I'm not sure where you're getting the prejudice angle from, the link is merely information about a topic that was widely discussed here.
If (and it might not be) it is a mental illness, well, you shouldn't think less of him. That's like saying you'd think less of someone if you found out they were Jewish, or that they used a wheelchair.
Another person says "I have a hard time believing that after putting in all the effort of creating the video and getting it out there that this guy would do something like this [...]"
If (and it might not be) it is a mental illness he either has less control or no control over his actions and thoughts. That's not an excuse to just let him do it, but it shouldn't affect the campaign.
Frustratingly I thought there was lots wrong with the KONY video, but my stigma-reduction for people with MH problems is bigger than that.
Obviously, maybe he was just on drugs, or is a weirdo. In which case he should get what he deserves.
And that is total BS that you would compare people with mental problems to Jewish people or those born physically disabled. Yes, I twisted your words, but not that much. You could have chosen much better examples.
There are several types of discrimination - race, sex, sexual preference, age, ability, and religion.
My point was to compare one type of discrimination -discrimination against those with a disability, a mental illness - with other types of discrimination, either discrimination against those with a different disability - those who use wheelchairs, or discrimination against people of a different ethnicity.
Why is it acceptable to say "This person has a mental illness and thus all of their work is suspect and all of the work of their organisation is suspect"?
Why is that acceptable if it's not acceptable to say "This person is a wheelchair user and thus all of their work is suspect and all of the work of their organisation is suspect" or "This person is gay and thus all of their work is suspect and all of the work of their organisation is suspect"?