To manage her political campaign, that's the important part. Being a candidate for a public office _is_ justified reason for discussing a person's employees/employers/companies/taxes/PRs/whatever.
I had no frakking idea on who she was until this, anyway.
The person in question probably suffers psychologically a great deal. Who wouldn't if they were dealt with the double-hand of gender-dysphoria and a pedophile father? I think it is safe to conclude this person is not well. Does the world really stand to gain much exposing a fringe activist to the opprobrium of the entire world?
I might sound radical in saying this, but I really don't think they do, and I think that societal shame needs to be regulated in proportion with how useful it is.
You don't get a pass on hiring your dad while he is being charged for sex crimes just because you are trans.
What I have trouble with, is the idea that it's somehow okay for the whole world to deliver it in the form of an ungoverned internet mob.
Societies have limits to how much opprobrium you can receive. The reality is that she's probably getting tens of thousands of death threats. In most places you have an inalienable legal right to protection from such things.
However given she is directly connected to the person at hand by willful association after knowing the issue she pretty much deserves no exception.
Frankly I could care less about her and more about how Reddit justifies hiring her knowing what they know about her.
Maybe Reddit can sell dispensations in the form of hiring people.
that is what a conviction means -- we should not punish people before it, nor should we punish people that associate with them
It’s still bad judgement to hire someone who you are aware is being investigated for kidnapping and raping a 10 year old child when you are in a political party trying to get elected.
I mean it’s not a good look for a political party to play the “I knew he was being investigated for child rape, but we hired him anyway because innocent until proven guilty, even though he was actually guilty in the end” card.
In this case, the person being shamed for endorsing pedophilia was hired to manage a communities of children. She hired a child rapist, married an admitted pedophile, and now (as demonstrated by this incident) has the power to control what media many children are exposed to.
I’ve no problem with her getting a job that doesn’t involve kids.
I would say yes.
Q2: If so, should a public figure that is psychologically suffering be safeguarded from any criticism
I would say no since being a public figure was a conscious choice.
I think this is an attempt to defend her from that contravention of the hate speech policy, and is more cock-up than conspiracy IMO.
Reddit is in a bit of a difficult place; perhaps because of the legal duty of care Reddit has to their employee (particularly to someone who can legitimately claim to be marginalised) they can't just toss her to an incensed mob. Especially if that incensed mob was created by the actions of Reddit making clumsy choices.