Somewhat, financially supporting the work of active assholes like JKR or Disney I consider a wrong. If copyright were still 5 years as originally conceived I'd say wait and have at it once it enters public domain, but unfortunately that's no longer an option while retaining cultural relevance in most cases. So yo ho ho I guess.

Another consideration is freedom of speech (or expression), which I support in pretty absolute terms, barring yelling fire in a theater and other exceptions which cause direct harm. An interesting one being 'inciting hatred', which IMO should not be an exception to freedom of speech because the brush is too broad and can be used to silence too much depending on who wields it, especially when applied to art.

Which brings us to the issue of tolerating the intolerant, to which I say we need to foster a society in which intolerance is not accepted, therefore do not tolerate intolerance. If the art is intolerant, say Mein Kampf, the solution is not to ban it, but to do the work to engender a societal hatred (or better a disgust) of Nazis, an active intolerance of intolerance (something the world has dropped the ball on, and we're paying for it).

Separation of art and artist is a complicated question with plenty of meat on the bones. At the end of the day, personally, I still consider Harry Potter a fun, fairly mindless romp (with some questionable themes) which I enjoyed as it came out, but JKR's behavior has certainly put a damper on it for me. I would probably no longer recommend it to a child even to foster reading, it's had its moment and there's better options, say 'A Wrinkle in Time'.