This is not an axiom from which to base the rest of your argument.

Care to explain exactly why, and build a logical case, rather than accuse him, and treat this as sufficient evidence

You keep asserting that, but not providing any logical reason as to why that may be. And you wonder why people aren't taking you seriously.

You've effectively said "I will provide no evidence, yet I demand you burn this person to the ground, and anyone who chooses to associate with him, because he's said things I don't like. This is justice."
I'll let that stand on its own.

The right answer is to ask "Is what he produces as his role in life correct".
In this case, it's "Does he ensure that software has versions that are free in every sense of the word". And the answer is a hearty yes.
He doesn't mince words, spend time making what he says ambiguous because it's easier for people to accept through the filters of emotion, while losing the clinical clarity or any of the other mundane mediocrities that us more neurotypical types do.
In fact, what us neurotypicals do have is the mental flexibility to understand that when you engage with a neuroatypical, they will not behave in a fashion that's always comfortable with you, and adapt to working in a way that suits them more comfortably (we can adapt easily, they can't).
Which is why we have a set of laws. If they cross that boundary, then yep, they've been told objectively "Do not do this. I don't care if you don't understand, this is the consequence for doing this". And by and large, they remember and don't do a particular thing because they understand the consequence. And because most of the laws cover things that are rationally observable as detrimental, so are quite understandable by neuroatypical.
What this whole story is about is a group of neurotypical people with the ability to adapt and understand refusing to do so. In fact, they've invented most of the story against this person, taken things out of context, lied and manipulated. They're now very angry because the person without the ability to adapt isn't adapting, and not really apologising to them for not adapting, because they can't.

So, the real answer is to keep RMS in the board, use his extensive experience, and the very real benefits that his brain brings to the table. He's not the "great diplomat" or PR person, he's probably the most famous though, so people pay attention to him. And he's famous because of the very strength of his work, and the extent to which it's shaped the whole world. You can't magically make him un famous (rather than infamous), and to effectively sack someone because they're famous for doing great work that changes the world for the better seems to me to be.. Weird?

Day in court for what? Do nothing, then decide to have yourself hauled up on a court, and investigated for any perceived wrong throughout your entire life, just to satisfy a bunch of bigots that you did nothing wrong or illegal? Nobody's got the time for that. Apart from the howling mob who want to burn everything they don't like.

Disagree. It vastly increases the likelihood of you acting in a way that neurotypical people do not understand and makes them uncomfortable as it assuredly doen't fit in with what is normally classified as "acceptable in society at large". So the chances of you, if you're evaluated as a neurotypical, being rated as "a jerk" are vastly higher.
However, because you're not neurotypical, they've misidentified the metric with which to actually work out how you're really behaving (kind of like trying to measure an orange with only a clock). And again, most people have no clue how to do this.
The vast majority of people I know who are on "the spectrum" have their "asshole moments", and many of them, sometimes in rapid succession.
The really interesting thing is that a good bulk of neurotypical people who follow zealous ideology are even MORE likely to have even MORE asshole moments than them, and there's absolutely NO excuse for it, as they're being correctly placed with a valid metric.

Who's turning blind eyes to "abuses"? We're all aware his behaviour isn't the same as most. We're aware that some people aren't comfortable around him because of very straight talking without regular filters most of us have.
This isn't a problem, and certainly isn't "abuse". What is abusive is hounding someone and attempting to bully them because they don't think or act like you do. That's downright unethical. Especially when you need to twist, and take out of context snippets as "Evidence" in your crusade to burn them. That's downright evil.

Why? It's the premise the article is built on.
When you attack the root axiom of something, because it's flawed, isn't cherry picking, it's showing an invalid point that invalidates all other points that reference it for validity. This is actually what debating is all about.

Why? That means that a mob can then carry on a denial of service attack on your best people if they don't like them.
Got someone effectively leading in a company? Get a mob to accuse them of something, then for PR "sense", you demote them to a role where they do nothing, thus losing all the made them useful.

The smart (long term) thing is to stand your ground and say "Act rationally please and we'll talk, but what you're saying makes no sense, and definitely isn't legal or ethical". Eventually they'll either spend way more resources trying to batter you (giving others some peace of mind), or they'll give up when you refuse to be bullied.

That was due to the arbitrary boundary between "Child and Adult". I.e. age of consent. In the USA, it's mostly 18. In the UK, it's 16. In other areas of the world it's even lower.
He was pointing out (in context) that this boundary is quite murky, and enforcing an arbitrary boundary with no degree of flexibility isn't optimum. Think you got that though (was aiming for a clarification of context).
This arose because of someone who the mob accuse of paedophilia because he allegedly may (not certain) have slept with a 17 year old. RMS didn't see that at 17 they really were a child, even though they're classified as that as to age of consent.

Pleasure cards are a fun take on the "Business or Pleasure" as they're his personal cards, not his business. Or are you uptight about people doing something funny these days? Sheesh, take about stick..
The Ars article is pretty rubbish really, and has little that's "evidence" apart from a couple of anecdotes. You really do love linking to largely irrelevant fluff don't ya. :)

Like people are doing to RMS, and a horde of other people who say nothing illegal or unethical, yet can be taken out of context, or just "Disagreed with and mob demand they be fired or we'll come and 'sort you out'"?

To which, he is absolutely correct. It's not his problem. It's the problem of people who looked at something that wasn't a problem, misconstrued it, missed out vital context, and then reframed it as a problem.
If they hadn't spent all that time and effort trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, there wouldn't be a problem.

It's always been my go-to when someone chooses to be an irritating dick online. Bleeping out bits of speech isn't going to cure the issue that they're trying to be offensive. It just reeks of a solution in search of a fixable problem, and latching onto something that it doesn't do well at.

XKCD had a lot to say about the redefinition of words. https://xkcd.com/1860/
I always think that when someone calls someone else racist because they don't like tapioca or something equally inane (which the majority of uses are these days).

Wouldn't even say the software is flawed. It works as well as it can. It's just a much harder problem to detect a lower contrast (errors creep up massively).
I suspect the answer would lie in using a specific spectrum other than visible light to match against (i.e. infrared or some other band), but that'd need far more expensive hardware.

Porn has a lot more features to match than just face. Flesh tone was a bad match for porn anyway, which is why most filters don't actually look for that.