As a member of society If something someone is doing has a negative impact on society in general, it does hurt me so I can go through the legal process or lobby for legal change by all the means legally available to me.
But if I can’t see how it can effect society in general or myself specifically what right have I to even comment beyond general enquiry? It’s interesting to learn new things about people so asking questions is the best way to avoid prejudice which I personally find morally and ethically indefensible.
I have no objection to Orson Scott Card’s religious beliefs (they aren’t and never will be mine but if he finds comfort and value in them they are his and I would defend his right to keep them) and I liked his books until they were tainted by his bizarre political comments and political lobbying (which he is in his right to do as he would argue that ‘promoting’ homosexuality is bad for society in general of which he is a member) but I as a member and a former customer have every right as the injured party to act against him in the same manner. To protect my freedoms, express my disappointment and disgust to allocate my limited money to exciting new non-bigotted authors.
Sorry to repeat this is one example of how I balance morals, ethics and the legal rights of protest and withholding of future payment but it’s a good example I think of how my mind makes those sorts of judgements. Dead artists can neither be quizzed or slandered so it’s very difficult to gauge what they thought back then or how they would react in a modern contest. Ghosts can’t change their mind, sadly. They can’t personally benefit from my pocket money either so despite the rumours about HP Lovecraft I have no problem buying his books (especially from a charity shop). Thrift is a moral and ethical practise I approve of.