Interesting. I can definitely understand where support of him is coming from then. But even people who hate him should be able to see that removing him for stating some opinions is a slippery slope.

His comment about the woman who had sex with a 14 year old saying he wishes he had been "abused" that way is messed up but a pretty common sentiment. A lot of guys find it hard to understand how that could be psychologically damaging and if he is autistic, that would make it even harder for him. I also can see how someone with autism could be particularly annoyed at laws where the difference being a rapist or not is a 1 day difference in age, or a few months, or which country it happens in. It isn't very logical but most people don't dwell on it because they have no interest in having sex with someone younger than 18. Most people who do dwell on it are pedophiles or ephebophiles, but it's possible that he just takes an interest because of his tendency to criticize anything that doesn't make sense to him. Even I, who supports statutory rape laws and the age of consent law being 18 can see that it's weird to have a sudden cutoff even though legally the cutoff has to be somewhere. But imo a 30 year old who has sex with an 18 year old is about as slimy as one who has sex with a 17 year old. I think a 30 year old would be able to see how immature an 18 year old is. Consent is a tricky area to legislate. There are lots of ways to get questionable consent while being legally in the clear.

You are right that many things are taken out of context. I looked at his site to see his thoughts on child porn in context. I think looking at child porn with real children (not drawings) for pleasure is an extremely evil thing to do and I'm glad people who do it are punished. So I was disturbed by his comment about there being "no reason" possession should be illegal. I'm glad to see that he seems to mainly be concerned with the affect the laws have on freedom. Though, I worry that if possession were made legal, it would be much harder to go after pedophiles.

These quotes are from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325014131/https://stallman.org/archives/2014-jul-oct.html

A man in the UK has been sentenced for prison for having a cartoon depicting a fictional child in some sort of sexual situation.

The advocates of this kind of censorship started by saying they were trying to protect real children from being abused in order to take their photos. Making such photos should be a crime, and is a crime, but that is no reason to prohibit possessing copies of the photos.

However, they have already gone far beyond that. No child was harmed in drawing the cartoon.

To criminalize possession of copies of anything published — no matter what it is — is oppressive, and leads to many other forms of tyranny.

"Child pornography" is an all-purpose excuse to attack human rights on the internet. The FBI and Holder are now using it as an excuse to demand to be able to snoop on everyone's computers. This "cure" is worse than the disease.

Germany imposes internet filtering on routers (which I suppose includes those in ISPs as well as those in people's homes), blocking sites with no trial, and claims that the names of the censored sites are a "secret".

A site that posted the list of blocked domains was threatened with blockage itself.

Germany also made a rather shocking claim that posting this list in the US is illegal under US law, on the grounds that some of the censored sites display "child pornography".

Some works are disgusting, but censorship is more disgusting.

Illustrating the evil of making it a crime to possess pornography, a man in the UK was convicted of the crime of not knowing how to delete all copies of a disgusting video sent to him by a stranger.