Just like in 1984 where if you are vapourised you disappear completely as if you had never existed at all.
No getting to edit NYRB or have HBO specials anymore is not analogous to being thrown in prison, ostracized or (literally) disappeared.
It boils down to he's saying that the suffering of any of the victims doesn't matter to him. Literally at all... More over there is a pretty deep undercurrent that that has been the attitude for a long time and that the suffering of others has been ignored for equally long.
If you want justification for removing the works of the artists then consider it a form of ill-gotten gains. Would that work of art have been made if they're crime had been revealed or convicted?
Honestly, the response here is downright frightening, and I fear for our future...
Obviously ex post facto law is bad for society. However, if an artist is receiving royalties for a work they made during which they raped several people, why should they still profit?
This should be so glaringly obvious.
A common problem when someone finishes serving their jail time as allotted by said justice system, the (much more low-key) lynch mob doesn't want to hire them just yet.
But what doesn't happen is this: the prisoner, by some stroke of luck, gets a job in a say a car factory, and suddenly everyone else in that factory should loose their job, and I'm a bad person for wanting to drive a car that the ex-felon worked on.
Now all that being said, this is probably just a pendulum swing. It looks like for decades sexual assault was shielded in the media industry - me too is overall still a positive movement IMO, it’s just important to not letting it get too far (and I think those breaking forces are already acting).
I imagine sex crimes to be really hard to proof. Because the difference between a completely legal act and one that is deeply wrong is the state of mind of two people at the time.
The justice system shouldn't convict someone if it can't be sure that the accuses really did the crime.
That would be quite a deviation from what the justice system ‘we’ (in the western world, 21st century, …) agreed on typically do: only take the money people get from a crime (frequently with a fine added), not all their money.
(There may be edge cases, for example: if I steal a million, put all it on red in Vegas, come out with two million, and then get caught, how much money should be taken from me? I can see a judge ordering me to return a million to the owner of the original million and a million to the casino. Those are the exceptions, though)
Don't build your future on the ashes of someone else's past.
The scary prospect, from my perspective, is that cultural erasure on moral grounds is not only possible, it could be inevitable and lead to a chain reaction. From the statue removal in the US (easily justifiable considering the circumstances of their placement) to the college course alteration and removal in certain South African universities (justifiable under Socially Just interpretations) to the discrediting and forced reinterpretation of scientific theory (IQ studies, intelligent design inclusion, inherent sex disparity, evolutionary genetics), it would appear there may in fact be a reduced friction gradient that isn't wholly fallacious. If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, I'm not going to consider for even a second whether or not I am going to use it.
Seriously... Am I even talking to a member of the free world?
Do you not trust your own justice system?
Economic confiscations are supposed to take the proceeds of crime, not erase everything you've ever done and remove any chance of you earning again. Where is rehabilitation in your "justice"?
No point rehabilitating, or having a change of heart is there? May as well make the sentence for every crime or misdemeanour a whole life tariff.
If the person is convicted, their assets can be siezed and they can be imprisoned. This is not the same as allowing them to continue to benefit by refusing to prosecute, which is what happened in the past.
Gill Sans, for example, created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill
> His personal diaries reveal that his religious beliefs did not limit his sexual activity which included several extramarital affairs, incest with his two eldest teenage daughters, incestuous relationships with his sisters, and sexual acts on his dog.
a crime lord who makes $10mm through illegal ventures has no claim to that money once they are convicted. the money was made illegitimately, so the government can just take it. your pedophile, on the other hand, has done one great thing and one terrible thing for/to society. I don't think that means it should be the purview of the patent office to punish them. instead, why not give them a fine proportional to the offense (ie huge) in addition to jail time and let them use most or all of the profits to pay it?