Attempts to blacklist authors based on personal views

[Beadalin]

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.

What? No.

Private citizens using their pull with a corporation over their choice of who to hire for a particular job is not at all the same as the state taking a stance on what can and cannot be expressed. If the GOVERNMENT punished and silenced speech from its citizens -- and even here the government may punish certain things, like death threats -- THAT would be a trespass against freedom of expression.

Me saying, "Hey that guy's a dick and I don't think you should hire him," even if successful, does not impinge on Card's ability to express himself, it just impinges how lucrative it is for him.

[Pere]

What's the difference between a successful boycott (voting with dollars writ large) and a campaign directly asking an employer, publisher, or distributor to not work with someone? Either way seeks to impose an economic penalty; either way requires some mass participation to be felt.

Presumably the former effort would be rescinded if the offending party was cut loose. And what is the implication of the latter campaign anyway, but that without a separation, the larger brand name is tarnished and will suffer economically? It might be seen as holding in abeyance the weapon (company boycott) which would hurt others beside the offending party.

[Mr. Plumbean]

It certainly doesn't go along with notions of free expression to try and punish and silence other people, and it doesn't seem much in line with the golden rule.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Also, and most importantly, it doesn't do anything at all for gay rights. Nobody is going to change their mind about gay marriage because you got them fired.

[Ken S.]

I don't think changing anyone's mind is a goal. It's about not wanting to be served at Subway by a guy with a swastika on his neck.

[Ken S.]

I do agree that this kind of thing is rather petty, though. And also probably redundant. How many of the people making noise really buy Superman comic books anyway, and how many are just drawn to the issue by facebook links?

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Beadalin

Private citizens using their pull with a corporation over their choice of who to hire for a particular job is not at all the same as the state taking a stance on what can and cannot be expressed.

What they have in common is the desire to punish and silence people who disagree with them, because they feel empowered to do so. And a flat, undeniable hostility toward free expression.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

I do agree that this kind of thing is rather petty, though. And also probably redundant. How many of the people making noise really buy Superman comic books anyway, and how many are just drawn to the issue by facebook links?

This may well be true. I think most of the thread is talking about the theory and ethical philosophy of the idea, not the practical effect in the case at hand.

[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.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

It certainly doesn't go along with notions of free expression to try and punish and silence other people, and it doesn't seem much in line with the golden rule.

You're really fixated on this "punish and silence" angle. I'll grant you that it's a really dramatic and evil-sounding way to depict people whose crime is simply not wanting to support a bigot with their money. You've really nailed the "demonize those with opinions counter to your own" technique.

It's also laughable that in this day and age, when anyone can trivially create a website and disseminate just about any opinion they want, you'd equate "not buying his books" with "silencing" him and being anti-free-speech. Apparently if people don't line up to finance your speech, they're silencing you now. Good one. I weep for the coming day when Orson Scott Card cannot get his ideas heard because of the evil oppressors that held him under their jackboots by withholding their $2.99 and he's unable to sign up for a free Wordpress account for whatever reason.

[Mr. Plumbean]

See post #37.

[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.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by McNutty

You're really fixated on this "punish and silence" angle. I'll grant you that it's a really dramatic and evil-sounding way to depict people whose crime is simply not wanting to support a bigot with their money. You've really nailed the "demonize those with opinions counter to your own" technique.

It's also laughable that in this day and age, when anyone can trivially create a website and disseminate just about any opinion they want, you'd equate "not buying his books" with "silencing" him and being anti-free-speech. Apparently if people don't line up to finance your speech, they're silencing you now. Good one. I weep for the coming day when Orson Scott Card cannot get his ideas heard because of the evil oppressors that held him under their jackboots by withholding their $2.99 and he's unable to sign up for a free Wordpress account for whatever reason.

There is a world of difference, IMO, between letting him write his story and not buying it, and going to his bosses and demanding he be fired. In the first case, you're not stopping him from writing his story (which he can't do on Wordpress or whatever, because Superman belongs to Time-Warner), while on the other side, you're just not buying his work.

[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.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by IronHorse

There is nothing wrong with asking that someone be fired, and there is nothing wrong with a business owner firing someone because people asked them to. There is nothing wrong with said business telling other businesses why they fired said person, and there is no problem with that business deciding not to hire said person for that reason.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know Fenris has agreed with the general principle above. So my question to him is why homophobia changes things. You seem to be arguing that Card is getting special negative treatment. I argue that you are advocating for special positive treatment.

I'm largely in agreement with this, as I've mentioned above.

ETA: Well, I have a disagreement with the part where a business tells other businesses about an employee. Mainly that the business has greater influence than individuals, and that's how you get blacklists. I'm not a fan of businesses discussing individuals privately with each other.

Originally Posted by Fenris

There is a world of difference, IMO, between letting him write his story and not buying it, and going to his bosses and demanding he be fired. In the first case, you're not stopping him from writing his story (which he can't do on Wordpress or whatever, because Superman belongs to Time-Warner), while on the other side, you're just not buying his work.

This sounds to me that you are against boycotts in general. Is it your preference then, that whenever someone has a disagreement with an artist or work, privately boycotts them? Like, with Chic-Fil-A, that folks had simply stopped buying from there if they didn't like the donations, and not said why they had done so?

And for folks that are okay with boycotts, but don't want people demanding that he be fired, would you prefer that people make noisy statements about boycotting DC (or the specific comic), and then not explain why? So that DC just gets some nebulous lacking of sales, and has to figure out what happened? If as a result of this, they decide that Card was to blame for some reason (maybe folks didn't like the storyline?) and lets him go partway through the story arc, would folks feel bad and try to get him re-hired somewhere so that this boycott doesn't result in lack of work for him?

I mean, if the goal of a boycott is that maybe the clouds will part and a rainbow will land on Card's head and he'll change his mind, that's great, but if he doesn't, isn't the goal of a boycott of his work... that he stop making it, i.e., gets terminated?

[Fenris]

I'm fine with boycotts--just not preemptive strikes. In the case of boycotts, you're not stopping the creator from creating, you're just not buying his work and being vocal about it. 100% ok with that.

In the other case, you're preventing the work from being completed. Remember when the left was going bonkers over the right trying to stop "Passion of the Christ" from being
A) made
B) shown?

That's not a boycott, that's censorship. (The "government" argument doesn't work for me, sorry).

Those who said "Ok, it's made, but we're going to protest it and not see it and not buy from companies who supported it" didn't. That's a boycott.

I grant you there's not a lot of difference in the final outcome between the two. But the methods matter to me.

[Mr. Plumbean]

At a personal level, I feel a lot more strongly about books than chicken sandwiches. And I think it's particularly unbecoming for authors and creative people to try to blacklist or ban others because you don't like what they say. The test of your love for free expression isn't whether you champion free expression of people you agree with, it's whether you champion the free expression of people you find loathsome.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I was also against bullying Amazon into dropping a how-to book for pedophiles, so you might call me a free expression zealot.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I was also against bullying Amazon into dropping a how-to book for pedophiles, so you might call me a free expression zealot.

Seriously, how else are we gonna track the buyers?

[Parthenokinesis]

It's not about expression, he is free to say whatever he wants. He's not entitled to a free pass to get paid to say what he wants. DC comics has the right to know their business decision will tarnish their brand and adjust accordingly. Everyone still has their free speech intact, and the free market did it's wonders as well.

[Parthenokinesis]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I was also against bullying Amazon into dropping a how-to book for pedophiles, so you might call me a free expression zealot.

A free expression zealot would not be trying to repress my expression of dissatisfaction to DC.

[Mr. Plumbean]

yeah, keep blowing that horn.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

A free expression zealot would not be trying to repress my expression of dissatisfaction to DC.

Who has repressed anything? All I've done is disagree with you. I have not asked you to be boxed, banned, or fired.

[Parthenokinesis]

Hard to get me fired from the Raffe, but point taken. You stating your opinion about my use of free speech in this manner is not repression. Pardon the hyperbole.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Thankes Parthy. I'll back off the silence and punish business. Too much Chomsky in my formative years, I reckon. I can see how boycotting is an extension of free speech. All I can really say is that I'm uncomfortable with it. I feel like I am one careless tweet away from career ruination myself, given the current climate of viral outrage.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

It's not about expression, he is free to say whatever he wants. He's not entitled to a free pass to get paid to say what he wants. DC comics has the right to know their business decision will tarnish their brand and adjust accordingly. Everyone still has their free speech intact, and the free market did it's wonders as well.

Except that apparently his Superman story was 100% politics free.

DC has published some seriously questionable stuff (Superman denouncing the USA and renouncing his citizenship, a little girl of a hero being graphically tortured to death, etc). I'm more concerned about the story than the author.

Like I said: let him publish and boycott, but don't stop the publisher from publishing. There's a slippery slope there that I can't quite put my finger on, but...it's there somehow, for me.

PS-Card is still a horrible human being.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I still wonder why nobody has boycotted Tor. I guess there's a feeling that Superman belongs to all of us or some corny thing. Or maybe it'll turn out Marvel engineered this whole thing.

[Uthrecht]

It might just be a general public awareness thing.

So that I'm clear on this, Fenris, should I wait until the entire story run is done, or do you think I can start boycotting after the first issue, and just hope that it doesn't result in cancellation halfway through?

[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 Uthrecht

It might just be a general public awareness thing.

So that I'm clear on this, Fenris, should I wait until the entire story run is done, or do you think I can start boycotting after the first issue, and just hope that it doesn't result in cancellation halfway through?

1) In this case, it's a short story--as far as I know, a "done in one" type thing.

2) Boycott whenever you want. I'm not your mommy. If Card's politics offend you to the point where you can't read anything he's done, then, presumably not knowing how a story ends won't be a big deal.

2b) But stopping him from getting printed is different than not buying the story. If you stop him from getting printed, you're taking the choice to make that decision away from others.

3) Nowdays, comics publishers almost never cancel series in the middle of runs. I can't think of the last time that happened in a major title. They'll at least let the writer wrap up the story.

[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"?

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Fenris

2) Boycott whenever you want. I'm not your mommy. If Card's politics offend you to the point where you can't read anything he's done, then, presumably not knowing how a story ends won't be a big deal. But stopping him from getting printed is different than not buying the story. If you stop him from getting printed, you're taking the choice to make that decision away from others.

You're not, but you're giving your suggestions. I was just getting clarification.

I will note that, by boycotting, if you make a big enough deal that it becomes a commercial flop, you're creating a chilling effect that might lead to that artist not being hired for a similar endeavor in future, resulting in lost future works. So perhaps it's just best to never speak up on these things.

I mean, a boycott on one work is essentially like a pre-boycott on the next work before it even happens, which gets back to what you don't want.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Fenris

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"?

Well, the beauty is that their boycott was both capitalism and free speech.

[Solfy]

DC could have told the protesters to stuff it instead of bowing to the pressure. They were free to ignore the protesters if they wanted.

[Veb]

Not feeling any outrage over this one.

Look, artists are perfectly free to express whatever socially challenging thing they want. In fact, with some it's considered an obligation, not a right, as part of the "artist" role. But they're also on the hook to deal with society disapproving of them right back. Would you extend this same degree of outrage to the backlash against the Dixie Chicks, whose careers were pretty much ruined when they noted that George W. Bush was a disgrace to the state of Texas? That opinion had nothing to do with country cheatin' and hurtin' songs but they got clobbered for it financially.

I don't care what non-mainstream idea artists express. They don't get a free pass, any more than anyone else does. They're just the ones whose livelihoods are unusually dependent on public opinion. It goes with the territory. Card certainly knows that. If he wants to appeal to the Phelps-level hatefulness, that's his call. He gets to live with the consequences.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I'm fine with boycotts--just not preemptive strikes. In the case of boycotts, you're not stopping the creator from creating, you're just not buying his work and being vocal about it. 100% ok with that.

In the other case, you're preventing the work from being completed. Remember when the left was going bonkers over the right trying to stop "Passion of the Christ" from being
A) made
B) shown?

That's not a boycott, that's censorship. (The "government" argument doesn't work for me, sorry).

Those who said "Ok, it's made, but we're going to protest it and not see it and not buy from companies who supported it" didn't. That's a boycott.

I grant you there's not a lot of difference in the final outcome between the two. But the methods matter to me.

Nobody prevented anybody from saying or creating anything. A comic book publisher simply chose not to pay someone for it. The only pressure brought to bear is a threatened boycott. What's the difference between boycotting something already on the market and declaring an intention to boycott something before it hits the market?

I can state with great confidence that I'm not ever going to buy any Justin Bieber products at any time in any conceivable future. Am I stifling Bieber's free speech by saying so?

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Fenris

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"?

Did I approve of people "trying to get POTC from NOT getting distributed to theaters?" I don't understand what you're talking about? I don't know what that sentence means.

I can say, as a general rule, that I have no problem with anybody protesting anything or using boycotts as a weapon against anything. When speech is made into a product, then it's subject to the rules of the market. At the end of the day, this is only commerce we're talking about, not suppression of speech, per se.

I won't see Roman Polanski movies because I can't get past the child rape thing. Am I suppressing Polanski's speech?

[Mr. Plumbean]

Halo is a little askew there, might want to look in a mirror and give it a tweak.

[Ken S.]

Halo? Because I don't like child rapists?

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

Halo? Because I don't like child rapists?

Because of your high-minded justification of the DESTRUCTION OF LIBERTY AS WE KNOW IT.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Let's say I'm talking to a friend at a bar and you are one of those loud sorts and we can't hear each other. If I ask you to keep it down, am I repressing your free speech? Or, by interfering with the open communication between two others, are you interfering with ours?

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

Halo? Because I don't like child rapists?

Yes. I wanted to applaud you on this morally courageous stance.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

Because of your high-minded justification of the DESTRUCTION OF LIBERTY AS WE KNOW IT.

It's always a matter of chiseling it away, bit by bit. Nobody is against free speech carte blanch, they just wanted this book banned and this pundit silenced and that line of discussion nipped in the bud.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

Let's say I'm talking to a friend at a bar and you are one of those loud sorts and we can't hear each other. If I ask you to keep it down, am I repressing your free speech? Or, by interfering with the open communication between two others, are you interfering with ours?

Neither is interfering with the other. Neither is the Government, and there is no issue of content in this scenario, only volume.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

Yes. I wanted to applaud you on this morally courageous stance.

You're the only one saying it's morally courageous. I don't see it as a moral decision at all, just an asthetic one. It's not like anyone is trying to force me to go to Roman Polanski movies or punish me for not going, so I don't see how courage has anything to do with it. I'm not trying to make a statement.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Like I said: let him publish and boycott, but don't stop the publisher from publishing.

Nobody is stopping the publisher from publishing, you nimrod. They are telling the publisher they don't support this author and letting the publisher make up their mind about whether they want to piss off a lot of consumers or not. This is not a fucking free speech issue.

Originally Posted by Fenris

Yes it is. And it's also a shame and a small blow against free speech.

You really, and I mean really, don't understand free speech. Orson Scott Card is totally free to say whatever stupid bigoted shitty stuff he wants. And the rest of us are totally free to think what he says is so shitty that we don't want him getting any of our money. That is not a freedom of speech issue. Letting the publisher know that supporting him is going to be a PR issue that affects their sales is not a free speech issue. Your freedom of speech does not grant you freedom from consequences of your 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"?

You seem to think you've got some kind of slam dunk argument here with this example, and all I can tell you is that when all the fundies were outraged over the PotC, I thought it was a pretty stupid thing to get all in a tizzy about, but I thought that if they wanted to protest and boycott and make their little demonstrations of lack-of-influence (by ultimately failing to get it suppressed), they could knock themselves out. So yes, I guess you could say I approved.

[Ken S.]

What fundies were upset about POTC? I'm still confused here. I thought they all loved it.

[Fenris]

I screwed up--I didn't mean "The Passion of the Christ", I meant "The Last Temptation of Christ". And I have know idea what got them all bent out of shape, but bent out of shape, they were.

My bad, sorry about that.

[Uthrecht]

On a more current note, if folks decided to try and boycott or even head off Kick-Ass 2 because Jim Carrey just did a video mocking Charlton Heston, I'd say that was a decent example of free speech, so have fun with that.

[Parthenokinesis]

nm, Fenny, you corrected yourself already.