What point are you and/or the article writer making about the Hogwarts Legacy guy? It's sounding like they (and, by implication, you) want him to be deprived of his livelihood because of political opinions he expressed in the past and off the clock, but I hope I've misunderstood.
Not being deliberately obtuse, but I can't work out whether that's "Yup, I do think he should lose his livelihood" or "Yup, you have misunderstood: I'm happy for Warner to employ him, but I just don't personally want to buy the product." The article seemed outraged that Warner continued to employ him after he disclosed the YouTube channel to them.
I don't know any more about him than the article says, but it doesn't look like he is (or was) involved in "abuse campaigns". It doesn't say he abused or harassed any individuals. Putting personal opinions on a YouTube channel, which people who find those opinions offensive don't have to watch, is very different from proactively contacting or targeting individuals with abuse or harassment.
I wouldn't be buying it anyway (No more money for Potter from me). But if I was, I wouldn't be buying it on these grounds. I'm not stopping other people buying it though.
Comments 4
Reply
Reply
The article seemed outraged that Warner continued to employ him after he disclosed the YouTube channel to them.
I don't know any more about him than the article says, but it doesn't look like he is (or was) involved in "abuse campaigns". It doesn't say he abused or harassed any individuals. Putting personal opinions on a YouTube channel, which people who find those opinions offensive don't have to watch, is very different from proactively contacting or targeting individuals with abuse or harassment.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment