"Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding."

https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

Kevin Hart apologized for some offensive jokes, he apologized as advised by the academy, and still got cancelled. Apologizing only serves to augment the conviction of a mob intent on finding fault.

It wasn't a misunderstanding caused by his poor wording; It was caused by poor (and possibly malicious) misquoting.

He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say:

> I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding.

This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible.

Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.

> but didn't.

So he's being punished for thinking out loud and not apoligising for thinking out loud?