So, um, this is a novel-length response to ynwtf. For most people I'd say
Not to disagree or to even suggest you're wrong in any of this, but I'm curious how law enforcement of an action might ease one interpretation or another. I mean, say I have an ethical issue with how a business practices their business. Laws may allow that practice as though nothing is wrong. My option would then be to boycott in some principled way to show my disapproval.
On the other hand, if an individual artist has done wrong and has been apprehended and judged in a court of law to serve some form of sentencing, then has society not played that role in response to the wrong done? I'm not asking if that role is adequate. But is that not the arena for a victim to find justice of sorts? Does that justice also include requiring me, a viewer, to shun some work of art or even just a generic something that I find good in spite of the individual's criminal activity?
I think that these are really important questions. In fact, I think that the whole thing is nuanced, which is why I push back against "all or nothing" or blanket statements either way.
Victor Salva's case is an example of someone who was apprehended and sentenced. He served a sentence and was released. Do I personally think that a year and 3 months is a reasonable sentence for sexually abusing a child? Nope. Does Salva's victim consider this justice? From what I've read I don't think so.
But does this mean that he should never make films again? No. I mean, there are a lot of people out there who commit crimes and hurt others. It's not reasonable to say that they should all be shunned from society or never allowed to have jobs. If anything, alienating people probably just makes it more likely that they will hurt themselves or others, and that's not an ideal outcome. If you watch the film
The Interrupters, many of those in the group committed violent crimes--even murder-and yet it's an undeniable good that they are free and out on the streets.
On a personal level, like I explained before, I just can't watch movies by people who have done certain things.
On a broader level, I just think that it's worth being careful that someone who used their power to take advantage of others (as Salva did and as Polanski did and as Weinstein did) are held accountable and are not allowed to be in a position again to perpetrate similar abuse. I'm an elementary teacher. Suppose I just lost it one day and hit a kid. Does that mean I should never work again? No. But does it mean I probably shouldn't be in charge of a room of young people again? Yeah, I think it does.
If NOTHING was done, then I might lean more to boycotting the work of that individual. I'm not sure though. I tend to separate the artist from the work and generally try to judge each independently. That's not to say that artist and art are mutually exclusive. They are not. There are a lot of variables in that equation though (at least for me), that shift my position relative to what was done, what was done in response, what power I have to force a response, where I stand in judgment on whatever ethical spectrum the act falls (jaywalking - murder), where society stands, etc.
I think that's all we can ask of anyone: use context and your personal moral compass to make a decision. It might not be the decision that someone else would come to, but that's just life.
I suppose all of that takes place mentally and under the surface. Is it necessary to express those considerations to their extremes for others to witness so that one might justify or receive a sense of permission for viewing and possibly enjoying the work of a rapist?
I don't think that anyone about to watch
Jeepers Creepers needs to stand up and loudly go "HEY EVERYONE!!! I THINK THAT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IS WRONG!!!". That's performance. I do think that for a long time people have been willing to ignore crimes and improprieties by artists or others with power, but there is a connection between being willing to listen to someone's voice and giving that person power. I think that as consumers (of goods, of art, etc) it's important to think about the ethical implications of taking part in something.
I also think that it's really valid for victims of crimes to feel hurt when people are willing to dismiss or deny their suffering.
That last bit probably reads aggressively lol. I only mean to push the idea to an extreme for contrast. And again, this is in no way to argue you or your posts. More, it's just to continue your line of questioning maybe from a slightly different perspective.
Ultimately, I do not believe there can be a universal right or wrong for all of society here. I mean, there are varying degrees of murder in our legal definitions because even that has gray space depending on a range of contexts.
It's complicated. And it's sometimes hard to argue this without sounding like you're declaring yourself the Ultimate Moral Authority. Like I said in my first post, I mostly don't have a problem with people who still watch Polanski films or Salva's films. My only real issue is when (1) people try to victim-blame or excuse bad artist behavior because they'd rather call a 13-year old girl a manipulative slut than admit a director they like did something really wrong or (2) group all artists together as "people who are human and make mistakes!" without acknowledging the difference between a DUI and a year of child sexual abuse.