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.

Are those small oranges currently in season?

When he should be thinking of it like "Invalid certificate. Issue date in future."

Him being physically incapable of understanding the taint of coercion might also explain the years’ long delay in releasing the AGPL? Interesting.

Not defending pedophiles, but

you are about to defend pedophilia. rethink this and stop talking.

there was a time when 13 was considered adult.

and? Stallman is not talking about a previous time at any point here. also: that previous time was bad anyways. why would we want to--especially with respect to age of consent--go back to considering 13-year olds and younger to be adults? they cannot meaningfully consent to sexual relations with adults; it's just child abuse. all of this is why Stallman's words are abhorrent.

It’s still legal for teenagers to marry in most countries.

Stallman is not talking about teenagers. he explicitly distinguishes children (again, people <13 for him) from teenagers (people 13-17).

You're free to look at the context that they frequently link to, it doesn't help. His political notes that contain the majority of his public musings are typically very brief and the quotes used typically replicate the entirety of the original text or cut off changes of subject.

Stallman is very clear in his beliefs.

Ummm or the authors are concerned about retribution because stallman and the FSF are very powerful in the FOSS community, and I think it's reasonably likely that they would be sued (seemingly with poor grounds) or harassed online for publishing it.

This would only really make sense if they were trying to throw around the weight of the authors, which they clearly are not. Who makes these points is irrelevant when it's simply highlighting rms' own words and linking to them directly. Why should I care who wrote it?

You can say that speaks volumes about the character of the author (though you are the one assigning said "shame"). You were asking why this report deserves credence. The points raised in the report have citations such that you can decide where you fall on the presented issues.

I’ve considered that if Torvalds changes the license to AGPLv3, meaning servers have to publish their source code, it would an extremely quick collapse and abandonment of Linux.

AGPL evolved out of people saying, "my SaaS application isn't being distributed at all, it's just living on my server, so I can use your copy-left software without releasing my source alterations, and not violate the (GPLv2) license, because the license is based on distribution". If the Linux kernel itself went AGPL (which isn't what AGPL is even for), it would mean that modifications of the kernel would have to be published by whoever is doing the modifications, even if that kernel was only being used in a SaaS capacity, but most companies aren't modifying the kernel and then offering that modified software over the network, they're just running software on top of the upstream kernel, and AGPL higher up in the chain doesn't touch that software, just like the current Linux kernel GPL doesn't automatically apply to some python code you run on your Linux server.

Android, Amazon Linux, and IOS (the Cisco one) would just not move to the AGPL kernel (since you can't retroactively apply it to already-released kernels), and probably continue their own forks as totally separate as they already do.

But the 99% of companies who are just using stock Linux distros e.g. stock Ubuntu to run their SaaS applications wouldn't be affected. It definitely would not see the use collapse overnight.

What is socialist about GPL?

Being forced to open source seems like a pyramid scheme. Better examples of socialist and libertarian politics are licenses like MIT or BSD. They embody use without damage.

Stallman seems to have a flawed understanding of hierarchy and power. He exhibits such in the infectious GPL and pedophillic political takes. I purposely avoid GPL or derivatives when considering libraries.