How is this not posthumous slander?
If there is evidence of wrongdoing, than present that evidence. Unless I am misreading your comment, you are saying that because Arthur C. Clark was a wealthy European, and that he moved to Sri Lanka where child prostitution occurred at higher than average rates, and nothing more than just these two facts, we should suspect him of wrongdoing?
How does that kind of reasoning not turn any European male with money living in an exotic location into a suspected paedophile?
Well, mostly because it's libel, not slander.
That's at least something; you showed no sources at all in your earlier comment (edited now with the link you posted above). Still not much to go on considering the rather shifty reputation of the now-defunct News of the World (i.e., gutter press).
> I can vaguely remember that story. I do remember that Roger Insall worked on it and I remember it was not published. My only recollection is that the only reason we wouldn't publish it was because of legal reasons. He said Mr Murdoch never asked him to spike stories. News International, publisher of the NOTW, made no comment.
This does not really lend credibility to the rumours bandied about by a tabloid hack.
But really, the main thing here is that ACC was gay, and the paedophilia slander was a way to tarnish his name, initiated by anti-gay militants, in a time when being gay was not culturally okay. You're wading through a very disgusting brew of lies here.
I've also noticed that those who subscribe to the ACC "paedophilia" controversy tend themselves to be religious, conservative, or with an anti-gay streak (either conscious or subconscious) - in other words, are primed by their own biases to see the world in their own image. But perhaps that's just my limited sample size.
Edit: You are misleading everyone here in this forum. Please read third paragraph
https://en.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke
Then You will find why he emigrated to Sri Lanka. There are good and bad things in every country. He enjoyed his late life in Sri Lanka with rich culture and amazing climate.
The American society has worked past the "black man sexual predator boogeyman" and the "gay man sexual predator boogeyman". (Well, kind of)
Perpetuating this stereotype harms real people that are actively seeking help from therapists and other mental health institutions.
Then read up more about his life. There are multiple reasons he left the UK. He stated scuba diving in many of his works. Another potential reason was that he was gay, and the UK was not gay friendly at the time (reference Alan Turing).
I can't find the exact article online - I'd read it in a news paper.
[0] https://ianhamet.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/clarke-slander-and...
Edit to clarify my point:
should we erase from history books accounts of baseless accusations of prominent people? People accused of being witches, accused of being traitors because they subscribed to the wrong beliefs etc.
Regarding Clarke, I can easily imagine people having a beef with his (also alleged!) homosexuality prefer to smear him as a paedophile. Indeed the term is used interchangeably by many to this day, by malice or lack of knowledge or both.
If he actually was one, well we may never know. Knowing the nature of mankind, he would not be the first. But we have not been presented with evidence of wrongdoing, so, the allegations are baseless.
This is the classic example of: "Out of ignorance comes certainty."
You're essentially saying that because you cannot explain the behavior of one individual, then the explanation is likely/must be X.
You don't know = ignorance
It must be X = certainty.
Just as an FYI, he moved there long before it was a wartorn country. He chose to stay. Just as so many wealthy Sri Lankans who could have left did not. Why focus on the wealthy European and not the wealthy locals?