The title of this thread is silly. Who (apart from publishers of click bait articles) cares if an author is "sexually deviant"? As others have mentioned, what consenting adults do in private is no skin off my nose. And "criminal" can be anything -- heroic (Gandhi), trivial (stealing a pair of sunglasses) or horrible (most murders). Neither "criminal" or "sexually deviant" would deter me from reading and supporting an author.
But I do prefer to not support people and organizations who cause serious harm to others. I don't think that's an extreme view to have.
I've bought, read, and loved a lot of Gaiman's books and comics, bought them as gifts for others, and watched several of the TV series based on his works. I'm disappointed and sad about the news about his behaviour, and I'm not going to buy any more of his works. There are many, many great authors, I won't run out of things to read by avoiding those who are known to have severly mistreated others.
When this story first broke last summer, I read the interview with the woman who had worked as a nanny, and I read Gaiman's rebuttal of her story. Even if I disregard completely everything she wrote, and only go by the events as described by Gaiman, the story is damning: He initiated sex with someone who worked for him, and lived in his house, the first day he met her. That he was in his 60s and she in her (I think early?) 20s makes it even worse. But even without the age difference, it should be clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that this is a situation where it's impossible to be sure that the employee is consenting freely, and not just accepting the advances because she is in a vulnerable situation. If they had known each other for a long time, and she had reason to trust that she could say no without losing her job, the situation would be somewhat closer to ok. But as it is, I have no problems condemning his behaviour based on his own account of what happened.
I'm especially disappointed because he has written with compassion and insight about people who are victims of sexual assault before, and with condemnation of people who misuse their power to hurt those that are more vulnerable.
For those who write about "innocent until proven guilty": If Gaiman is innocent of wrongdoing, then the women who accuse them are guilty of gross slander. Do you also consider them innocent until proven guilty? How does that work -- do you just suspend judgement about the whole situation?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a
legal principle:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Some English jurist in the 1700s
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
|
But in everyday life, where most of us don't wield a government sanctioned monopoly on violence, that principle is hardly appropriate or useful. If a babysitter shows up acting like they are high, you're not going to presume that they are innocent and leave them alone with your children, you'll cancel your plans, send the babysitter home, and never engage them again.
If you are planning a party, and a friend tells you that one of the people you were planning to invite got terribly drunk at a party last week, started a fight, and threw up in the living room, you'll not think "Better that ten guilty people ruin my party than that one innocent person gets unfairly excluded."
In most aspects of life, we consider the information we have, and act based on what we deem most likely.