Cleese turned out to be yet another overprivileged bigoted douche-canoe, though, didn’t he?
Personally, I opt for telling such folks what I think of them in the moment, when they are still around to hear it… and I while won’t actively malign someone’s memory after they die, neither will I pretend that they were better people than they actually were in life.
That’s a very good way of being honest without being needlessly malicious.
That reminds me of the story of the funeral of another notorious arsehole, Columbia Pictures studio head Harry Cohn. Someone there commented to Red Skelton that he was surprised by the massive turnout. Skelton replied “It just proves what Harry always said: Give the public what they want and they’ll come out for it.”.
If anything, being dead both demonstrates that you have no prospect of becoming a better person in the future; as well as negating any of the humanitarian/second chance considerations that sometimes move us to think that perhaps having the crime you did a while back be the first google hit for your name might be excessive and/or counterproductive to your potential future good behavior.
The only reason to pull punches in an obituary, if deserved, is lack of space or cases where telling the truth would expose still-living victims who don’t want the publicity (eg. if you note incest or child abuse of a sexual nature you are so close to outright doxing someone that the distinction is effectively irrelevant; so you’d only do that if the prefer that the truth be told rather than not).
I really like this. Not only was it therapeutic for those who needed it, I think it’s healthy to be honest in obituaries. “Don’t speak ill of the dead” just seems to sweep a lot of abuse under the rug. It seems healthy to acknowledge that people who did great things also did not-great and even shitty things, and even good people could be complicated.