Attempts to blacklist authors based on personal views

[Fenris]

Short version, noted troglodyte and very good writer Orson Scott Card will be writing a story (probably several issues long) for a new Superman comic. Because Card is a rabidly anti-gay* a number of pro-gay groups have started petitions to get him fired. Story here

Folks, the terms "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" are thrown around way, WAY too frequently, but in this case? It's accurate. Firing someone for political views that presumably don't affect his/her work ( because Time-Warner owns DC Comics and they'd never let him tell an anti-gay Superman story) IS McCarthyism.

David "The Trouble With Tribbles" Gerrold has suggested that since he's openly gay, he be hired for "equal time". There aren't enough in the world for that one, even though I'd love to see a Gerrold Superman story--he's a better writer than Card.

1) Card is an anti-gay bigoted moron. This is a fact.

1a) He is also a talented writer who has the potential to do a good Superman story.

2) His anti-gay screeds do not substantially affect his work, except in omission (I can't think of any gay characters period, positive or negative in his books. But then...other than "Very Special Issue" type stories, I don't think that there have been any gay characters in Superman either).**

3) The people trying to get him fired are actually as scary than Card, and Card is pretty frighting. It also validates the whole "Everyone in the media (film/music/literature/etc) is bigoted against people who don't share their ultra-liberal views" meme.

Thoughts? Comments?


*I'm not being PC here. He is just short of Westborough Church level rabid. He point blank said that gay people should be locked away from society, same-sex kissing in public should be punishable with jail-time, etc. He is one

**Although the whole Seventh Son series was the most hilariously unintentionally (I assume) homoerotic work I've ever read. The main character is this shining beacon of pure male perfection and all these tall-tale characters (like Paul Bunyan, Mike Fink, etc) are following him around like lovestruck puppydogs.

[Yorikke]

I think the organized campaigns to have him fired are misguided, but I do think that DC would be wise to fire him, even if it's financially or contractually unwise, if only because of the terrible publicity. IIRC, an artist on the story decided to drop his involvement due to Card's views.

I'm fully for educating DC Comics and the masses, and letting them know that we will not support them in this, financially or morally. But that's a shade less than calling for his firing.

[Solfy]

The kind of negative publicity Card gets for his very vocal views is exactly the sort of thing people do get fired for over in the Adria Thread debate. Employers don't like negative attention, even if it doesn't necessarily impact the quality of the person's work.

I don't agree with how people are going about trying to get him fired. I think they should boycot the issue(s), and perhaps DC comics, if they don't want to support Card. Vote with your wallet rather than attempt to dictate the handling of the situation via petition.

[Zeener Diode]

Unless there's conclusive evidence that Card's politics are appearing in the storylines, I see no reason why he should be removed from the story making process. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the publishers (DC, or their overlords) bowed to public pressure and dumped him.

[stormie]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Unless there's conclusive evidence that Card's politics are appearing in the storylines, I see no reason why he should be removed from the story making process.

Exactly! I understand Dylan Thomas could be obnoxious, which does not affect the value of his art. The artist is not the product. Judge the product on its own merits, consider the artist only if it helps to explain otherwise baffling work.

[Beadalin]

Your link doesn't work for me.

Going off what you've described here, I am of two minds.

In favor of this kind of thing:
Authors whose views I find reprehensible are easy to avoid when their work is in books or other formats where if I just don't buy a particular issue, my money doesn't go to them. When their work and, implicitly (if not factually), their views are incorporated into a vehicle that I otherwise enjoy, I'd absolutely speak up. Superman fans have a stake in keeping their experience with the series unsullied by assholes. It would suck to support the Superman franchise knowing that I am by extension supporting someone whose views are abhorrent.

Also, public censure pretty much the only avenue available for those who generally support this line of comics but not Card. There's also just not buying whatever issue(s) his writing appears in, but if you're into continuity or collecting complete series or whatever, you're stuck giving money to a jerk. It's like having Mel Gibson write an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Against:
This verges on thought police, because Card's work -- as you say -- doesn't exhibit his attitude, overall. It's doubtful that an issue or two of Superman will suddenly veer into antigay propoganda. Demanding that he be barred from writing for the series is punishing him for ideas he holds outside of Superman universe. If authors who held unsavory views were routinely barred from publishing, our libraries would be much emptier and the world less interesting.

[mswas]

Card hasn't been a good writer in over a decade. The Bean books were absolutely terrible.

For that reason he should be fired.

[mswas]

As for the actual topic. I think that this sort of advocation of one's values is just as viable and relevant as his using the soapbox of fame to spread bigotry. Either way it's all a part of the dialectic and people should be able to express it how they feel. If they want to petition DC and DC gets swayed then that is fair game.

If this stops Card from writing Jesus in a Cape, then that's cool. Though, I don't think it's possible to write good stories about Superman, he's such a hokey character to begin with.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Folks, the terms "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" are thrown around way, WAY too frequently, but in this case? It's accurate. Firing someone for political views that presumably don't affect his/her work ( because Time-Warner owns DC Comics and they'd never let him tell an anti-gay Superman story) IS McCarthyism.

I get what you're saying.

Here's the tough thing: you can't object to people simply not buying his work, due to personal reasons (rather than a disinterest in the work itself), right? I mean, people can refuse to buy something for whatever reason they want. That's part of capitalism. In that case, can they be allowed to state ahead of time that they won't buy anything he's associated with? That's largely what boycotts are all about.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

I get what you're saying.

Here's the tough thing: you can't object to people simply not buying his work, due to personal reasons (rather than a disinterest in the work itself), right? I mean, people can refuse to buy something for whatever reason they want. That's part of capitalism. In that case, can they be allowed to state ahead of time that they won't buy anything he's associated with? That's largely what boycotts are all about.

There's a difference between a boycott (which I'd support) and a blacklist (which I don't). Granted, there's not much of a difference, but still....

Also, to Beadalin
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/orso...ntroversy.html

Fresh link, and this is a one-off type book...an anthology title....so he's not writing in continuity...he's signed on for one story, and then he's off and someone else comes on to tell his own story, no relationship to the previous story. "Legends of the Batman" was one similar title, so was "Buffy: Tales of the Slayers" . Does that make a difference to you?

[Mr. Plumbean]

It's one of those viral things. For example, as far as I know, nobody has pressured any of his other publishers like Tor, or boycotted a conference where he is speaking, or otherwise tried to blackball him. Somehow the DC Comics thing got going and people snowballed on it. I don't pretend to understand it.

I find it ironic because the whole superhero thing is hypermasculine and/or subtly homoerotic, depending on how you choose to look at it.

[Ganryu Kojiro]

I have no objection to a boycott. I don't owe a particular artist my patronage and can withhold it for any reason I like. As others have said, this is pretty basic and it's important to be able to vote with my dollar.

I do object to asking that Card be fired. That removes the ability of others to vote with their dollars on the matter. One of the evils of blacklisting is that it prevents ideas from coming to marker in the first place so there can be no discussion regardless of underlying support by the people.

So, to sum up: withholding my money and encouraging others to do so is a valid act. Preventing others from having this choice is (in general) a bad one. If no one will hire Card because there is no money in it that's totally fine. If no one is ALLOWED to hire Card that's not.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Fenris

There's a difference between a boycott (which I'd support) and a blacklist (which I don't). Granted, there's not much of a difference, but still....

Hang on, are you saying that industry people, people in a position to hire him, are refusing to do so, creating a blacklist? I was only aware of boycott/outside pressure attempts.

Originally Posted by Ganryu Kojiro

I have no objection to a boycott. [...]
I do object to asking that Card be fired.

Okay. I see them as the same thing. If I boycott X Company for Y reason, I'm saying that until they remove Y reason, I will not be buying from them, thus pressuring them to remove Y reason.

[Ganryu Kojiro]

The line I'm drawing is based on choice. In the first, you have a bunch of people getting together and making a particular decision. In the second you have them removing the choice directly for others who might not object to Card.

Seems to me that a boycott serves one or both of two goals: make a thing unprofitable directly and/ or bring attention to some fact.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I find it ironic because the whole superhero thing is hypermasculine and/or subtly homoerotic, depending on how you choose to look at it.

Especially Superman.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I find it ironic because the whole superhero thing is hypermasculine and/or subtly homoerotic, depending on how you choose to look at it.

Yes, I collected all those issues of Batman and The Incredible Hulk when I was 12 because of the homoerotic undercurrent. I guess I should've stocked up on issues of Wonder Woman instead, because then I'd be more socially adjusted.

[hatesfreedom]

ah the 'new 52' of DC comics. In which all the DC comics are rebooted for.. some reason? I don't know. I'm not sure Card can do any worse than any of the other writers so far. Catwoman with Ann Nocenti is bewilderingly bad. Just abysmal.

I read some of the new Batman too, really good stuff. One question though, why are there a bazillion differen Robins, a batgirl, a batwoman, etc etc. Too many fucking masked avengers all crowded around batman like some sort of nursery school.

[Mr. Plumbean]

In this case I think it has more to do with shaming a public figure than anything actual outcomes.

A big fad, is public shaming.

[Ken S.]

I think Batman loses interest after the Robins get too old, and he has to groom a new one.

Although I agree with the OP in principle that this is a waste of political energy and arguably counterproductive to the GLBT cause (which has to be careful not to conflate the quest for legal equality with an entitlement to not be offended by assholes), but I can't agree with calling it "McCarthyism," only because that was the Government abusing its powers and trying to criminalize a political ideology. This is not the Government, just consumers saying they don't to buy a product. Even if their reasons are stupid, that's not McCarthyism.

[Simple Dog]

How is this a witch hunt? One of the things that makes something a witch hunt is that the allegations are false, unprovable, and impossible. Orson Scott Card really is the bad person he's being made out to be.

[hatesfreedom]

Upon further reflection they're protesting superman because nobody really minds. They don't want to protest the Enders Game movie because everybody fucking loves that book.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

Upon further reflection they're protesting superman because nobody really minds. They don't want to protest the Enders Game movie because everybody fucking loves that book.

I think this speaks more to the somewhat random nature of it.

I accidentally offended the head of NY Common Cause by speaking out against the Target boycott a few years ago because I saw it as a disconnected and random choice. A mostly LGBT friendly corporation being singled out because of some homophobic relationship to a pro-business PAC in Minnesota. Best Buy which has no friendly relationship to the LGBT crowd skated even though they gave the same amount of money to the same PAC.

That to me is the biggest problem with this sort of public shaming cause. They are almost always logically and morally inconsistent.

[The Superhero]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

Upon further reflection they're protesting superman because nobody really minds. They don't want to protest the Enders Game movie because everybody fucking loves that book.

Nah, that'll just come later. I bet you'll hear plenty from gay rights activists about royalties from the Ender's Game movie lining the pockets of an asshole bigot and talk of boycotts when the movie is actually coming out later this year.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Fenris

3) The people trying to get him fired are actually as scary than Card, and Card is pretty frighting. It also validates the whole "Everyone in the media (film/music/literature/etc) is bigoted against people who don't share their ultra-liberal views" meme.

Others have said pretty much what I was going to say on this (don't mind people saying they won't buy his work, think it's kind of shitty to demand his firing), but nobody has mentioned the bolded part. I couldn't disagree more with the "validation" claim. First of all, the "if you don't like my intolerance you're a bigot" trope is dumb as hell, for fairly obvious reasons. But second of all, I haven't even heard much about this issue in the mainstream media, let alone enough to "validate" the notion that they have an ultra-liberal bias.

[Ken S.]

I see a lot of misguided admonitions about dropping money in the Salvation Army kettles too because of completely bullshit internet rumors that they use donated money to fund anti-GLBT causes. There is zero truth to that. The SA does not spend any donated money on political causes, all of the kettle money goes to services right in the communities where the money is collected, and they do not discriminate in hiring or services.

Now the church itself does not believe in SSM, but that really only has relevance to actual members of the church. The SA does not use kettle money to fight gay rights. That's 100% horseshit, yet it gets perpetuated all the time by people who won't do any fact checking.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Google "boycott ender's game," and you'll find there is already plenty of talk about exactly that.

[Parthenokinesis]

If an artist doesn't want his politics to impact how people react to his work, then it would behoove the artist to STFU. If the artist can't STFU then the artist can deal with the consequences. Freedom of speech is in relation to it's being free from supression, not free from consequences.

DC comics and Time Warner have damaged their brand alligning with a bigot. I don't understand the idea that individual consumer dollar spending is the only appropiate way we can send messages to corporations. If they get to be people, I get to tell them they are dipshits and I don't appreciate their decisions.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

If an artist doesn't want his politics to impact how people react to his work, then it would behoove the artist to STFU. If the artist can't STFU then the artist can deal with the consequences. Freedom of speech is in relation to it's being free from supression, not free from consequences.

DC comics and Time Warner have damaged their brand alligning with a bigot. I don't understand the idea that individual consumer dollar spending is the only appropiate way we can send messages to corporations. If they get to be people, I get to tell them they are dipshits and I don't appreciate their decisions.

I don't have in me the strong desire to punish or silence others. I may want to teach them, but I don't want to hurt them for being wrong.

[Dragonlady]

I don't see it as punishment, but as a consequence.
I don't spend my money on products if I hate their advertising. Doesn't matter to me if the product is good, there are other good products. I feel the same way about this. There are other authors that aren't assholes, I don't want to give my money to one who is. And the company that hired him should have considered that he would be aligned with their brand. Perhaps they will reconsider, perhaps not. My money, my spending choice for my reasons.

[Mr. Plumbean]

If the hope is to get the company to fire him, then yes, you do want him punished, even if you choose to use other words to make it sound better. Really, weren't all the blacklisted writers and movie-makers just suffering the consequences of unpopular speech?

I get whiplash from watching people protest the banning of books that celebrate GLBTQ families and then, before catching their breath, call for the banning-by-never-creating a particular book they haven't read. Well, in this case, it's not even the book they want banned; they want the author branded and exiled from human communities.

I will always come down for free expression. I will always be against the censors, whatever their excuses and word waffling.

As for voting with my dollars, I have zero interest in any Superman books, so it's a moot point. I will continue to recommend Ender's Game as one of the top ten young adult sci fi books, because it is.

[Ken S.]

The Hollywood blacklist was still a result of harassment by the government, not consumer boycotts.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

The Hollywood blacklist was still a result of harassment by the government, not consumer boycotts.

The movie Salt of the Earth was shut down by massive boycott -- theaters wouldn't show it, newspapers wouldn't advertise it, etc.

In any case, I'm not OK with book burning as long as it's done by mobs of concerned citizens instead of the government.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

The Hollywood blacklist was still a result of harassment by the government, not consumer boycotts.

That's not really true. The Hollywood blacklist started years before the McCarthy era and was due largely to fears of consumers boycotting movies as well as possible government censorship.

Beyond that though, one could argue that shouldn't people have the right to refuse to employ people they don't want due to their political beliefs.

For example, Leni Riefenstahl and Vanessa Redgrave were both for all intents and purposes blacklisted for decades to their rather extreme political activities and statements.

Similarly, under pressure from the main actors Mel Gibson wasn't hired for The Hangover II due to some extreme comments he made about Jews, and I'm sure there've been other instances of actors and other Hollywood types lost out on jobs due to comments they'd made.

Hell, I'm sure Ted Danson lost out on some jobs after that stupid blackface stunt he pulled.

[Dragonlady]

I don't want him fired. But I want the company to consider who they hire in the future. I see it as another product, and I won't support the person/company that I disagree with.

You can have your point of view. I don't have a problem with it. It's just not what *I* choose to do.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

I don't want him fired. But I want the company to consider who they hire in the future. I see it as another product, and I won't support the person/company that I disagree with.

You can have your point of view. I don't have a problem with it. It's just not what *I* choose to do.

Well, I'm boycotting three or four hundred thousand books a year if it simply means choosing not to buy something.

I'm also boycotting Chick-Fil-A because pickles don't belong on a chicken sandwich.

[Ken S.]

I've never supported banning a book or trying to get someone fired for speech in my life, by the way. I consistently defend the right to offensive speech. I even defend the Phelps, and think people overreact to them in ways that cross the line.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Why didn't anyone ever boycott Tor? I'm not clear on that.

[Ken S.]

I don't see an issue with people burning their own property. What do I care. Private book burnings do not prevent anyone else from being able to read that book, or sell it or write it. It only infringes on free speech if the government does it.

I thought the irony of those who wanted to hold Koran burning parties was that they would have to go buy Korans in order to burn them, so all their doing is giving money to Koran publishers.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

I don't see an issue with people burning their own property. What do I care. Private book burnings do not prevent anyone else from being able to read that book, or sell it or write it. It only infringes on free speech if the government does it.

I thought the irony of those who wanted to hold Koran burning parties was that they would have to go buy Korans in order to burn them, so all their doing is giving money to Koran publishers.

[redacted]

There is a difference between government censorship and consumer boycotts. Make up a different word if you want. I still find it against the spirit of free expression, and won't be joining in the enthusiastic public shaming of an old fart because he has old fart ideas.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

There is a difference between government censorship and consumer boycotts. Make up a different word if you want. I still find it against the spirit of free expression, and won't be joining in the enthusiastic public shaming of an old fart because he has old fart ideas.

Quibble: IMO, Card goes waaaaaaaaaay beyond "old fart" with "old fart ideas". He's actually suggested interment camps for gay people who have public displays of affection. (Can't find the cite at the moment, but I'll look for it. I've linked to it before). This is miles and miles beyond "Gays shouldn't marry because...um...it's teh bads".

Second point. The censors have won: DC shelves the project.

Originally Posted by from the article

Homosexual activists said his views should have disqualified him from being hired in the first place. While his Superman short story was not expected to touch on gay issues, activists argued that to give him a paycheck for his work was tantamount to funding NOM directly.

Which is a) chilling and b) bullshit.

Third point: Cricetus is dead on, IMO, with the people who are upset that groups want to ban pro-Gay books in libraries but are ok with getting someone fired because of his political views.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Quibble: IMO, Card goes waaaaaaaaaay beyond "old fart" with "old fart ideas". He's actually suggested interment camps for gay people who have public displays of affection. (Can't find the cite at the moment, but I'll look for it. I've linked to it before). This is miles and miles beyond "Gays shouldn't marry because...um...it's teh bads".

Second point. The censors have won: DC shelves the project.

Third point: Cricetus is dead on, IMO, with the people who are upset that groups want to ban pro-Gay books in libraries but are ok with getting someone fired because of his political views.

This argument about 'free-speech' and 'hypocrisy' is trite. No one is limiting anyone's speech. This is the normal and healthy back and forth that free speech exists to facilitate.

Card: Rawr, kill the homos!
Homo and friends: Rawr, fire Card!

DC: To fire or not to fire, that is the question.

Nowhere in that exchange was someone's speech infringed upon. In both cases people used their speech to express themselves. A private entity heard that speech and decided to side with one group over the other.

DC Comics is not the government, and therefore cannot infringe upon anyone's right to speech. Card has no inalienable right to get up on DC's soap box.

And if he's talking about putting gay people in camps, then he's a prick as well as a shitty writer.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Quibble: IMO, Card goes waaaaaaaaaay beyond "old fart" with "old fart ideas". He's actually suggested interment camps for gay people who have public displays of affection. (Can't find the cite at the moment, but I'll look for it. I've linked to it before). This is miles and miles beyond "Gays shouldn't marry because...um...it's teh bads".

Second point. The censors have won: DC shelves the project.

Which is a) chilling and b) bullshit.

Third point: Cricetus is dead on, IMO, with the people who are upset that groups want to ban pro-Gay books in libraries but are ok with getting someone fired because of his political views.

DC fired him of their own free will. That's capitalism.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

DC fired him of their own free will. That's capitalism.

Yes it is. And it's also a shame and a small blow against free speech. Or did you approve of the people trying to get "Passion of the Christ" from not getting distributed to theaters because "That's capitalism"?

[Dragonlady]

Choosing not to buy something you don't want is expected. Choosing not to buy something you DO want, because of where it comes from is just a political statement, like any other.

I agree about the pickles. Luckily we don't have them around here, so I'm not forced to boycott. I'm sure the owners of Chick-Fil-A rest easier in their beds at night!

[Mr. Plumbean]

Among other things, I think public discourse has way too much umbrage as it is.

[Parthenokinesis]

Me voicing my displeasure at a company giving voice to a bigot is no less free speech than the bigot wanting to tell a story in their system. That's part of the fun of freedom, it's fucking messy.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Trying to punish and silence others is a use of free expression for yourself that is against the free expression of others. And really, everybody is for their own free expression. The real test is how you deal with the stuff you disagree with.

[IronHorse]

Posted while I was composing:

Originally Posted by Cricetus

Trying to punish and silence others is a use of free expression for yourself that is against the free expression of others. And really, everybody is for their own free expression. The real test is how you deal with the stuff you disagree with.

Then, by your own logic, trying to silence these people who want to publicly shame someone is against the free expression of those people. You seem to be advocating that certain types of speech should not be allowed. I am not completely adverse to this idea, but I need an argument that doesn't refute itself.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by IronHorse

Posted while I was composing:

Then, by your own logic, trying to silence these people who want to publicly shame someone is against the free expression of those people. You seem to be advocating that certain types of speech should not be allowed. I am not completely adverse to this idea, but I need an argument that doesn't refute itself.

I haven't tried to silence anyone. I've only argued with them.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I haven't tried to silence anyone. I've only argued with them.

That's all boycotters are doing too, and economic boycott is the only "punishment" available to them.

People have the right to say, "cunt," but if they call me a cunt while taking my order at McDonald's, then I have the right to bitch about it to the manager. It's not a free speech issue, it's a customer service issue.