questionswould you boycott an event if a significant…


I would absolutely boycott it. Putting money in his pockets is contributing to his disgusting ways.


If there is no question about his guilt, then yes I would boycott. I would not want to support such an individual in any way.


Not only would I boycott, but I'd make sure that others knew about the issues. A lot of people (myself included) would go out of my way to make sure that they don't do business with someone of that character, even if it meant it would cost them financially. There are far too many people that don't pay consequences for their actions because of our corrupt political system and it rests on the shoulders of the citizens to see them receive their justice.

AAHGHHHH. It just makes me mad thinking about it.

May I ask what the event is?


I think so. At the same time, though, just because he's a bad egg doesn't necessarily reflect negatively on the company/ organization itself. I'd be pretty hesitant since I wouldn't want to contribute to that guy's paycheck, but at the same time I wouldn't want to screw everyone else just because this guy isn't getting fired for whatever reason, especially if it's a good cause.


I boycotted a Radio Shack that was owned by an alleged pedophile (Other under age boys my age were the source) When I got older it almost seemed like an accepted fact in town. As much as I liked Radio Shack we avoided going there, at first the guy was creepy but as I got older I did not want to help him make a living in my town. Avoiding going there was very very hard in an age before internet.
Now I did see his name on the National Sex Offender map: and we no longer have a Radio Shack.


If you have no problem putting food on the table for you and yours, then I would seriously consider avoiding the event. If you need the money, then you have a responsibility to look out for your own and I would do what you have to do.

But if you aren't in desperate need for the cash, I would pass. What if God forbid it was one of your kids and you found out your friend was going to the event and supporting this guy?


@pitamuffin: There is always a question until it has been proven in court. With that being said, it's your money, do with it what you want.


@thedogma: The person in question isn't an employee, he's a shareholder. There's pretty much no legal way the corporation can be rid of him as he will not sell his shares.


@moondrake: I figured as much. Would be terrible publicity to keep such a guy around if it were possible to get rid of him.


@capguncowboy: I deliberately avoided naming it because I wanted a straight opinion without the type of event getting in the way. Some additional facts:
About ten years ago, he was accused of molesting the two teenaged sons of a woman he was dating. He'd been accused before but quashed it with a libel suit. Another teen came forward and said he'd met the guy at the event and been molested for years. He was arrested but the boy withdrew the charges. Police seized hundreds of tapes at first said to be pornographic pedophilia but later determined by the courts not to be. While he was under house arrest (his monitoring device was removed due to health problems) he left the state and was found in a motel room with a teenaged boy whom he claimed to be watching for his parents. Basically, nothing is quite black and white, but it's all a pretty dark gray. It seems unlikely that there'd be that many unrelated false accusations.


As a former political organizer, I'm pretty quick to keep my money away from people and causes with which I disagree, but this isn't one I'd boycott under the circumstances you've described. The fact that he's a only stockholder rather than the owner, a director, or an employee makes a significant difference to me.

The function of a boycott is to [attempt to] force a company to change a policy or practice by calling attention to the situation. Here, the company itself cannot make any change of any kind that would disassociate them from the individual in question, so a boycott seems pretty useless. Ugly and unfortunate, but there it is.


@magic cave: Completely agree.
If there were some way a boycott would actually do anything, perhaps, but you cannot force a shareholder to sell his shares and a boycott would just result in everyone else at the company receiving less money as well, so there you have it.


Encourage the company to buy out this person's shares or else you will withhold your business/attendance. Start a petition. If there are enough of you, the company will be compelled to do something, since it's related to money.

Just for some perspective: Catholic church attendance has significantly dropped after major sex abuse scandals. People are so disgusted with their church, they stop attending; their eternal souls are on the backburner as opposed to being associated with such people or acts.

Although, considering this event (whatever it is) generates revenue for everyone, I doubt you will experience any kind of mass exodus the church has experienced.


If he earns $150,000 in dividends from this one event, that money is contributing to affording the legal team that's keeping him out of prison.


I wonder if anyone of the posters here are Catholic, because if you're Catholic and give money to the church, you've been helping pedophiles.

Just sayin'

I think it's interesting this discussion got posted because I read a very similar article earlier today:

It's really hard to say what the right thing to do is. On the one hand you are support Card who in turn not only is anti-gay rights, but actively supports groups that try and suppress them. On the other hand, he is an artist (and a pretty amazing one I think) and by boycotting him you are suppressing and potentially stopping him from making his art. Who knows what we could deprive ourseleves of by doing this. Is it worth in turn depriving other people of rights for though. Also, you're not just depriving Card of money but DC comics and tons of other artists and it's not like the work itself is actively anti-gay rights....I really don't know.


@caffeine_dude: Regarding Radio Shack, how could that be owned by an alleged pedophile? It's a publicly held corporation.

There isn't a single owner. When it was owned by Tandy Corporation in the 80's, I owned tons of their stock and sold it to use as a down payment for my house.

Before buying something from any company, do you look up the thousands or millions of stock holders to determine their criminal activity? Stocks are being bought and sold every day for Radio Shack.

Yesterday alone, there were was 2,519,758,000 stocks traded throughout the day in the NYSE. How could someone possibly keep track of all pedophile stock holders with volumes traded like that?


@cengland0: No need to be so snarky... It is pretty obvious they were talking about the individual who was in charge of their local store.

and for information, per

Q. How many RadioShack stores are franchise locations?

A. At present, roughly 20% of U.S. domestic RadioShack stores are dealer/franchise owned and operated. The remaining stores are owned and operated by RadioShack Corporation.


That's a tough choice. If you can get a number of the other vendors to boycott with you, you might have an effect. If not, then you're not being effective.
I think that were I in that position, especially if it is a popular and well-attended event, I'd go, and devote a portion of my space to advertising the individual's crimes. As a caution, ONLY provide info that can be proven to be accurate - like court records. Otherwise you open yourself up to a slander or defamation lawsuit.


An event supporting a pedophile? You mean like a Michael Jackson concert (while he was still alive)? I would absolutely boycott it.


I wouldn't attend anything he made money from.

to add .02 to the conversation, the Adam Walsh Act which was signed into law in 2006, has not been fully implemented across the U.S. SOme states have not come into compliance.THe law requires national registration of sex offenders according to one set of criteria. An example of the wonderful legal loopholes in my state were this. If you had sex with a girl who was 14 and lets say you were 42, and it was not a rape, you may or may not have been forced to register under the existing state law. If your lawyer was slick, he/she would work a plea deal for you so that you would be charged with the same exact crime as everyone else that had to register, but under subsection 7 of the law you didn't have to register, just subsections 1-6 and 8 had to register. Now under adam walsh, those people are required to register the same as everyone else. Adam Walsh, when fully implemented, will list all the sex offenders on one site (so I am told).


If you feel strongly about what you believe this person did I would not attend. I wouldn't attend given the circumstances you describe.

But I would caution you strongly about organizing protests either in person or online. If this person is never found guilty of anything in a court of law, you could be setting yourself up for some legal action for defaming his character if he isn't convicted of anything.

(The person might be guilty, you and others might believe their guilty, but if it isn't proven in court and you go ahead with bloodying his name you could be in trouble. And sometimes bad people go free.)


I would but then again I decided a long time ago that a little less money was worth a lighter heart. At the end of the day, you are the only one who can decide if the consequences are worth it to you.


@crowbite: My thoughts exactly. I clicked on this thinking it was about him.


@hessem: That's one of the reasons why I didn't mention his name or the name of the event. Plus I really wanted to discuss it in theoretical terms rather than specifics. That argument about "You shouldn't boycott one business if you haven't investigated all the shareholders of every company you do business with" has been likened to the idea that you shouldn't refuse to ride with an acquaintance who was arrested for driving drunk unless you first do a background check on all your acquaintances to determine if they are also guilty of the same offense. The law doesn't wait to pass judgement on individuals because it hasn't investigated every single person to see if they, too, are guilty. Other than voir dire questions the law doesn't even investigate the jurors to see if they have committed the same crime. You have to look at the case in point and make your judgement on that and then move on to the next guy.


If there is an event that can generate $450k+ per year in profits it shouldn't be that hard to find some person or group to create a competing event without ties to that investor especially if it is know that many people are looking for such an alternative.


@portezbie: It's ironic that you would post these two incidents together. If the Church had taken Card's advice and made more of an effort to keep homosexuals out of the Clergy, then there wouldn't have been any abuse scandals in the first place.


@machgogogo: That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that if you take men, any man, and tell him he can't have sex ever, he is going to go crazy and often do something terrible. The pedophile cases get a lot of attention because they are awful and criminal, but there are as many or more cases of clergymen taking sexual advantage of women as well.


I'm sure most companies have shareholders that are less than morally admirable or just down right criminal. If you're not boycotting them then why would you boycott this event? How is it different? I'm sure there are some disgusting people owning large portions of stock in walmart, target, mcdonalds, and probably the companies you work for, but are you going to stop shopping or working there just because you don't like their investors? Are you really going to start studying up on the investors of every company you deal with?

$150k isn't a huge amount of money so I'm guessing this is a smaller event? If it's about protecting a community or bringing about awareness I think a boycott is the wrong type of action to take.


@moondrake: Just saw your post and didn't have time to edit the old one X-P

I understand your reasoning that you cannot investigate every company you do business with or every person you ride in a car with. However, your reasoning also supports that when you do find out about another company with a pedophile as a shareholder that you would cease all business with that company (or stop riding with that person). Why would you feel so strongly about this organization having a pedo around and not another? How do you support your decision to keep shopping at a another company you learn something bad about?


@nmchapma: I actually have not decided to boycott this event. Some of the people on my Yahoo list have decided to do so, others have floated the same arguments s people here have. I am personally pretty ambivalent. But as far as the comparison goes, Walmart investors are receiving miniscule dividends from each of tens of millions of customers. Whereas this event is financed by about 50,000 people. I was one of the attendees last year, which means that this guy got about $2.50 of my ticket price. That's not a huge amount, but it adds up fast if a significant number of people decide to boycott the event, unlike a grassroots movement to boycott a huge business like Walmart. OTOH, there are a lot of people who are employed by the event, and a lot of people who depend on the event as vendors for a good chunk of their income. Is it fair to boycott the event when they are innocent bystanders? It's an interesting debate to me.


@machgogogo: There is ZERO connection between pedophilia and same-sex attraction. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children; some pedophiles target children of the same gender as the pedophile; some target children of the opposite gender as the pedophile; some target children of both genders. Pedophilia is, in part, a developmental disorder: pedophiles' sexuality becomes arrested at an early developmental stage instead of maturing along with chronological age (e.g., it's developmentally appropriate for seven years olds to have a crush on other seven year olds; a 50 year old whose sexual identity became developmentally arrested at age seven for some reason may have a "crush" on a seven year old, which is obviously developmentally inappropriate).

Sexual attraction by an adult to an adult of the same gender is completely separate.


I would not knowingly participate in an event that supported a pedophile. I don't feel the need to justify that choice or make loopholes for "innocent" people in the company - who are knowingly supporting this man.

Spread the word, and keep yourself away from this.


What kind of town do you live in where "everyone" knows that someone is guilty of a crime, yet he escapes prosecution? Maybe the reason he's never been convicted of his so-called crimes is because the District Attorney looked at the facts and felt that the evidence wasn't credible enough to form a case against him.

If the local law enforcement and judicial system is so bad that an obvious child molester can walk free, I think you have more problems than whether or not to support a particular event, sounds like the guy owns the town.

Or more likely, he's been convicted in public opinion despite not having committed the crime. There have been plenty of accusations and even convictions where the victim ultimately recants her/her story.


@neuropsychosocial: I love it when you talk psychology to me ;-)


@rlw999: You are totally mixing up two completely different stories. One is a big annual event that draws people from all over the country, which has a major shareholder (30%+) that earns about $150,000 per year from the event which he has been using to delay being brought to trial for a series of widely-known offenses. The other is a small town Radio Shack owner who was commonly believed among the kids who lived there to be a child molester and has since turned up on the sexual offender database. In one case the alleged pedophile is using funds contributed by event attendees to thwart being brought to justice, in the other the pedophile was evidently convicted.


@moondrake: I'm was referring to your original post "one of the founders is an accused pedophile...There doesn't seem to be any doubt of his guilt...manipulating the system to avoid going to trial".

You are certain of his guilt yet he's never gone to trial. Is there really a D.A. anywhere in the country that when faced with evidence of pedophilia, he would not file charges against the suspected perpetrator just because he has considerable resources, especially if he continues committing the same offense multiple times? Where are the parents in this matter? Surely they must be fighting hard to punish the guy for his crimes.


@rlw999: Issues with his health and the hiring of many expensive lawyers has delayed his being brought to trial. Although charged in 2000 with molesting three boys, he was ruled to be too sick to travel for a trial. He'd gone to jail, been granted house arrest, had his house arrest revoked, suffered a spine injury during a jailhouse riot and been placed once again under house arrest so he could receive treatment for medical conditions. Eventually a judge allowed his ankle bracelet to be removed. His health did not prevent him from then illegally traveling to another state where he was found living with a 14 year old boy. He was arrested for violation of the house arrest order and is being held in remand pending trial. In addition to the health issues, his trial has been delayed due to many legal shenanigans from his lawyers. At this point he has a May 11 trial date but after more than a decade of delays no one is holding their breath.