Comment by linuxkerneldev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by linuxkerneldev | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Arthur C Clark was a wealthy European man who surprisingly chose to live a very "quiet life" in a war torn South Asian country, Sri Lanka. During that period, Sri Lanka was listed as the country with the highest rate of child prostitution and was a prominent location for child-sex predator-tourists [1]. However, there is no evidence that Clark was one of them [2]. However, it is also not wrong to be suspicious of a corrupt country's police force declaring such a prominent powerful individual as not guilty.

The reason I bring this up is not because I dislike Clarke or seek to tarnish his legacy. I like his work. I bring it up because I believe we need to be aware of such things even when we celebrate a person's contribution and I was surprised those allegations did not even receive a single remark in this article which is why I chose to bring it up here.

[1] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-five-countries-highest-rates-ch...

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-03-24/arthur-c-clarke-not-a-...

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-sp...

Edit: since this is being downvoted to -5 within such a short time, I ask that if you chose to downvote, at least give a reason why you believe that it is not worth pointing out given the fact that it is precisely the fear of raising such topics that enabled such crimes to occur.

Edit2: added additional references.

> However, there is no evidence that Clark was one of them […] Edit: since this is being downvoted to -5 […] at least give a reason why you believe that it is not worth pointing out.

How is this not posthumous slander?

If there is evidence of wrongdoing, than present that evidence. Unless I am misreading your comment, you are saying that because Arthur C. Clark was a wealthy European, and that he moved to Sri Lanka where child prostitution occurred at higher than average rates, and nothing more than just these two facts, we should suspect him of wrongdoing?

How does that kind of reasoning not turn any European male with money living in an exotic location into a suspected paedophile?

> How is this not posthumous slander?

Well, mostly because it's libel, not slander.

Congratulations on subscribing to this old piece of fake news. The allegations have been debunked elsewhere, I'll leave finding that as an exercise to the reader.

But really, the main thing here is that ACC was gay, and the paedophilia slander was a way to tarnish his name, initiated by anti-gay militants, in a time when being gay was not culturally okay. You're wading through a very disgusting brew of lies here.

I've also noticed that those who subscribe to the ACC "paedophilia" controversy tend themselves to be religious, conservative, or with an anti-gay streak (either conscious or subconscious) - in other words, are primed by their own biases to see the world in their own image. But perhaps that's just my limited sample size.

What you are saying the reason behind Arthur C Clarke emigrated to Sri Lanka was wrong. He emigrated to Sri Lanka in 1956 mainly to scuba diving.You did not mention references related to that period.

I recall an apology being issued to Sir Arthur.

I can't find the exact article online - I'd read it in a news paper.

[0] https://ianhamet.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/clarke-slander-and...

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/74938.stm

He moved there in 1956. The war started in 1983, 27 years later. Could it be that you don't know what you're talking about?

Why do we need to be aware of a baseless allegation?

I think it's valuable for history. These allegations should be part of any exhaustive historical account of the man. If nothing else to better understand the times of his day.

Edit to clarify my point:

should we erase from history books accounts of baseless accusations of prominent people? People accused of being witches, accused of being traitors because they subscribed to the wrong beliefs etc.

Regarding Clarke, I can easily imagine people having a beef with his (also alleged!) homosexuality prefer to smear him as a paedophile. Indeed the term is used interchangeably by many to this day, by malice or lack of knowledge or both.

If he actually was one, well we may never know. Knowing the nature of mankind, he would not be the first. But we have not been presented with evidence of wrongdoing, so, the allegations are baseless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com