In case anyone wonders

[yendi]

Yes, there are still René Walling Harassment Apologists.

Incidentally, probably not going to Boskone this year (not because of assholes like Lang, who are everywhere, but because of the usual time/money commitment issues). If I do make it, it'll be pretty much for a Heather Dale concert. But I am glad to see that Boskone has a policy -- a reasonable one that actually aims a little low, if anything -- in place.

Comments

[swashbucklr]

Sometimes I wish I could vote down comments on Facebook.

[ckd]

The good news is that Readercon's new policy is also working to cut down the number of future apologists: "I will not be attending that other convention due to the one-sided over-reaction and the ensuing attacks on the internet."

(In unrelated news: I kept forgetting to give you something at Arisia -- if you do make it over to Boskone, call/text me so I can give it to you there.)

[yendi]

Ditto.

[yendi]

Good point. I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that they're taking their ball and going home, when in reality, they're just leaving.

Even if I'm not there, 'song will be.

[vschanoes.livejournal.com]

You know, I'm not even clicking over. I think my stress level is already high enough.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

It's someone who clearly has no clue about the case ie that the person in question was himself clear that he had transgressed.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Maybe Ed Kramer is just bad at flirting.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Considering how many people are lining up to repeat the DragonCon party lines (first they had nothing to do with Ed Kramer and now they CAN'T cut ties with Ed Kramer because of Georgia law) I'm not surprised. Hell, this thing seems almost quaint in comparison.

[yendi]

That's part of what makes it so frustrating for me to see.

[yendi]

*nod* It's two different applications of the same problem, people defending their friend or the con they love because they don't want to admit anything bad about it (not equating Walling and Kramer, of course, but both have thrived because of these attitudes).

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

I'm actually really curious about that. I know about the background on Ed Kramer, and I've recently read the bit about how he's a stockholder, and they can't even break up the con per se because of legalities.

So... is that even remotely true? I mean, I admit that I'm not conversant with Georgia state law, but it sounds plausible, but I Am Not A Lawyer, so.... how does that come out in the wash?

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Basic facts.

After 2000, Ed Kramer stopped being on the board of directors but he still held a significant share of the Con.

For years DragonCon put out press releases saying that he had no tie to the con in any way whatsoever.

However, he sued for past royalties and it was discovered that he still held 34% share of DragonCon and he was awarded $150K in past royalties (it's possible that his 34% does not add up to $150K a year)

http://www.atlantamagazine.com/features/2012/09/01/dragoncon-ed-kramer-child-molestation - this article was particularly damning.

So basically there's a boycott movement due to the fact that attending DragonCon means that 34% of that income (whether by the vendor, the attendee or the guest who attracts an audience) goes to Ed Kramer and helps him to pervert the justice system (also he started a talent agency for young boys which is how he got caught in that motel room with a naked 14 year old boy)

The apologists for DragonCon engage in a complicated corporate law discussion which involves a long tedious explanation of dissolving corporations and then a paragraph break before stating that Georgia makes that impossible.

Of course, that ignores the fact that the attendees to DragonCon DO have a choice. They can go to a Con that gives 34% of its income to a child molester or they can attend any of the thousands of other cons in the continental United States that aren't financially tied to a pedophile.

Whether or not the DragonCon corporate confusion is true (DragonCon has preferred to lie about its involvement with Ed Kramer rather than say anything one way or the other) is immaterial. It gets repeated ad nauseum by people hoping to justify themselves but whether a company is giving money to a pedophile reluctantly or willingly has nothing to do with the decision to give money to the company.

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

Got it. That makes perfect sense to me.

"...but whether a company is giving money to a pedophile reluctantly or willingly has nothing to do with the decision to give money to the company."

...aaaaand that's the logic jump that my brain got hung on for some reason.

Thank you for the summary, and the link.