I argue that art always happens in context and one context is who did it. Appreating art from someone who is clearly hurting others can't have done something so important to me to still enjoy it.

If a case is made which has some very rare and difficult scenario I'm not sure what I would do.

That would be problematic.

It is much easier for me to avoid art though.

Pretty much sums it up doesn't it.

Not sure why I would do that. Ghandi doesn't really affect s my life

I think theres a debate to be had over whether they should profit from those actions though.

Also keep in mind that Homosexuality was put in the same box as paedophilia and rape ( probably worse than rape). Social mores change, and are different from country to country. The girl involved was 17 as I understand it, which would be over the age of consent in my country.

My point is I could have consensual sex with a 17 year old, paint a picture and the GP would be happy to view it(?). You could have sex with a 17 year old, get arrested for paedophilia, paint a picture, and the GP would not be happy viewing it. Theres a legal line and a moral line both can change so its weird getting absolutist about it.

To be clear I wasn't aware of the sex trafficking element, I thought this was a question of statutory rape, which would seem to yield very different legal answers based on location.

Edit: 'Interestingly' I seemed to have circled around to making the same point RMS made. Except I'm not denying the rape, and I'm not a representative for another organisation.

This whole thread has gotten side tracked on statutory rape, when in reality the criminal charges hinge on sex trafficking with age only as a modifier.

Guess you avoid Caravaggio too, then.

At least on Wikipedia there it is stated that there is no proper source.

Also I try to. If it is very significant part of history I would try to be aware of it and still have a look.

I'm also very unsure about Alice in wonderland for the same reason.

But at least it's not someone still alive which would benefit from his/her art and being pedo right?

Do yo actively avoid using technology invented or heavily influenced by problematic people?

I don't have the same reservations about using the work of problematic people, so I don't typically check for that info.

Off the top of my head, an example might be accepting opiods to manage pain, despite the tons of damage pushing the drugs has caused Americans as a whole.