Stallman gave the wrong definition of "sexual assault".

He chastised people for using the wrong phrase.

Legally speaking, it's the right phrase.

If the argument is really about "objective morality" and "absolutes" then those cannot be decided, so your interpretation of Stallman's text would also have Stallman object to calling Epstein a pedophile - something he rejects. Therefore your interpretation must be wrong.

Are you paying any attention to any of the cited claims in the last few days? It's not like these deep dark secrets. Searching HN for "Stallman creep", for example, finds:

"There are many valid criticisms of Richard Stallman: ... he has creeped out some women by making passes at them (or so they tell me). - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2327849 (2011)

I also know a woman who worked down the hall from Stallman, and she found him to be a creep this way.

Then there's all the people on Twitter saying the same thing, and not just recently. Here's are a few from 2018, https://twitter.com/suzanne_hillman/status/99459683376166092... :

> He flirts with anyone who is female, even if they are underage. He is creepy in person, in a way that I cannot adequately describe. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he kept women out of open source and free software, and many of his ideas stayed even after he left.

and https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265 :

> I remember being walked around campus by an upperclassman getting advice during my freshman year at MIT. "Look at all the plants in her office," referring to a professor. "All the women CSAIL professors keep massive amounts of foliage" s/he said. "Stallman really hates plants."

Or elsewhere, like https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/09/17/rms-resig... :

> rms was in the whisper network as a creep when I was in undergrad late last millennium, and I wasn’t even at MIT.