Just imagine me sighing as a response to that. 
That is perhaps a really good question. However, this is going into the direction I was describing a tiny bit in the very first post of this thread: Xah Lee had some pretty good arguments against Richard and I understand them.
For example, if there would be a civil discussion within the FOSS or FSF community about the problems with Richard and people could all voice their opinions in a civil discussion about how he is not fitting (anymore?) into the board, then I think I could befriend myself easily with the thought of Richard being released from his membership on the board, as a result of many people of the community discussing what is best for everyone, in civil exchanges, where everyone is speaking their mind.
If such civil discussion would result in something like
“Thank you, Richard, for your FSF work you have done so far, but I think it is time for you to go now, because times have changed and we do not consider you a good representative for our movement/organisation (anymore). Here are the results of our civil discussion, all documented in this 10 page report. If you care about our reasons, you can read them all in the report.”
then I could accept the kicking off much easier.
However, doing all the smearing crap on (anti-)social media is my biggest concern. It is the wrong way to kick someone off a board they were in for such a long time, especially when it to me seems like most people agreeing with the kick off aren’t even truly affiliated with the organisation/movement but are just going on a general crusade against people from a specific political spectrum and Richard just happened to stand in their way, as well.
Perhaps I worded that a bit complicated as usual, so I’ll try to summarize:
If the organisation members discuss a board member’s membership in an absolutely civil and on-topic discussion, resulting in the decision that this member should no longer be a representative of the organisation, then I would be totally fine with it.
Just don’t involve all the off-topic people from every possible group on Twitter (which ironically is already a product of a company that is extremely far away from the meaning of Free, as the movement for Free Software is claiming), trying to rile them up against Richard, even though they have little or nothing to do with the FSF or even FOSS world.
I like surrealism in general, because it is a highly philosophical art genre. It questions everything, especially the things people usually take for absolutely granted and absolutely normal. They twist and turn such things, so people are forced to think about why a specific thing is just the way it is. Like, why do we have to use legs to walk, why can’t we just float using our head or something like that. 
P.S.:
I read through my proposal of having a civil discussion about the topic and noticed that perhaps that is already a big issue. Who will partake in this civil discussion? There is an extremely high risk, that if you select only a sub-group of members of the organisation, that they are in total leaning either toward one or the other side in this matter, before even starting the discussion, which would lead to a pretty weak discussion, with too few counter-opinions. It would be really important to get the opinion of a big majority of the organisation’s members. Else, one sub-group would take over the discussion and just kick him off, even though the majority perhaps wouldn’t agree and vice versa.