someone into sex is an “intermediate” offense between overtly
consensual sex and sexual assault.
Making someone drunk for the purpose of sexual assault is “intermediate”
offense between overtly consensual sex and sexual assault.
This is an example of Stallman’s regular insistence that sexual crimes
be discussed in highly specific language for the purpose of establishing
the gravity of the crime so that the public may judge the offender by
measures.

Moreover, in this respect Stallman’s defenses of sexual misconduct are
based on a dismissal of the importance of consent. Stallman consistently
defends scenarios where he presumes consent due to a perceived absence
of violent coercion.

This form of defense also appears in Stallman’s frequent defenses of
Julian Assange.

Personal attacks against Julian Assange are used to distract attention
from the heroic achievements of Wikileaks.

Ironically, this article itself exaggerates criticism of Assange by
stating that the allegations against him consist of “rape” — they do not.

– stallman.org, 2 July 2012 “Attacks”

The editors acknowledge that the political circumstances surrounding
allegations of sexual misconduct by Julian Assange may represent due
cause to doubt the allegations. However, we draw attention to the fact
that Stallman does not argue from a presumption of Assange’s innocence,
but rather from an objection to the presumed act being classified as rape.

Among other accusations, one of the presumed acts is that a woman woke
up to discover Assange having unprotected sex with her as she slept. The
two had had consensual sex the prior evening on the condition that
Assange used a condom. We can conclude that Stallman dismisses the
conditional nature of the victim’s consent regarding condoms, and argues
that the consent agreed upon on the prior evening “carries over” to sex
with a sleeping victim the following morning. Stallman made this clear
on August 12th, 2012:

If Assange had sex with a sleeping woman, the morning after they had sex
and then slept together, was that rape? MP George Galloway says no.

Waking up your lover with sex is a tradition that has given pleasure to
many, and prohibiting it by designating it as rape is absurd. If that’s
what the law says in some country, that law is absurd.

– stallman.org, 21 August 2012 “Assange”

We also identify one additional theme in Stallman’s defenses of sexual
misconduct, which are based on an outright misrepresentation of the
events concerned. For example, in response to a case where Ohio State
athletics teacher Dr Richard Strauss was revealed to have sexually
abused 177 students over the course of 20 years, Stallman writes the
following:

Should we accept stretching the terms “sexual abuse” and “molestation”
to include looking without touching?

I do not accept it.

– stallman.org, 11 June 2019 “Stretching meaning of terms”

The article Stallman cites includes the following quote:

Many of Strauss’s accusers who have spoken publicly said they were
masturbated or otherwise touched inappropriately during physical exams
or leered at in the locker rooms.

– The Guardian, 17 May 2019

We also cite the following example from December 2017:

Mormon feminists are challenging sexual abuse in the Mormon church,
which combines with scorn for women that aren’t “chaste” to cause great
suffering.

There are fathers that rape their daughters — and there are also
“recovered memory therapists” that implant false memories of childhood
sexual abuse that didn’t happen. A priori, either one could have
happened here. The fact that Carol did not remember the abuse until she
worked with a therapist makes me suspect the latter. It seems that
Carol’s sister also need “help” to remember.

I hope there is a way to determine which one really occurred.

– stallman.org, 1 December 2017 “Mormon sexual abuse”

In this example, Stallman invokes “recovered memory therapists”, which
is not referenced in the cited text, to sow doubt on the stories of
Mormon survivors of rape.

Dismissal of legal norms regarding sexual assault
We have catalogued 24 primary sources in which Stallman misrepresents or
downplays sexual assault between 2015 and 2024 as part of a broader
political program that aims to dismiss the experiences of victims and
erode social and legal norms around sexual assault.

Appendix: Stallman on sexual assault

Like “children”, in Stallman’s speech “sexual assault” is an
idiolectical term which Stallman defines in his “anti-glossary”:

Sexual assault: The term is applied to a broad range of actions, from
rape on one end, to the least physical contact on the other, as well as
everything in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them all the
same. That would be wrong.

The term is further stretched to include sexual harassment, which does
not refer to a single act, but rather to a series of acts that amounts
to a form of gender bias. Gender bias is rightly prohibited in certain
situations for the sake of equal opportunity, but that is a different issue.

I don’t think that rape should be treated the same as a momentary touch.
People we accuse have a right to those distinctions, so I am careful not
to use the term “sexual assault” to categorize the actions of any person
on any specific occasion.8

The gross misrepresentation of sexual harassment in this quote is not
lost on the editors, and is covered in the next section in detail.

Sexual assault is more accurately defined as an assault of a sexual
nature. It refers to an act of assault – an unwanted physical
interaction – with sexual motivations. The United States National Center
for Victims of Crime provides the following explanation:

Sexual assault is an act of forcing another person into sexual activity
against his or her will. Sexual assault takes many forms, including rape
or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact. The crime
includes forced sexual intercourse (rape), sodomy (oral or anal sexual
acts), child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.21

Stallman has misrepresented sexual assault many times. For instance, in
October 2023, Stallman writes the following:

I warned that the stretchable term “sexual assault”, which extends from
grave crimes such as rape through significant crimes such as groping and
down to no clear lower bound, could be stretched to criminalize minor
things, perhaps even stealing a kiss. Now this has happened.

What next? Will a pat on the arm or a hug be criminalized? There is no
clear limit to how far this can go, when a group builds up enough
outrage to push it.

– stallman.org, 15 October 2023 “Sexual assault for stealing a kiss”

In this note, Stallman cites the case of Luis Rubiales, who was under
investigation for kissing a female football player on television as part
of a series of incidents called the “Rubiales affair”, for which
Rubiales was indicted on criminal charges of sexual assault and faces a
potential prison sentence.22

The idea of “stealing a kiss” is a familiar refrain for Stallman’s
program speaking against social and legal norms around sexual assault.
In 2019, he writes:

If it is true that he persistently pressured her to kiss him, on stage
and off, if he stuck his tongue into her mouth despite her objections,
that could well be sexual harassment. He should have accepted no for an
answer the first time she said it. However, calling a kiss “sexual
assault” is an exaggeration, an attempt to equate it to much graver
acts, that are crimes.

The term “sexual assault” encourages that injustice, and I believe it
has been popularized specifically with that intention. That is why I
reject that term.

– stallman.org, 30 July 2019 “Al Franken”

“Stealing a kiss” is the least “grave” of the acts Stallman questions
the legitimacy of the label of sexual assault, but Stallman has also
questioned its use for incidents such as the rape of minors.23 It is
this “gravity” that Stallman fixes on when questioning sexual assault,
which he wishes to understand for the purpose of how he, and the reader,
should “judge” the offender.

Due to the vagueness of the term “sexual assault” together with the
dishonest law that labels sex with adolescents as “rape” even if they
are willing, we cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj
was found to have committed. So we can’t begin to judge whether those
acts were wrong.20

– stallman.org, 13 November 2017 “Jelani Maraj”

This line of questioning is precisely the wrong response to news of
sexual assault. The vagueness of the term as presented to the public is
deliberate; it protects the privacy of both the victim and the accused.
It is the concern of the legal system to determine the severity of the
offense, not the general public.

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) provides resources on
appropriate ways to respond to sexual assault, for instance their “TALK”
framework specifically advises against minimizing the victim’s
experiences, pressing them for details, or challenging their experience
(“Are you sure that counts as assault?” is an example given in their
resources).24 RAINN also offers the following advice:25

It can be extremely difficult for survivors to come forward and share
their story. They may feel ashamed, concerned that they won’t be
believed, or worried they’ll be blamed. Leave any “why” questions or
investigations to the experts—your job is to support this person. Be
careful not to interpret calmness as a sign that the event did not
occur—everyone responds to traumatic events differently. The best thing
you can do is to believe them.

We re-iterate the earlier position that Stallman’s rhetoric causes
material harm to victims of sexual assault, and we have illustrated that
his political program contributes to an environment where the harm
suffered by sexual assault victims is exacerbated by creating an
atmosphere of confusion and doubt in which sexual violence can thrive.

On the subject of sexual assault, Stallman advances a political agenda
which systematically undermines the importance of consent in sexual and
intimate interactions, objectifying women as subjects of men’s desires,
enabling men to force their sexual desires on women, and dismissing
womens’ agency in choosing how to express intimacy and interact with others.

Dismissal of legal norms regarding sexual harassment
We have catalogued 13 primary sources in which Stallman misrepresents or
downplays sexual harassment between 2014 and 2018 as part of a broader
political program that aims to erode social and legal norms around
sexual harassment.

Appendix: Stallman on sexual harassment

Stallman’s “anti-glossary” indirectly defines sexual harassment in its
definition of sexual assault:8

The term [sexual assault] is further stretched to include sexual
harassment, which does not refer to a single act, but rather to a series
of acts that amounts to a form of gender bias. Gender bias is rightly
prohibited in certain situations for the sake of equal opportunity, but
that is a different issue.

We also note the following quote from November 2017:

The term “sexual assault” is not suitable for a serious discussion,
because it covers crimes of varying severities which call for different
responses, plus sexual harassment which is not a crime.

– stallman.org, 3 November 2017 “Saboteur of Energy”

Both of these examples are gross misrepresentations of sexual
harassment. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides a
more appropriate explanation:

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of
that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can
include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is
illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in
general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the
victim and harasser can be the same sex.26

Stallman’s remarks on sexual harassment are antifactual. Sexual
harassment is a crime, and it is not reducible to a kind of gender bias.
It may consist of several actions forming a pattern of behavior, but
isolated events of sufficient severity may also constitute sexual
harassment.

We also note that the definition given in Stallman’s anti-glossary
changed sometime between February and March 2019. Previously it read as
follows:

[Acts that constitute sexual assault] are not merely different in
degree. They are different in kind. Rape is a grave crime. Being groped
is unpleasant but not as grave as robbery. Sexual harassment is a not an
action at all, but rather a pattern of actions that constitutes economic
unfairness. How can it make sense to group these behaviors things together?

– stallman.org, “Anti-glossary”, archived February 2019 by archive.org

Our report finds this change noteworthy on the basis that Stallman
completed a mandatory course on sexual harassment in his role at MIT in
September 2018, five months prior to the edit:

In September MIT demanded that I take an online course about sexual
harassment; although I don’t teach classes or even meet undergraduates,
they treated me like a professor on the “be overcautious at every
opportunity” principle. But I was unable to do so until MIT arranged to
let me log in on an MIT kiosk terminal and bypassed the two-factor
requirement for me.

– stallman.org, 7 May 2019 “Mobile phone numbers for Facebook”

The editors of this report sought to ascertain the nature of the
training that Stallman received. The 2018 Annual Report from MIT’s
Committee on Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response27 states that MIT
faculty and staff members were required to complete the Haven for
Faculty and Staff course provided by Everfi, a US training provider
which is relied upon by many educational institutions for training its
faculty members. The editors reached out to the MIT committe and to
Everfi for comment regarding the cirriculum and did not receive a
response. However, MIT’s annual reports provide some insight into the
training material. The committe’s inagural report in 2016 describes this
program as follows:

Haven’s introduction is completely customizable, including a welcome
video (e.g., from the President, Provost, or Chancellor), a list of
campus resources and contact information, and any other desired
materials. The program continues with videos on supporting survivors,
encouraging bystander intervention, and recognizing the potential for
violence on campus or in the workplace, and then provides details on
Title IX and other legislation. Four additional videos follow: “A
Student Disclosure” about how to respond when a student or employee
initiates a discussion about sexual misconduct; “Always Around” on
policies and responses to stalking; “A Concerned Co‐worker” about
intimate partner violence that affects the workplace; and “Unwanted
Attention” about addressing inappropriate behavior from a supervisor.
Questions are posed before and after each video; incorrect answers
trigger a gentle steering toward the most appropriate response.28

The 2018 report also provides insights into the cirruclum:

All faculty and staff were required to complete Haven for Faculty and
Staff, an online education program that includes examples and scenarios
that faculty and staff may face around sexual assault, domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual harassment.27

The committee also summarizes the outcomes of the training program in
their 2019 report, which provides a few examples of specific goals
associated with the training program.29 In particular, this report draws
attention to the survey results enumerated in Appendix C, which indicate
that the program’s goals were in part to obtain favorable responses to
the following questions of note:

I have a good understanding of what constitutes sexual assault,
relationship violence, stalking, and sexual harassment.
I am aware of strategies for preventing sexual assault, relationship
violence, stalking, and sexual harassment.
I am confident in my ability to respond to disclosures of sexual
assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual harassment.
A person should never be blamed for being the victim of sexual assault,
abuse, or harassment.
I think sexist jokes and langauge contribute to the issues of sexual
assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual harassment.
I plan to play an active role in addressing sexual assault, relationship
violence, stalking, and sexual harassment at my institution.
From this we conclude that from September 2018 onwards, Stallman should
have posessed a working understanding of sexual assault and sexual
harassment, as well as the appropriate language and tone for discussing
the matter, particularly with respect to the best interests of victims.
Our sources note that Stallman’s website maintains misleading
definitions of sexual assault and sexual harassment to the present day,
and we cite 15 examples of Stallman misrepresenting sexual assault
following his 2018 training.

Appendix: Stallman on sexual assault

Our report notes that the sort of sexual harassment that Stallman
consistently defends has long-term effects on the well-being of victims.
Young women who are subjected to a man in a position of power “stealing
a kiss” are objectified and reduced to a sexual object with no agency
over consent in their interactions, an experience which prevents them
from accessing education and employment opportunities on equal terms
with respect to their male peers. Experiences of sexual harassment have
long-term consequences for victims, including increased rates of
symptoms of anxiety and depression for months following the incident,
including in relatively “less grave” cases that Stallman defends such as
sexual jokes or remarks and unwelcome advances. (Johansson et al, 2024)30

A 2019 study by Pinchevsky et al also characterizes the harmful effects
of sexual harassment by distinguishing “non-contact” and “contact”
harassment, where the former does not involve physical contact between
the perpetrator and the victim.

McGinley et al. (2016) found that experiences of non-contact SH [Sexual
Harassment] undermined the health of college students. Non-contact SH is
associated with decreased mental health (i.e., depression, anxiety) and
increased health-risk behavior such as substance use as a coping
mechanism, particularly among White females and sexual minorities
(McGinley et al. 2016). Paludi et al. (2006) identified other research
that noted the consequences of non-contact SH including changes in
physical and mental health. Additionally, victims of non-contact SH are
more likely to experience future SH (Petersen and Hyde 2009).31

Support for the possession of child sexual abuse material
We have catalogued 55 primary sources in which Stallman advocates for
the possession and/or distribution of child sexual abuse material (aka
“child pornography”) between 2003 and 2019, none of which are addressed
by Stallman’s 2019 retraction on sexual relationships between adults and
minors under the age of 12 or 13.

Appendix: Stallman on child sexual abuse material

The following quote from Stallman in June 2017 is a typical example:

In the US, people convicted for having copies of child pornography tend
to get longer prison sentences than those convicted of having sex with
children.

Mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime at all. To
prosecute people for possessing something published, no matter what it
may be, is a big threat to human rights.

– stallman.org, 5 June 2017 “Possession of child porn”

Stallman’s discourse on child sexual abuse material (CSAM) rely on
several recurring key points:

A blanket objection to censorship in any form
Objections to legal norms regarding CSAM on the basis that CSAM
depicting minors over the age of 12-13 do not depict an objectionable
act, as adults having sex with minors in this age range is not a form of
abuse (rebuttal)
The assertion that minors distributing explicit images with similar-aged
peers should not be prosecuted, often paired with a defense of adults
who distribute images produced in this manner
We will first address Stallman’s political positions on CSAM which the
editors do not find unreasonable. First, Stallman often expresses
concern that law enforcement tools and technologies developed to curtail
the production and distribution of CSAM will be applied more generally
and infringe on legitimate freedoms; the editors find this concern
reasonable but disagree with Stallman’s conclusion that CSAM possession
and/or distribution should be legalized on this premise.

Stallman also defends the practice of “sexting”, or exchange of sexually
explicit material, between consenting minors of similar age; the editors
find this argumentation reasonable. However, we object to Stallman’s use
of this argument as the basis for a more general argument in favor of
the legalization of CSAM possession and distribution.

Stallman has also defended “sexting” cases which involve the sexual
exploitation of a minor by an adult. In 2016, Stallman writes the
following in response to the case of a 21 year-old man soliciting a 16
year-old girl for explicit images:

A Pennsylvania man has been imprisoned for receiving nude photos from
his 16-year-old girlfriend, and will have to register as a sex offender,
but “only” for 15 years.

The willfully blind law pretends there is no difference between a
teenager and a child.

– stallman.org, 30 August 2016 “Man imprisoned for receiving nude photos”

We now present a general rebuttal of Stallman’s position on CSAM. Our
report indicates four groups of people who experience material harm as a
consequence of CSAM distribution:

Victims of child sexual abuse
Consumers of child sexual assault material
Criminal investigators exposed to CSAM in their work
Online content moderators tasked with CSAM removal
The possession and distribution of CSAM exacerbates the harm done to
victims of sexual abuse. Experts on sexual violence assert that the
distribution of CSAM causes children to be victimized twice: first by
the perpetrator of their abuse, and again by the person who view it.32
Jennifer Martin explains how CSAM impacts survivors of abuse:

This persistent shame means that traumatic stress symptoms may continue
indefinitely in cases of [child sexual abuse material]. Children’s
ongoing efforts to make meaning of their abuse experience may be
ineffective, and they may continually fear what parents, caregivers, and
others may think if they discover, or are shown, images of the abuse
(Palmer, 2006). Victims may be further subjected to shame by the
knowledge that images of the abuse are stored in law enforcement
databases and may be accessed and shared indefinitely among and between
legal agencies globally (Muir, 2005). They are powerless over the
distribution or accessibility of the images of abuse, and must contend
with the fact that they may be gazed upon by anyone at any time because
their abuse images are “out there” in the public arena of cyberspace and
can be forever shared and downloaded. The child may internalize the
shame and humiliation of the “global gaze” thereby adding to the child’s
traumatic burden. The never-ending threat of this gaze can influence –
have power over - how the child thinks, feels, and behaves. Ainley(1998)
referred to the “constant torture of the random but ever possible gaze”.33

Consumers of CSAM also experience harm. According to Kothari et al,
consumers of CSAM are at a high risk of suicide and experience symptoms
associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder.
Offenders experience extreme feelings of stress, shame, and self-hatred,
which impacts their ability to seek help (Kothari et al 2021).34

We also draw attention to the experiences of the online content
moderators and criminal investigators who are tasked with combating the
distribution of CSAM. Members of law enforcement who are exposed to CSAM
in their work experience experience an elevated risk of sexual
post-traumatic stress symptoms (sexual PTSS) (Gewirtz-Meydan et al,
2023).35 Online content moderators are susceptible to similar risks, and
often experience symptoms associated with post-traumatic and secondary
traumatic stress (Spence et al, 2021).36

This report also draws attention to a particularly disturbing source
from Richard Stallman’s website, entitled “Suggestion to the target of a
witch hunt”, dated February 2015.37 This article is listed on the front
page of Stallman’s website in a section on political articles outside of
the scope of Stallman’s free software political program. In this
article, Stallman reveals that someone had emailed him asking for advice
because they were “drawn to look at images of sex with children”.
Stallman published his response as follows:

I don’t think it is wrong to distribute “child porn” images, even when
they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is
wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing
sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images
that involve real children. Imaginary children can’t be hurt by drawing
them.

I can’t suggest any way you could talk publicly about your prediliction
without being the object of a witch hunt. Americans go nuts where they
imagine that children are in danger, and in their frenzy they exaggerate
tiny risks — look at how they jail parents for letting children go to
the park or stay home without an escort.

To be sure, a child faces the danger of sexual abuse mainly while at
home. But not while home alone with no members or friends of the family
present.

Stallman updated the page in 2016 with an additional note:

2016 note: I support prosecution of those that perpetrate real abuse
(sexual or not) of real children. By “real” I mean specifically that I
do not follow states’ definitions of these terms. In fact, some states
stretch the terms to the point of absurd injustice. There is a tendency
to define adolescents as “children” and define all sex involving
adolescents as “sexual abuse”. Infantilizing adolescents is harmful to
society in many ways.

Since this is an ethical question, not a legal one, the question of the
right definitions is for us to consider, not for states to dictate.

The editors were particularly alarmed by this page. The person who
reached out to Stallman for advice is subject to all of the harm faced
by consumers of CSAM as discussed earlier in our report, and faces the
risk of arrest and criminal prosecution if caught. Rather than providing
this person with resources to seek help, Stallman states that there is
nothing wrong with his behavior and uses the opportunity to publicly
re-enforce his political program regarding CSAM and the sexual abuse of
minors.

The editors cite this as an example of direct harm caused by Stallman
and as evidence that Stallman’s remarks are taken seriously, that he is
viewed as an authority on sexual matters by some of those who read his
work, and that he has been consulted for his opinion on these matters by
his readers.

Legal and social normalization of sex between humans and animals
We have catalogued 12 primary sources from 2003-2018 in which Stallman
advocates for humans having sex with animals (bestiality) or the
possession and distribution of pornography featuring humans having sex
with animals. None of Stallman’s remarks on bestiality have been retracted.

Appendix: Stallman on bestiality

Stallman remarked most recently on the subject of pornography featuring
humans and animals in 2018:

Prudish censorship attacks again in the UK, convicting someone for
possessing “extreme pornography”, including images of sex with animals.

I can’t imagine a possible reason to punish people for this. The article
does not report that the animals were harmed, or that they objected to
the experience, or that they thought of it as sexual. The law does not
consider these questions pertinent.

What is, however, clear is that prohibiting the possession of copies of
some image or text — no matter what that image or text may be —
threatens human rights. It creates excuses to search through people’s
possessions and files. It creates ways to make people vulnerable to
criminal charges without their cooperation or even their knowledge. All
such laws must be repealed.

– stallman.org, 14 December 2018 “‘Extreme pornography’ conviction”

The editors note that Stallman’s remarks here are consistent with his
rhetoric on child sexual abuse material. In addition to arguing for the
legal normalization of this kind of pornographic images, Stallman has
explicitly supported the act depicted therein, for instance in 2017:

European countries are passing laws against having sex with an animal.
(We are talking about sex practices that don’t physically hurt the animal.)

These laws have no rational basis. We know that some animals enjoy sex
with humans. Others don’t. But really, if you smear something on your
genitals that tastes good to dogs, and have a dog lick you off, it harms
no one. Why should this be illegal except mindless religion?

– stallman.org, 10 October 2017 “Laws against having sex with an animal”

Stallman explained his views in more detail in 2016:

A national campaign seeks to make all US states prohibit sex between
humans and nonhuman animals.

This campaign seems to be sheer bull-headed prudery, using the perverse
assumption that sex between a human and an animal hurts the animal.
That’s true for some ways of having sex, and false for others.

For instance, I’ve heard that some women get dogs to lick them off. That
doesn’t hurt the dog at all. Why should it be prohibited?

When male dolphins have sex with people, that doesn’t hurt the dolphins.
Quite the contrary, they like it very much. Why should it be prohibited?

I’ve also read that female gorillas sometimes express desire for sex
with men. If they both like it, who is harmed? Why should this be
prohibited?

The proponents of this law claim that any kind of sex between humans and
other species implies that the human is a “predator” that we need to
lock up. That’s clearly false, for the cases listed above. Making a
prohibition based on prejudice, writing it in an overbroad way, is what
prissy governments tend to do where sex is concerned. The next step is
to interpret it too strongly with “zero tolerance”.

Will people convicted of having dogs lick them off be required to live
at least 1000 feet from any dogs?

This law should be changed to prohibit only acts in which the animal is
physically forced to have sex, or physically injured.

– stallman.org, 14 December 2016 “Campaign of bull-headed prudery”

It is straightforwardly understood that animals cannot express consent;
they are not capable of meaningfully communicating “yes” or “no” and
they cannot explain their subjective experiences or advocate for
themselves following sexual abuse. It is also understood that animal
victims of sexual abuse experience symptoms similar to human victims;
animal victims of sexual abuse commonly display signs of depression,
anxiety, and aggression (Kunz 2019).38

The actors involved in pornographic films depicting bestiality are often
coerced and humiliated by the act. Linda Lovelace is a famous
pornographic actress who became widely known for her appearance in the
1972 film “Deep Throat”, later stating that she was coerced and raped on
screen in this film. In 1969, she appeared in a film where she was
coerced into performing sexual acts with a dog. She was forced to
perform these acts at gunpoint and later explained the lasting effect of
this experience:

I am able to handle almost everything that has happened to me in my
life… but I’m still not able to handle that day. A dog. An animal. I’ve
been raped by men who were no better than animals, but this was an
actual animal and that represented a huge dividing line. (…)

There were no greater humiliations left for me. The memory of that day
and that dog does not fade the way other memories do. The overwhelming
sadness that I felt on that day is with me at this moment, stronger than
ever. It was a bad day, such a bad day.39

Stallman’s remarks on bestiality are consistent with his broader
dismissal of the importance of consent with respect to sexual
interactions, be they animals, minors, subordinates, women whose consent
is contingent on the use of contraception, or women who have previously
consented to sex; in all of these cases Stallman absolves the
perpetrator of wrongdoing and argues that images of these acts of sexual
violence should not be subject to censorship.

Legal and social normalization of necrophilia
We have catalogued 3 primary sources from 2003-2013 in which Stallman
advocates for humans having sex with corpses (necrophilia) or the
possession and distribution of pornography featuring humans having sex
with corpses. We have also identified several more contemporary sources
where Stallman remarks on the abuse of corpses generally in a non-sexual
context, using the same argumentation used to advocate for necrophilia,
as recently as 2023. None of Stallman’s remarks on the abuse of corpses,
for sexual purposes or otherwise, have been retracted.

Appendix: Stallman on necrophilia

For example, Stallman writes the following in April 2008 in a statement
calling for pornography featuring living individuals having sex with
corpses to be legalized:

It is true that victims of real violence suffer. (Never mind that in
making movies of violence, typically nobody is actually hurt.) The true
oppressive spirit of this law starts to show in the prohibition of
images of sex with corpses. Are we supposed to believe that corpses can
suffer? Or are some cruel prudes trying to impose their prejudices by force?

– 30 April 2008 (Possession of “extreme pornography”)

The editors acknowledge that Stallman has not made any explicit
statements in support of necrophilia since 2010. However, Stallman has
often used the same line of argumentation in statements on the abuse of
corpses more generally than for the purpose of sexual gratification
since 2010. For example, in December 2023:

Brittany Watts, of Ohio, had a miscarriage at home and disposed of the
nonviable fetus as people often do. Now she faces possible charges of
“abuse of a corpse”.

The very idea of sentencing someone to prison for “abuse of a corpse” is
absurd, since whatever is done to a corpse can’t injure any person.

– stallman.org, 28 December 2023 “Brittany Watts”

Legal and social norms regarding the treatment of corpses acknowledge
the agency of the deceased individual and their right to
self-determination and bodily autonomy following their death. Moreover,
the editors point out that a corpse is unable to express consent.

The treatment of a corpse is also a matter of respect for friends and
family of the deceased, who should be allowed to grieve in peace without
the knowledge that their loved one’s corpse is being exploited for
sexual gratification. The editors of this report cannot imagine a more
traumatic grieving process than one which contends with the knowledge
that images of the desecration of your loved one’s corpse are being
distributed for the sexual gratification of others.

It is noted that the rape of corpses is a war crime which has been
reported in several conflicts and has been employed for the purpose of
subjecting the population to terror, humiliation, and trauma.40

Credible allegations of sexual misconduct
There are numerous allegations of misconduct regarding Richard Stallman.
Most of these are hearsay recounts of individual experiences with
Stallman. This report only includes allegations which have been
corroborated or are otherwise considered verifiable.

Testimony of Betsy S.
The testimony of “Betsy S.” recalls the following interaction with
Richard Stallman, which would have taken place in the early 1980’s.

When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian
restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others
from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at
a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery
and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.

I felt bad for him and also uncomfortable and manipulated. I did not
like being put in that position — suddenly responsible for an
“important” man. What had I done to get into this situation? I decided I
could not be responsible for his living or dying, and would have to
accept him killing himself. I declined further contact.

He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.

We consider the report verifiable on the basis that Stallman has
corroborated Betsy’s recollection of events in a July 2020 statement on
the subject:

A note to Betsy S.

Betsy S met me at a lunch around 40 years ago. I am sure her recounting
of her recollections is sincere, but she must have misunderstood the
last thing I said to her. She said she didn’t want an acquaintance with
me. That no, on top of so many noes from others, impelled me to express
despair; she seems to have misconstrued that as a demand.

Betsy S, I regret that this misunderstanding caused you distress. I
never intended to demand anything of you. I only ever wished you well.

– stallman.org, 19 July 2020 “A note to Betsy S.”

Betsy’s testimony describes an experience of sexual coercion, wherein
Stallman threatens violence (to himself) if Betsy does not date him.

At the time of this incident, Betsy would have been a freshman at MIT,
no older than 19, and Stallman would have been approximately 27 years
old, a graduate student having been established at the AI lab for about
nine years at this time. Stallman exploited this power differential in
an attempt to take advantage of this young woman, coercing her into
dating him.

Stallman’s 2020 response is lacking in several respects. The editors
point out that at the time this response was written, Stallman should
have been equipped with the requisite training to understand the gravity
of this incident given his September 2019 course on sexual harassment
and sexual violence at MIT, which is discussed in detail earlier in this
report.

We also draw attention to the phrasing of Stallman’s apology. Stallman
blames Betsy for misunderstanding his intent when he threatened suicide
if Betsy did not agree to date him. Stallman also excuses his behavior
by shifting responsibility to Betsy and to women collectively, citing
both that Betsy did not want an acquaintance with Stallman and that his
actions were motivated by a series of romantic rejections. Stallman does
not demonstrate an understanding of why his behavior was wrong, and does
not take responsibility for his behavior; instead he “apologises” for
Betsy’s behavior (i.e. misunderstanding him).

“Emacs virgin” incidents
Richard Stallman has often performed a satirical routine as “St.
IGNUcius” of the “Church of EMACS” at numerous events. The routine
includes a ceremony regarding the “EMACS virgin” (a person who has not
used EMACS before) with sexualized overtones. Prior to a 2009, Stallman
emphasized in his routine that the virgin must be female, after 2009
Stallman referred to the EMACS virgin as a “person” who has not used EMACS.

We have several uncorroborated testimonies of women, including minors,
being overtly sexualized during this routine, some without consent. In
the course of our research we discovered that one of these routines was
recorded, in which Stallman brings a 13 year-old girl on stage and makes
sexually suggestive remarks about her in front of a crowd at FKFT 2008
in Barcelona.

We highlight the following quote from the transcript of this event:

I saw her experiment once. She actually typed Ctrl+V to scroll the
screen. But I think that– at that point that’s like having kissed, so
she’s still a virgin for now. [Stallman approaches the girl and places a
hand on her shoulder.] But I hope to do something about that. And, by
the way, that reminds me that one of the other advantages of the Church
of EMACS is that being a saint in this church does not require celibacy.

Following a particularly controversial performance of this routine at
the 2009 Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, Stallman made the following statement:

Some of the people in the audience in my speech in the Gran Canaria
Desktop Summit thought that my joke about the Virgin of Emacs was
intended to make some kind of statement about women.

I was surprised by that reaction, since I had told the same joke dozens
of times and this is the first report of interpreting it that way. In
any case, it was a misunderstanding: the only intended meaning of the
Cult of the Virgin of Emacs is to parody another Cult of the Virgin. The
whole St IGNUius routine makes fun of me, the free software movement and
religion, through parody.

To be abundantly clear, my views about women in connection with free
software are simply that they deserve freedom in using computers, just
as men do. Some women already appreciate this freedom and have become
free software activists. We need more people, regardless of sex, to do
this, so that someday all women, and all men, will enjoy the freedom
that free software offers.

Misunderstanding is not a good outcome. To help avoid misunderstandings
of this kind in the future, since August I have changed the joke so that
the Virgin of Emacs can be of either sex.41

Stallman has also issued a statement on stallman.org about the routine.

Pleasure cards
In lieu of a traditional business card, it has been reported that
Richard Stallman employs a “pleasure card”, which solicits “tender
embraces” from the recipient.

A picture of Richard Stallman’s original “pleasure card” with sensitive
details retracted. The headline reads “Sharing good books, good food and
exotic music and dance; tender embraces; unusual sense of humor”

It has been suggested that Stallman gives these cards to people
regardless of gender, but that when Stallman hands this card to women he
often does so to supplement a romantic or sexual proposition. The
editors reached out to a woman who received a “pleasure card” from
Stallman for an interview, who we will refer to as Ms. W. The editors
have independently corroborated Ms. W’s testimony.

I was at one of my first events as a speaker, at the speaker’s dinner.
Stallman was there and he approached me to chat. He spent a few minutes
talking about himself, showing no interest in me or what I was working
on. He didn’t ask about my work, or my situation, he just wanted to…
pick me up. I got the impression that he just assumed that he was
entitled to my attention based on his fame and reputation.

He hit on me for a few minutes and handed me his “pleasure card”, then
told me he would be around later that evening – I just thought, “yeah,
and I’ll be hanging out with my spouse and kid”. He moved to touch my
arm, and I backed off and avoided him for the rest of the event.

It didn’t even feel like he was particularly attracted to me – it felt
like I was just a woman under 40 and that was enough.

The editors note that the event in question had an anti-harassment
policy. Ms. W elaborated on her thoughts after the fact:

I mean, I’m middle aged, I brought my kid – this wasn’t my first rodeo.
And it just felt so inappropriate in a professional context. If I had
met Stallman in another context and we weren’t “coworkers”, in a way, it
would have been… unwanted, but not inappropriate. There’s a difference
between, like, some of us clicked and went out for drinks and it was
flirty, and this taking place at the speaker’s dinner. And what made it
so inappropriate was the power differential, of handing this to a
relatively unknown woman when you’re Richard Stallman and you’re giving
the keynote.

I’ve been hit on at events before – but it often felt like a
peer-to-peer sort of thing, whereas the proposition from Stallman was
more… “do you want to be an acolyte?” There was some kind of power
dynamic at play. He was 20, 25 years older than me – it was like your
dad was hitting on you. It didn’t feel like he was my peer, and we
hadn’t talked enough to register if I was actually interested in him at all.

Ms. W notes that she attended a second event with Richard Stallman a
year later, where she indicates that Stallman participated in writing
the code of conduct, then violated that code of conduct when performing
his “St. Ignutius” routine, as well as at other occasions. Ms. W
reported her concerns to the event organizers, her testimony
corroborated by Matthew Garrett (member of the FSF board of directors at
the time), and was met with disbelief. Ms. W explains that the
organizers were aware of Stallman’s reputation at the time, and they
stated “He’s one of those neckbeardy guys, but we think he’ll behave
himself. We talked about it.”

The editors have found a photograph which is alleged to be Stallman’s
new business card circa 2023, with the reference to “tender embraces”
removed:

A picture of Richard Stallman’s current business card with sensitive
details retracted. The headline now reads “sharing good books, good
food, and far-away music & dance; thoughtful and emotional conversation;
unusual sense of humor”

Testimonies of former FSF staff
Georgia Young was the Program Manager for the FSF between 2015 and 2018
and testified to Stallman’s conduct and character on Twitter in March 2021.

I worked at the FSF from 2015-2018 & was shop steward for a while. I
recall having a months-long conversation with [Executive Director] John
Sullivan about why racist & sexist ‘hacker humor’ from the 90s needed to
be removed from gnu.org. RMS didn’t get why it was harmful.

The abortion joke42 (‘contributed’ by RMS) in a technical manual? He
threw a fit when it was removed. (…)

The thing that (people) who have never had to actually work with RMS
don’t understand is that MANY people who deeply respected him tried to
help him learn to not objectify women, shout over others at Libreplanet
as if it was his birthday party, (and) stop shit like ’emacs virgins’.

– @georgialyle on Twitter, 24 March 2021

Paul Fisher worked for 3 years on the staff of the Free Software
Foundation and worked as a volunteer for 6 years, ceasing his
involvement in 2004. Paul testified to his experiences on Twitter in
March 2021:

I worked at the FSF for 3 years and volunteered for over 6 years — that
ended in 2004. I witnessed misogyny, sexual objectification, and abuse
carried out by RMS. I banded together with my coworkers, formed a union,
negotiated a contract, and was elected shop steward.

While RMS started the free software movement and the GNU GPL was a
groundbreaking document, the community still has a right to hold him to
account for his abhorrent actions and harmful speech. RMS should not be
part of the FSF.

– @paulnivin on Twitter, 24 March 2021

Paul also explained a few days later that the formation of the FSF staff
union was motivated by Stallman’s poor conduct.

RMS created non-safe spaces at both MIT & the FSF. When I was at the
FSF, RMS had little to no empathy for the staff. The FSF was not a
healthy, functional workplace. We formed a union to help protect
ourselves from RMS — he controlled our pay, benefits, and workplace
conditions.

Everything was controlled by RMS — not the executive director, and not
the board. The union helped turn FSF employment into what most people
think of as a “normal” office job. It didn’t fix everything. Some of the
issues that we did fix:

RMS did not believe in providing raises — prior cost of living
adjustments were a battle and not annual. RMS believed that if a
precedent was created for increasing wages, the logical conclusion would
be that employees would be paid infinity dollars and the FSF would go
bankrupt.

RMS did not believe in providing bereavement leave. What if all your
close friends and family die one after another? It’s conceivable you
would be gone from the office for days, or weeks, if not months. What if
you lie about who is dying?

RMS would often throw tantrums and threaten to fire employees for
perceived infractions. FSF staff had to show up to work each day, not
knowing if RMS had eliminated their position the night before.

Respectively, the union provided a formula for allocating a portion of
any budget surplus to COLAs and wage increases, bereavement leave, and
progressive discipline for workers, ensuring that union employees could
not be fired at RMS’ whim.

RMS has not apologized for the harm he’s caused. Both MIT & the FSF
successfully separated themselves from RMS in 2019. Why did the secret
group of voting FSF members reelect him to the board? Why.

– @paulnivin on Twitter, 31 March 2021

The allegation that the FSF staff union was formed due to Stallman’s
conduct is corroborated by David Turner, founder of the FSF’s GPL
Compliance Labs:

Funny confluence of RMS and tech union tweets today. We unionized FSF,
in large part, because RMS.

– @NovalisDMT on Twitter, 13 September 2019

Matthew Garret, member of the FSF board of directors between 2014 and
2017 and winner of the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software
wrote the following:

I know of at least one other case where Stallman has decided to protect
an abuser. (…)

Free software is an amazing thing, and [Richard Stallman] is a liability
towards it.

His refusal to take action and insistence on making excuses for an
abuser is why I quit the FSF board. The FSF’s former general counsel
threatened a board member at an FSF event. [Stallman] threatened to
overrule staff if they attempted to enforce the event code of conduct
and refused to tell the abuser’s employer.

– @mjg59 on Twitter, 13 September 2019

Misconduct of the FSF board of directors
This report alleges misconduct on the part of the 2019 FSF board of
directors, and that the present-day board of directors is responsible
both for enabling Richard Stallman and for failing to provide a
workplace free of sexual harassment under federal and Massachusetts law.

The composition of the board in 2019, when the question of Stallman’s
continued role in the FSF was under discussion, was as follows:43

Alexandre Oliva
Benjamin Mako Hill
Bradley Kuhn
Geoffrey Knauth
Gerald Jay Sussman
Henry Poole
Kat Walsh
Richard Stallman
This report has reason to believe that Bradley Kuhn, Kat Walsh, and
Benjamin Mako Hill were not party to the misconduct of the 2019 board of
directors. Mr. Kuhn’s public statements following his ejection from the
board of directors have been a valuable source in the preparation of
this report. Ms. Walsh voted against Stallman’s return to office and
resigned from her position on the Board of Directors a few days
following Stallman’s return.44 Mr. Hill also publicly spoke against
Stallman’s re-instatement and quit his positions at the FSF.45

Present-day members of the FSF Board of Directors are as follows:46

Christina Haralanova
Geoffrey Knauth
Gerald Jay Sussman
Henry Poole
Ian Kelling
John Gilmore
Maria Chiara Pievatolo
Richard M. Stallman
Lack of transparency in governance
The Free Software Foundation, like most non-profits, maintains a Board
of Directors which is responsible for directing its activities. The
members of the Board of Directors are disclosed in the FSF’s annual
filings47 and are clearly enumerated on the FSF’s website.46

The governance of the FSF is also subject to a group of “Voting
Members”.48 At the time of writing, this group is composed of the
following members:

Alexandre Oliva
Christina Haralanoa
Geoffrey Knauth
Gerald Jay Sussman
Henry Poole
Ian Kelling
John Gilmore
Maria Chiara Pievatolo
Odile Bénassy
Richard M. Stallman
Information about the Voting Members on the FSF’s website and has only
been available since 2021, following Richard Stallman’s return to the
Board of Directors. According to the FSF, the primary function of the
Voting Members is electing the Board of Directors.

According to public statements from the FSF, Richard Stallman resigned
from all positions of governance on September 17th, 2019.49 From this
point until Stallman’s return to the Board of Directors on April 12th,
2021, all public statements from the FSF supported the conclusion that
Stallman was no longer involved in the governance of the Free Software
Foundation.

However, the testimony of Bradley Kuhn alleges that Stallman never
resigned as a Voting Member, and remained a Voting Member throughout the
period of his resignation.50

This report alleges that the FSF has maintained, particularly between
the events of 2019 and 2021, a “shadow government” which is subject to a
lack of transparency in their role and operations, and alleges
misconduct in misleading the public on the nature of Stallman’s role in
the FSF between 2019 and 2021.

Knowledge of Stallman’s misconduct
Bradley Kuhn was the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation
between 2001 and 2005, and served on the board of directors from March
2010 to October 2019.51 Following Mr. Kuhn’s expulsion, he issued a
public statement on the 2019 controversy50 where he asserts that
Stallman’s behavior was well-known to the FSF for at least two years
prior to the public outcry; other sources suggest it was known for longer:

For the last two years, I had been a loud internal voice in the FSF
leadership regarding RMS’ Free-Software-unrelated public statements; I
felt strongly that it was in the best interest of the FSF to actively
seek to limit such statements, and that it was my duty to FSF to speak
out about this within the organization. (…)

I attempted to argue with him at length to convince him that some of his
positions were harmful to sexual assault survivors and those who are
sex-trafficked, and to the people who devote their lives in service to
such individuals. More importantly to the FSF, I attempted to persuade
RMS that launching a controversial campaign on sexual behavior and
morality was counter to his and FSF’s mission to advance software
freedom, and told RMS that my duty as an FSF Director was to assure the
best outcome for the FSF, which IMO didn’t include having a leader who
made such statements.

Ejection of Bradley Kuhn
In October 2019, Bradley Kuhn was removed from the Free Software
Foundation Board of Directors and Voting Members. Mr. Kuhn’s public
remarks on the matter provide insight into the misconduct of the board
during the scandal of 2019.50 Quoting Mr. Kuhn:

I was narrowly (by exactly one vote) voted out (of all my FSF roles) by
FSF’s Voting Members.

I was voted out for various reasons. The most relevant reason was a
fundamental disagreement about the criteria and requirements for RMS’
return to the FSF Board of Directors. In particular, during
September-October 2019, I was insisting that one qualification for
reinstatement was a complete, unqualified apology for RMS’ September
2019 statements that (a) “she [Virginia Giuffre] presented herself to
him [Marvin Minksy][sic] as entirely willing”, and (b) Giuffre (who was
sex-trafficed by Jeffrey Epstein) committed “an injustice” by accusing
Minksy[sic] of sexual assault in her deposition.

The FSF’s “Voting Members” are responsible for electing the FSF Board of
Directors. Mr. Kuhn reports that Richard Stallman was a Voting Member at
this time.

We conclude from this testimony that Mr. Kuhn was ejected from the Free
Software Foundation governance for the apparent purpose of facilitating
Richard Stallman’s eventual return to the Board of Directors, in
particular that his return not be contingent on apologizing for his
behavior, disenfranchising Mr. Kuhn of his legitimate vote on the matter
of the membership of the Board of Directors, and demonstrates that the
FSF was preparing for Stallman’s re-instatement even as they were
facilitating his resignation.

Failure to account for sexual harassment
We assert that the Free Software Foundation’s consistent protection for
Richard Stallman despite prior knowledge of allegations of his
misconduct signals incompetence with respect to their legal obligation
to maintain a workplace free of sexual harassment. Allegations of
misconduct while Stallman was conducting official FSF business are
enumerated above, but did not appear to instigate an investigation by
FSF leadership. We contend that an appropriate response to the
allegations would have been to perform an investigation similar to one
undertaken by the editors of this report, which would have presented a
clear case for Stallman’s removal.

We also argue that the FSF has created a “hostile work environment”
under US and Massachusetts law. In one respect, we hold that retaining
in leadership an individual who does not understand sexual harassment or
sexual assault and continuously makes public statements to this effect
constitutes a hostile work environment. We also argue that the 2019
expulsion of Bradley Kuhn constitutes illegal retaliation under Title
VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Moreover, regardless of the conclusion of proceedings following the 2019
scandal involving Richard Stallman, we feel that the FSF leadership
failed to implement prudent steps to address sexual harassment in its
workplace at a moment when it would have been obvious to do so.

It is unknown to the authors of this report if the FSF is in full
compliance with Massachusetts law regarding sexual harassment, in
particular if they have prepared a policy regarding sexual harassment,
have established processes for reporting sexual harassment, or annually
provide materials to this effect to all employees. However, we note that
Massachusetts provides optional recommendations that the FSF does not
appear to have implemented in the aftermath of the 2019 scandal:

Employers and labor organizations are encouraged to conduct an education
and training program for new employees and members, within one year of
commencement of employment or membership, which includes at a minimum
the information set forth in this section. Employers are encouraged to
conduct additional training for new supervisory and managerial employees
and members within one year of commencement of employment or membership,
which shall include at a minimum the information set forth in subsection
(b), the specific responsibilities of supervisory and managerial
employees and the methods that such employees should take to ensure
immediate and appropriate corrective action in addressing sexual
harassment complaints. Employers, labor organizations and appropriate
state agencies are encouraged to cooperate in making such training
available.52

We note that Richard Stallman received mandatory sexual harassment
training at MIT in September 2018, which we discuss earlier in the
report. Everfi, the company responsible for the training program
Stallman received, provides course materials which are compliant with
California AB 1825 requirements on mandatory training.53 These
requirements include that training materials cover, among other things,
identifying retalitory behavior under federal law and an employer’s
obligation to complete an investigation upon receiving a report of
sexual harassment. It is reasonable to assume that Stallman is familiar
with these legal norms.

Gerald Sussman, also on the FSF Board of Directors during the 2019
scandal, was also a member of the MIT faculty during its 2018 mandatory
training program and presumably received similar training.

2020 Form 990 IRS filing
This report also draws attention to the Free Software Foundation’s 2020
Form 990 tax filing.54

Richard Stallman has been reported on the FSF’s Form 990 filings as an
officer of the organization in every year except for 2020, following
Stallman’s ostensible removal from the governance of the FSF. However,
if Bradley Kuhn’s allegations that Stallman’s was as a Voting Member in
this year are true, the absence of Stallman in this filing may be
fraudulent.

The IRS instructions for Form 990 in 2020 provide the following
instructions for supplying the list of Directors and other notable
members of the organization:

A “director or trustee” is a member of the organization’s governing
body, but only if the member has voting rights.55

The report also notes that several present-day FSF Voting Members are
not included on the Free Software Foundation’s Form 990 filing in 2022.

Regarding the FSF codes of ethics
The report notes that the FSF has published two codes of ethics,
respectively applying to the Board of Directors56 and its Voting
Members,57 and respectively appearing in December 2021 and July 2022. As
such, neither were in force at the time the above reported misconduct
took place.

However, this report takes this opportunity to offer a retrospective
analysis of FSF board members’ and voting members’ 2019 conduct with
respect to these codes of ethics, as well as a contemporary analysis of
their conduct.

On the subject of erroneous IRS filings, we find that treasurer Geoffrey
Knauth actions have contravened the following provision:

Members of the board of directors will conduct the business affairs of
the organization in good faith and with honesty, integrity, due
diligence, and reasonable competence.

If the failure to report the Voting Members on the FSF’s Form 990,
previously and to the present day, is part of a larger program of
deliberately obscuring the governance of the Free Software Foundation,
we assert this contravenes the principles of good faith, honesty, and
integrity; if the filings are simply a mistake and there is no broader
objective to obscure the governance of the FSF, we assert that this
contravenes the principles of due diligence and reasonable competence.
To assist the reader in choosing a suitable interpretation, we
acknowledge that Bradley Kuhn’s statement reports that demands for
transparency were among the likely reasons he was expelled from his role.50

On the subject of Mr. Kuhn’s expulsion from the FSF governing bodies, we
consider the following principle of the Voting Member’s code of ethics:

A Voting Member must act in good faith in accord with the regulations of
the Free Software Foundation, including its articles of incorporation
and its bylaws.

We assert that the removal of Mr. Kuhn for the purpose of installing an
electorate that would re-instate Richard Stallman on favorable terms is
not acting in good faith and hold the quorum accountable to this.

It is noted by Mr. Kuhn that Richard Stallman was among the Voting
Members that voted for Mr. Kuhn’s expulsion. We find that this
contravenes the following provision of the code of ethics for board members:

Board members shall all avoid placing–and the appearance of
placing–one’s own self interest or any third-party interest, including
the interests of associate members, above that of the organization as a
whole.

We argue that the continued support of the Free Software Foundation
Board of Directors for Richard Stallman’s platform places the interests
of Richard Stallman above that of the organization as a whole, in
particular with respect to the formal policy of non-cooperation many
institutions in the free software community have adopted with respect to
the FSF so long as Stallman remains on the board.

We also note that Richard Stallman’s prolonged political program in
defense of sexual violence contravenes the following provision:

Members of the FSF’s board of directors acknowledge that their
statements and actions have greater potential to reflect broadly on the
organization because of their leadership position and will take
seriously their position of public visibility and trust.

This report notes that the FSF defines no particular recourse for
violations of its codes of ethics.

Response of the free software community
Following the 2021 re-instatement of Richard Stallman to his position on
the Free Software Foundation board of directors, numerous individuals
and institutions in the free software community spoke out in protest.
Our report focuses on institutions, on the basis that institutional
policies of non-cooperation with the FSF over the role of Richard
Stallman is a significant obstacle to the objectives of Free Software
Foundation.

In 2021, 61 institutions and 3,003 individuals signed an open letter
calling for Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, and
calling for the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation to
resign.58 An additional 33 GNU project maintainers and developers
collectively called for Stallman’s removal in 2019.59

This report highlights the following institutions that have explicitly
withdrawn financial support and/or adopted a policy of non-cooperation
with the Free Software Foundation over concerns regarding Richard Stallman:

Free Software Community of India
Free Software Foundation Europe
Okta Bad Packets
Outreachy
Red Hat
The Fedora Project
The Open Source Initiative
Tor Foundation
openSUSE

Recommendations for reconciliation and closure
This report provides the following recommendations to parties involved
for seeking reconciliation and closure for the problems enumerated herein.

Recommendations to Richard Stallman
To Mr. Stallman, we offer the following advice:

We urge you to issue a detailed retraction of the positions enumerated
in this publication and cease all future statements of this nature, and
to demonstrate your renewed understanding of the subject matter.
We urge you to meaningfully apologize for the material harm you’ve done
in the course of your political work to defend sexual violence and
undermine the experiences of victims of sexual violence.
We urge you to remove all political notes and articles cited by this
report from your website, or update them with a link to your retraction.
We ask you to step down from all positions at the FSF and the GNU
project and entrust it to a new generation of leaders.
We are of the unfortunate opinion that the scope and extent of your
misconduct disqualifies you from formal positions of power within our
community indefinitely. Your influence on the free software community is
profound and immeasurable, as is the harm you have done to victims of
sexual violence. If you wish to cement the positive parts of your
legacy, you must contend with the consequences of your violent political
program.

Recommendations to the FSF leadership
We offer the following recommendations to the FSF Board of Directors and
Voting Members.

To Voting Members, if Richard Stallman fails to step down of his own
accord, we urge you to convene a meeting of voting members at the
earliest possible occasion in accordance with section 7 of the FSF
by-laws for the purpose of removing Richard Stallman from both the
Voting Members and the Board of Directors.

If Richard Stallman fails to retract his political statements on sexual
violence, we encourage you to release a statement denouncing them.

To all members of the present-day Voting Members and Board of Directors
who were contemporaneous with the 2019 scandal and the associated
patterns of misconduct, we urge you to step down from your posts and
allow new leaders to fill your roles. Namely:

Alexandre Oliva
Geoffrey Knauth
Gerald Sussman
Henry Poole
In particular we call upon Mr. Knauth to uphold his 2021 pledge to
resign “as soon as there is a clear path for new leadership assuring
continuity of the FSF’s mission and compliance with fiduciary
requirements”.60

The leadership is called upon to improve the FSF codes of ethics to
prevent future errors of this sort, including the institution of
reasonable measures of recourse in the event of violations of the codes
of ethics.

The leadership is called upon to implement a comprehensive program of
sexual harassment training within the Free Software Foundation, as well
as policies and procedures for handling allegations of sexual harassment.

All parties complicit in the platforming of Richard Stallman are
encouraged to consider publishing a written apology for their conduct.

We strongly urge you to take these actions in the best interests of the
free software community and the future of the Free Software Foundation.

Recommendations to the GNU project
To the leadership of the GNU project, we recommend the following steps:

The removal of Stallman as the “chief GNUisance” of the GNU project if
he fails to step down of his own accord.
Replacing the transphobic GNU Kind Communication Guidelines authored by
Stallman with a Code of Conduct which better addresses the needs and
safety of the community.
Recommendations to the free software community
If the leadership of the Free Software Foundation fails to account for
these problems, we call upon the community to boycott the FSF. Consider
cancelling your membership fees. We also encourage members of the
community to voice their support for these calls to action, disseminate
our report as broadly as possible, and raise our voices in condemnation
of sexual violence and those who protect perpetrators of it.

Acknowledgements
This report was prepared in collaboration with a number of researchers,
advisors, and victims of sexual violence. The editors acknowledge that
the process of researching the material for this report or testifying to
experiences of sexual violence and harassment was traumatic for those
involved, and we thank them for their bravery and cooperation.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.