Mitch, the problem with what you're saying is that it inadvertently advocates historical revisionism.
If the allegations are true, then Bill Cosby has been a sexual predator and a comedy icon for over 50 years; until now, we've only known about half of it. In that time of ignorance, Cosby's influence has been virtually immeasurable, and the quality of his work still stands. That cannot be undone by a new revelation about what he is and what he has done. Now it CAN alter the historical perspective of the man from now on, but it cannot retroactively undo the influence and impact he has.
The TV conglomerates have removed and cancelled Cosby's content to avoid controversy; they don't want to be seen as advocating what he did--which is preposterous because corporations don't have opinions...they're bad for business because opinions can alienate consumers. They have not taken the content down as part of an activist cause to deliberately eliminate Cosby from the record in order to shame him for what he has allegedly done. And the advocating of doing so for a moralistic purpose is dangerous.
We can't just say "Ooop, George Washington, our first president and one of the Founding Fathers owned slaves so we all have to hate him now and stop reading books about him, or having his picture out in public, or referring to him by name otherwise we advocate what he did."
Altering the historical record to reflect current political and cultural outrage is a losing proposition because you do serious damage to the long-term perspective of a temporal point. People in the future need accurate information--both objective and subjective--to gain a comprehensive understanding of a time period they are studying, otherwise it comes off as heavily one-sided and it can affect interpretation. Most of our misconceptions of history come from having deliberately biased records of the time period that prevent us from separating fact from fiction. We should know better than to attempt the same just to make a moral position that is largely unnecessary.
Cosby's personal image has been irreparably damaged, even crippled, regardless of whether he did it or not. Even if he's innocent, there will always be doubt, and his biography will carry the scar of this. There is no need of an active effort by corporations or the culture to destroy, rescind, or alter the record. You could play The Cosby Show today and tomorrow and the day after with the same regularity as before the allegations and it won't restore what was lost. The historical record and the pop culture memory will make sure of it. But canceling the propagation of his work for consumption and study for a short-term burst of righteous indignation only serves to hurt everyone in the longterm.
Support for Cosby or others scandalized by similar suits is dependent on the individual: if you want to spend your money on him, it's up to you; if you don't, you don't. But support is not immediately equal to endorsement. The allegations indicate that Cosby was doing this before he had vast wealth (as far back as 1966 allegedly), so it is unlikely that your money, my money, anybody's money was contributing to his rape of young women. Now, an organization like Chick-Fil-A that uses its commercial profits to finance anti-gay legislation, is a different story because there IS a direct connection between the monetary support of the consumer and the questionable activities of the offender in question.
Boycotts are designed to hinder an offender's ability to commit unjust practices using community, collective, or otherwise opposed people's money. In the time since the Civil Rights Movement, the action has been seen in the context of the moral cause of the activists and seen as a moral objection, with the practical aspect largely lost. Boycotting segregated buses was designed to prevent the bus companies from committing segregation with fare money from unassuming or desperate integrationist passengers; consumer reporting merged with political activism, if you will. The moral indignation was the vehicle for the information, but not the whole point.
Watching The Cosby Show on TV, VHS, DVD, or YouTube will not be financing Cosby's rape-a-thon and it does not make the viewer an active participant in any rapey activities. The viewer is not passively complicit in rape. That moral distinction lies with Cosby and Cosby alone.
To an extent, that might be a good thing. Justice is noble, but vengeance is less so. What we all have to be careful of in this type of field is turning the legal system into a weapon that can be used to prosecute offenses in perpetuity indifferently of circumstances. There comes a point where vigilance can lose its sensible nature and become persecution. For example, Piper Kerman, the writer of Orange Is The New Black, was arrested 10 years after a single felony offense of drug trafficking was committed, and not even at her behest. She never repeated the offense, went on with her life and was a straight law-abiding citizen the entire length of time between the offense and when she was arrested. At some point, the question has to be asked "is it worth taking an honest functional person out of society and punishing them for a long-ago-committed crime for no other reason that to balance the books?" At what point does prosecution swerve from justice to pique?
This is the thing people need to be careful of when chasing emotionally charged cases such as this.
If the allegations are true, then Bill Cosby has been a sexual predator and a comedy icon for over 50 years; until now, we've only known about half of it. In that time of ignorance, Cosby's influence has been virtually immeasurable, and the quality of his work still stands. That cannot be undone by a new revelation about what he is and what he has done. Now it CAN alter the historical perspective of the man from now on, but it cannot retroactively undo the influence and impact he has.
The TV conglomerates have removed and cancelled Cosby's content to avoid controversy; they don't want to be seen as advocating what he did--which is preposterous because corporations don't have opinions...they're bad for business because opinions can alienate consumers. They have not taken the content down as part of an activist cause to deliberately eliminate Cosby from the record in order to shame him for what he has allegedly done. And the advocating of doing so for a moralistic purpose is dangerous.
We can't just say "Ooop, George Washington, our first president and one of the Founding Fathers owned slaves so we all have to hate him now and stop reading books about him, or having his picture out in public, or referring to him by name otherwise we advocate what he did."
Altering the historical record to reflect current political and cultural outrage is a losing proposition because you do serious damage to the long-term perspective of a temporal point. People in the future need accurate information--both objective and subjective--to gain a comprehensive understanding of a time period they are studying, otherwise it comes off as heavily one-sided and it can affect interpretation. Most of our misconceptions of history come from having deliberately biased records of the time period that prevent us from separating fact from fiction. We should know better than to attempt the same just to make a moral position that is largely unnecessary.
Cosby's personal image has been irreparably damaged, even crippled, regardless of whether he did it or not. Even if he's innocent, there will always be doubt, and his biography will carry the scar of this. There is no need of an active effort by corporations or the culture to destroy, rescind, or alter the record. You could play The Cosby Show today and tomorrow and the day after with the same regularity as before the allegations and it won't restore what was lost. The historical record and the pop culture memory will make sure of it. But canceling the propagation of his work for consumption and study for a short-term burst of righteous indignation only serves to hurt everyone in the longterm.
Support for Cosby or others scandalized by similar suits is dependent on the individual: if you want to spend your money on him, it's up to you; if you don't, you don't. But support is not immediately equal to endorsement. The allegations indicate that Cosby was doing this before he had vast wealth (as far back as 1966 allegedly), so it is unlikely that your money, my money, anybody's money was contributing to his rape of young women. Now, an organization like Chick-Fil-A that uses its commercial profits to finance anti-gay legislation, is a different story because there IS a direct connection between the monetary support of the consumer and the questionable activities of the offender in question.
Boycotts are designed to hinder an offender's ability to commit unjust practices using community, collective, or otherwise opposed people's money. In the time since the Civil Rights Movement, the action has been seen in the context of the moral cause of the activists and seen as a moral objection, with the practical aspect largely lost. Boycotting segregated buses was designed to prevent the bus companies from committing segregation with fare money from unassuming or desperate integrationist passengers; consumer reporting merged with political activism, if you will. The moral indignation was the vehicle for the information, but not the whole point.
Watching The Cosby Show on TV, VHS, DVD, or YouTube will not be financing Cosby's rape-a-thon and it does not make the viewer an active participant in any rapey activities. The viewer is not passively complicit in rape. That moral distinction lies with Cosby and Cosby alone.
To an extent, that might be a good thing. Justice is noble, but vengeance is less so. What we all have to be careful of in this type of field is turning the legal system into a weapon that can be used to prosecute offenses in perpetuity indifferently of circumstances. There comes a point where vigilance can lose its sensible nature and become persecution. For example, Piper Kerman, the writer of Orange Is The New Black, was arrested 10 years after a single felony offense of drug trafficking was committed, and not even at her behest. She never repeated the offense, went on with her life and was a straight law-abiding citizen the entire length of time between the offense and when she was arrested. At some point, the question has to be asked "is it worth taking an honest functional person out of society and punishing them for a long-ago-committed crime for no other reason that to balance the books?" At what point does prosecution swerve from justice to pique?
This is the thing people need to be careful of when chasing emotionally charged cases such as this.
