Ad hominem?

The creator of Disney was a racist, therefore we shouldn't watch Disney.

This looks like an enthymeme, which contains a hidden argument. We will unpack it.

P1) The creator of Disney (Walt Disney) was racist.

Implicit P) If a person held problematic (e.g. racist) views, we shouldn't support their work.

Implicit P) Disney movies and cartoons are Walt Disney's work.

C) We should not watch Disney.

This argument would be surface-level valid, but hold on a minute - is the first implicit premise really  true? Since Walt Disney died many years ago (in the 1960s, actually), he is not in charge of the company anymore...and does not earn any money from subscription services like Disney+, which are used to watch the movies and cartoons...so does it make sense to say one is 'supporting his work' by viewing said content? (As in, the content Disney creates nowadays doesn't have a whole lot to do with him).

In any case, the other implicit premise (if someone held problematic views, we shouldn't support their work) is contentious based on what your political and philosophical views are. From my point of view it is possible to separate art from artist, so tolerating the works of 'problematic' authors is okay as long as readers can be critical of the person designing said art.

But this argument doesn't contain any visible fallacies; it's just of questionable soundness because of those hidden premises.

I'd say this more of an example of the genetic fallacy .

Walt Disney himself may or may not have been a racist (despite his overwhelming popularity and extensive biographical coverage, this particular aspect of him is still debated), but even if he were, he died in 1966, and the company is no longer owned or run by him. So let's see if we can formalize this argument.

We shouldn't watch Disney content because the studio's founder, Walt Disney, was a racist, and it's wrong to support racism, so it's wrong to watch content made by the Disney company.

Hope this makes sense.

My understanding is that Ad Hominem typically looks like:

A property of a person falsifies/discredits/devalues what the person states/claims/endorses.

So the Ad Hominem version would look like:

Disney called for supports toward Disney movies.

Disney was a racist.

Therefore, Disney's appeal was not reasonable/acceptable.

Or would look like:

***What a racist creates must contain racism.

The *** one above leads to Ad Hominem .

It is in fact not clear what has actually been said by the sentence posted. 

I think their is evidence to support the idea that The creator of Disney was a racist but he is dead and has no impact on the company. Since he is no longer benefiting from the company by watching Disney we are not supporting anything related to him.

The question seems to be "Is the statement an example of 'ad hominem'?"  

The notion of an "ad hominem" reaction arises when one doesn't attack or criticize the actual argument or position but instead attacks or criticizes the person who makes the argument.

Let's consider a debate with Walt himself, in which Walt claimed that everyone should watch Disney productions because they were socially relevant, were enjoyable by all age groups, and had great morals.  If the debate partner responded with a claim that no none should watch Disney productions because Walt (a party to the debate) was racist, it would be an attack on the person making the claim, not on the argument itself ... i.e., not about social relevance, appeal to different age groups, or moral ... therefore, ad hominem,

This site identifies four ways to attach the person, rather than the argument:

ad hominem (abusive)– in general, attack the person making the argument, not the argument itself.

ad hominem (circumstantial)– suggesting that the person making the argument is biased.

ad hominem (guilt by association)– claiming that the person making the argument is somehow associated with a negatively-viewed group.

ad hominem (tu quoque) – pointing out how the person making the argument isn't acting consistently with the claims of his or her argument.

In the example, there doesn't seem to be an argument but an opinion or a value judgement based on one's desire to support those with whom one disagrees on some level.  Perhaps we could turn it into a more formal argument by identifying some implied premises:

     Disney way racist.

     Since Disney created the company, the company must be racist.

     Supporting racists is bad.

     Watching Disney supports the company.

     Therefore, watching Disney is bad.

     Therefore, we shouldn't watch Disney.

Still, the "attack" in this string of premises seems to be an attack against Walt (as the first premise of the argument), not against the person making the argument.  Since the argument doesn't attack the arguer, it's not ad hominem.

This reminds me of identity fallacy but evaluating a person's work (rather than a person's argument) based on the maker's personal views or political stance.