What happens when artists are criminals but their artworks aren’t? Social justice without vigilantism

Comment published on New York Times online blog, in response to Lindy West, “Yes, this is a witch hunt.  I’m a witch and I’m hunting you,” New York Times, October 17, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/columnists/weinstein-harassment-witchunt.html?comments

We’ve seen this before: Social Justice Warriors the legitimacy of whose basic grievance cannot be denied are angry and want vengeance.  The tone of her rant makes it clear that she is calling for something like vigilantism.  That “This treatment of women stops now” (Angelina Jolie) is not the issue. Most of America is agreed on that. 

Allen is right: we don't want a witch hunt.  They corral lots of innocent people.  And our social justice warfare culture is based on the idea of the latency of wrongs, or the micro-aggression.  California itself has made this law as its "Yes means yes" policy.  

The other issue with Allen's statement is the attention it calls to the question of his own behavior.  To most observers, what that means is that an artist who by all accounts has been making substantial contributions to his field might or might not be a louse and a criminal as a man.  Suppose he is.  Most Americans are very uncomfortable with this idea, but as a film critic and film lover I believe in film as art.  If Allen is a sex criminal, he should be judged and somehow made to pay a price.  But if he is even a good filmmaker, the public has an interest in his being able to continue to make art.  If he routinely harassed his actresses, maybe not, and that's the position Weinstein was in.