I would argue that it does. Being a child molester shows a horrifically bad sense of judgement and a flagrant disregard for the law.
Carl was arrested for molesting his nine year-old son. He committed suicide in jail awaiting trial.
With that said, do we disregard all of the learning materials he created? Is their value inherently reduced to zero now that we know they were the product of a sick individual?
This isn't just an thought exercise. Carl was a real person. He had a Reddit board dedicated to his lessons and instructing people. His website has since lost its host and pretty much all the videos are gone from the web, save for p2p torrenting, because no one will be caught dead hosting videos from a child molestor, not matter how innocuous the videos themselves were.
But for a referee putting down high scores from a video game, the referee's value stems entirely from the idea that the referee is a trustworthy observer.
In the latter case, his inability to make fair decisions in life is directly relevant to his qualification for a job that involves making fair decisions affecting other people.
Unfortunately I don't think this thought experiment is very relevant.
Distributing knowledge, like Carl H was doing, does not involve the kind of sensibilities required to be a referee, judge or notary.
Were Carl H a federal judge, his crime would definitely put all trials presided by him under scrutiny.