Oh absolutely, if following the trail of your beliefs leads you to a conclusion like this it should be a reason to interrogate those core beliefs and/or recognize where other core beliefs take priority, and not doing this is a major failure on his part that I'm sure is largely motivated by ultimately not really caring that much about sexual violence. It's just that the pattern of reasoning here is so consistent with his approach to every other issue that he writes about that I think it's reasonably likely that he just defends possession of CSAM on principle (as twisted as that is) rather than as as a defense of actions he's made. This is not a defense of the man, to be clear, just a guess as someone familiar with his idiosyncrasies. What we know for sure from his own mouth should be more than enough to condemn him and get him the hell out of the FSF. Having a man who actively defends pedophilia in a leadership role in any capacity is an embarrassment and a failure of the organization as a whole, even if he also laid the intellectual foundation for its mission.

I've no idea what Swartz said on the subject and I'm not sure if this implication is intended by you but I would not characterize rms as just being uninformed. There's lots of evidence in this piece that he encountered information and testimonials from abused parties and nevertheless landed at the conclusions he did. I don't know if he holds CSAM or not but I do know he is long past the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his words.