Oh, for Part II

We keep certain people away from children because those people are a danger to children. We don't keep them away from children because they say stupid and inappropriate things to them. If that were the case, we wouldn't allow our children near a TV, and there are a lot of parents who wouldn't even let their kids attend school, because they hear things parents consider wrong and dangerous, and not just on the school grounds. But we don't, by and large ban the sex ed teachers from the school district and we don't by and large ban the kids who swear and smoke and talk enticingly about drugs from the school district, either. And we don't ban politicians, even though it's practically a job qualification to say both stupid and inappropriate things. But sex-ed, drug, swearing and smoking talk are as dangerous as what Stark said to the little girl, to a lot of people.
So there had to be something else going on. And that was the fear of pedophilia, the fear of lawsuits and the general paranoia that is gripping both the US and Canada and is blinding us to what we're agreeing to and doing to our ideas of freedom and independence in the name of keeping people, especially our children, safe.
I don't doubt that the school board thought they were acting sensibly. But a single stupid sentence doesn't mean that someone is a danger to children. What they saw were parents threatening to sue (or they imagined that parents might sue), they saw "what happens if he really is one?" and they saw that by acting to ban him, they would protect their children from a potential threat, a potential harm. They were acting out of fear and out of "maybe" "what if" "it could happen".
Action speak louder than words. They banned Stark from interacting with children, because they believe he will harm them. People will interpret the boards actions that way, and because of those actions will believe that Stark is unnaturally interested in children.
They have, by their actions, convicted Richard Stark of being a pedophile.
Do you agree with their actions? Because if you do, you too are convicting him of that, whether you know it or not, acknowledge it or not.