I am responding to the RfC.  I am not anyone important just another Wikipedian with an opinion.  I have just read the article, and the current discussion going on.  First, the article seems to be about the organization Perverted-Justice, itself, and not the founder of the organization.  I'm not sure how large it is, it may be primarily the founder.  The fact that he has changed his name may be accurate, but I'm not sure that it is notable or newsworthy.  As expressed, it seems innocent enough though.  The problem I saw was that the article it cited was an intensly negative article regarding Perverted-Justice, and some of the past actions of the founder.  In order to balance the article, and remain NPOV, a section on criticism that people have regarding the organization, and it's primary members may be appropriate, perhaps later towards the end of the article.  I would say that the External links per Wikipedia:External Links makes this link not appropriate. 

 If the article merely mentioned the founders current name, and mentioned that he had changed it, I would not see a problem with that, but I am not sure why it would be applicable to the organization.  If the intent is veiled criticism, in some fashion, I would prefer unveiled criticism.  In the lead, it would mention the founders name (current or previous, depending on what it was when the organization was founded).  Later in the article, a section critical of the actions of the organization, as well as actions that members of the organization had been involved in and criticism (backed by citations) could be found.  This could include a mention that the founder of the organization had changed his name (although I'm still uncertain as to the pertinence of that fact).  From purely a stylistic approach, I would not put his name change in the lead.)