Hacker News Reader

Comment by hath995 | Hacker News Reader

While I can understand and somewhat agree with his point that the works should be judged on their own merit. However, I find his attitude extremely callous. He even reiterated the point that even if the artist was an axe murderer he wouldn't care he just wants the goods.

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?

View on HN

Ok, let's go down this road. Suppose a crime is discovered long after the event. Does that mean you take their house? They probably wouldn't have gotten a job good enough to buy one. Their possessions? Gone. How about their family? Probably wouldn't have gotten married. Probably wouldn't have had those children. Erase erase erase!

Honestly, the response here is downright frightening, and I fear for our future...

The difference between all the things that you listed is that works of art are able to give royalties to a person. If you continue to buy or consume their products they still profit.

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?

Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob.

> Because it's the job of the justice system to mete out punishment, not the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob.

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.

The difference is probably that the factory worker is not seen by the car buyer - we wouldn’t want to expose everyone’s mind to the terrible sight of an ex-felon would we?

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).

One of the key problems, however, is that the justice system isn't doing that. Hence why you get consumer-level campaigns to apply pressure and punishments in other ways.

How can you know that it isn't doing that?

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.

The criminal justice system is very, very rarely involved in HR matters, and that's what we are talking about. (Hiring and firing)

Exactly. The justice system has prisons, or fines. Looking for ways to hurt individuals on top of that is mob mentality. Oh he has a job, lets put pressure on the employer. Oh he has sponsors on social media - lets contact those.

In addition to “because it’s the job of the justice department to dole out punishment”: if an artist is receiving dividend on shares bought in a period during which they raped several people, should we take those dividends? The money they earned in a period in which they raped people?

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)

If someone steals $400K from you, and you discover who it was 10 years later, are you not due at least $400K from that person even if it means liquidating their assets?

Don't build your future on the ashes of someone else's past.

He's not being extremely callous. He's just saying your opinion shouldn't be forced on him. The suffering of others doesn't need to be his problem. We can discourage that with prison and fines. No need to drag the consumer in on a forced march through some rabid vigilante social assassination.

Apply this logic (ill gotten gains is the term you used, but I interpret it as a coded way to say value created by immoral actors) to technology and it suddenly becomes a little more complicated.

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.

If some pernicious pedophile develops a cure for cancer, it would be morally wrong not to use it. However, if that particular pedophile should profit from it is an entirely separate question. Patents and copyrights are a government given right and they can be removed. Actions have consequences.

So, someone who commits a crime should not reap the rewards of unrelated activity?

Seriously... Am I even talking to a member of the free world?

Maybe try not raping or abusing people or other illegal activities and don't suffer economic punishment?

I'm... At a loss for words.

Do you not trust your own justice system?

I do not necessarily agree with the person you are replying too, but I also do not trust the American justice system

Without limit? Everyone has broken a law at some point.

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.

100%. Said pedophile's cure should be used far and wide. I am 100% certain inventions used widely today have been made by pedophiles.

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.

> 100% certain inventions used widely today have been made by pedophiles

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.

i don't really think your pernicious pedophile is a good example of ill-gotten gains.

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?

Luckily there wasn't any suffering that went into making my iPhone, so I'm all clear to enjoy that, right?

It can't be that difficult for people to admit they consume products that were created under less than ideal conditions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com