Stallman's points always maintain focus on coercion and freedom.
In Minsky's case, Dr. Minsky did not perform any coercive actions, and Stallman defends Minsky on those grounds.
In Epstein's case, coercive actions were taken and Stallman condemns him, quite resoundingly, on those grounds.
Stallman is almost always consistent in that regard.
He's racked up a number of quotes over the years involving pedophilia and taking a decidedly neutral stance on it except insofar as it raises the spectre of coercion, which he always opposes. He is usually careful to specify that it is the coercive aspect that he opposes, because that properly contextualizes and integrates that subject into his philosophical left-libertarian message as a coherent whole.https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html>The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
This quote, taken as an island, is shocking, as are many of his other quotes on the subject. That shock was intentional but ill advised. The context of Stallman's political life around this quote is one in which censorship, control, authoritarianism and liberty are considered from front to back, inside and out, to an extreme degree. Stallman has made equally shocking statements declaring that Nazis should always be free to run his software as they wish, for any purpose, to study how his software works to improve it towards any of their Nazi purposes, to redistribute his software and to redistribute their modified versions of said software amongst all their Nazi friends, in response to all of the thousands of repetitions of "you wouldn't want Nazis using your software to run concentration camps now would you, isn't it silly to say that there shouldn't be any restrictions on software usage [smug liberal face]." Stallman's shocking quotes and antics suddenly become tame when considered within the context of Ethics as an academic subject and a branch of philosophy. Usually Ethicists prefer to take the most extreme positions possible, as that is the only sound way to gauge a philosophy's mettle. If restrictions on either art or information are always, unconditionally bad then restrictions on pornography are always bad, with everything that goes with that at every degree and branch from that point onwards. Any ethical perspective that talks about censorship without being willing to address All Those Horrible Things Pretty Much Everyone Would Be Healthier Not Seeing isn't an ethical perspective at all, because it ignores the entire purpose of ethics as a discipline. In the case of the above quote, no-where does Stallman say that sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor is non-harmful or that coercion would be absent from it, and it can in no sense be taken as a defense of child molestation–however, he does say that possession
–NOT production–of child pornography, a category which throughout much of the world includes illustrations, and pedophilia–the sexual inclination, not the act of sex with minors–"should be legal so long as no-one is coerced."
If it were to come to actual, physical sex with minors then Stallman would certainly agree that coercion is inextricable from any such relationship in practical life, but from the perspective of Ethical Philosophy that is a much more difficult thing to establish, since the attempt to systemize Ethics requires making a coherent whole out of the whole system of possible human states, necessarily including extremely improbable edge cases.