Friction at DC

[Gaith]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Absolutely everybody should have the right to express their opinion on anything. The opinion can be challenged, debated and even attacked but the right to say it should never be taken away. I find the idea that some opinions are banned from being expressed publicly to be terrifying. I genuinely can't believe somebody would post this.

You may want to look up the meaning of the word "ban". It may not mean what you think it means.

I'm not advocating any rights be "taken away"; I'm as committed to the First Amendment as much as anyone. But free speech pertains to governmental harassment only. So much as we're talking about private businesses, consumer protests are fair game.

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

A person shouldn't be given extra benefits because they made the social decision to be romantic with someone and put a made-up label on them.

Fine, but the fact is that legal marriage unions confer concrete priveleges and benefits, and that's not likely to change anytime soon, so it's insulting and frivolous to bring a general anti-governmental marriage stance into the equation.

Sindatur wrote:

---

So, you think McCarthyism was Good?

Don't mix governmental harassment with cultural protest.

Sindatur wrote:

---

Are you in favor of Gay Men beng banned from being Preachers or Scoutmasters or Coaches/Teachers because you think they'll molest little boys?

If a nonprofit wants to not hire/fire people who publicly advocate for gay marriage, I'm okay with that so long as they receive no federal/taxpaying aid, which both churches and the Boy Scouts do in massive amounts.

[Klaus]

The free speech guarantee in the Constitution applies to the actions of the government and nothing else. Outside of that it's an ongoing negotiation within society... If the company in question feels that social pressure is going to affect their bottom line they can act, or not, just like we can buy their products or not.

[Mr. Adventure]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Chilling. Absolutely chilling.

I suppose they should be government regulated?

No, it should be right-to-work and at-will employment. The kind where you can be easily fired for saying something that someone doesn't like.

[Sindatur]

As public as he is, Warner's would obviously know of them, so there's no "Learning about them"

Yes, someone who is in the KKK has a right to be employed. They do not have the right to use a job to commit prejudiced acts though. And, if they were hired, and the position gives the possibility of performing their job with bias against their particular group they hate, they should be watched and warned it won't be allowed. It's not up to me to say who anyone hires, if that person abuses their position, then absolutely it becomes a problem that shold be protested and/or fought against. Now, of course, depending upon the degree of the potential problem, many wouldn't hire them, but, it's none of my business until thy actually do what I suspect they'll do.

McCarthyism wsn't just about Govt rounding up Commies, it went much further:

Fred was arrested last week for being a Commie
Joe, his next door neighbor was good friends with him
You had dinner at Joe's house last week, so, you must be a Commie, sorry, I can't let you have the job and I'm sending this information to the FBI

[BillJ]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

Sorry but writing Superman isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.

This is what it comes down to.

[BillJ]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

As if conservatives have never called for a boycott! I mean, any way your political leanings go, I don't think you can say that's only a liberal thing.

Weird that some are defending Card's right to free expression yet are against private citizens getting together as a group to do the same thing...

[Allyn Gibson]

Sindatur wrote:

---

As public as he is, Warner's would obviously know of them, so there's no "Learning about them"

Actually, I can absolutely believe that the editor who commissioned the story didn't know about Card's militant homophobia. In almost every conversation I've had with people outside of the fandom bubble about why I won't financially support Card's work any longer, the people I spoke with simply weren't aware that Card wanted sodomy laws prosecuted and governments that legalize gay marriage overthrown by any means necessary. Here's the thing. Card is a big fish in the small pond that is literary science fiction. Outside of that pond, Card is nothing. He's not, by nature, a comic book writer. For people who care about Card and gay rights, they would know. For people who only know that Card is a big name in science fiction circles, they probably wouldn't know. It's entirely possible that DC's editor didn't know about Card's politics.

It's like the recent kerfuffle over Train and Carly Rae Jepson being booked for this Boy Scout Jamboree, and then both backed out after they were made aware of the BSA's ban of gay Scouts and leaders. Both issued statements that they didn't know. People responded, "But how could they not know?" Simple. If you didn't follow the Boy Scouts in the news, it's entirely possible not to know.

Just because there's more information out there, that doesn't mean that more people know it. It's actually easier now to be more selective in the news and information one gets. The Internet builds better epistemic bubbles.

[Hound of UIster]

It's more because the superman editor(s) at DC Editorial are idiots.

[Sindatur]

BillJ wrote:

---

Weird that some are defending Card's right to free expression yet are against private citizens getting together as a group to do the same thing...

I personally am not against that, I am against "demanding he be fired" for his views, before he has "contanimated" his work with those views.

[JoeZhang]

Sindatur wrote:

---

I personally am not against that, I am against "demanding he be fired" for his views, before he has "contanimated" his work with those views.

So you are against corporations being able to act in their own best interests in the free market? They can't adjust behaviour based on the agency of actors (in this case possible consumers) within the market?

[Sindatur]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

So you are against corporations being able to act in their own best interests in the free market? They can't adjust behaviour based on the agency of actors (in this case possible consumers) within the market?

You've got it backwards. I am the one who says they have the right to hire someone with an unattractive past. That shouldn't matter to the Public, unless that person does wrong in that job. If DC choose to hire someone to write a comic book, that Gay people and Supporters of Gay Rights will refuse to buy based upon their opinion of the Author, that is DC's choice. If DC allows him to use the Comic Book as a platform for those views, then it becomes my business to protest and makes demands.

Imagine, 50 years ago, someone speaking up for Gay Rights, would be just as hated/spurned as someone today is speaking against Gay Rights. 50 Years ago, being Gay was seen as a Mental disorder. Should Public prevent that Advocate from getting a job? There is no difference, exxcpt for what Socity feels today is the "Wrong position"

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

Sorry but writing Superman isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.

And absolutely no one is saying it is.

No one is saying it's Orson Scott Card's absolute right to do this and that anyone speaking against it is somehow breaking the First Amendment. The people who made the petition and the people who signed is absolutely had the right to do both of those things and I wouldn't dare say that neither should have been restricted from doing so.

What I said, in my initial post, was that I think it's sickening. I also think Scott Card's views on gay people are sickening (honestly, I find it the most baffling thing in the world why anyone would care about someone else's private sex life, which equally goes for people obsess over what celebrity is sleeping with what celebrity), but I find petitioning for a man's work not to be released to the public so no one can read it just because they don't want to sickening in a different way. It's the arrogance of saying, "Since I disagree with his views, you shouldn't be able to buy it either." They have every right to express that opinion, but I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have the right; I'm arguing that expressing that view is self-centered, conceited and insulting.

[Nerys Myk]

You may want to find a different word than "sickening" to express your point. You've hit the quota.

[Kestrel]

Sickening sickening sickening sickening.


OSC isn't just some guy with homophobic/anti-gay rights views; I'm willing to bet DC has other staff and maybe (probably?) writers who think similarly. He's actively and aggressively a leader in the fight against gay rights. I don't think he shouldn't be allowed to work at all, but actions have consequences and the consequence of his embracing and furthering such organizations is that people boycott him.

[Professor Zoom]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Absolutely everybody should have the right to express their opinion on anything. The opinion can be challenged, debated and even attacked but the right to say it should never be taken away. I find the idea that some opinions are banned from being expressed publicly to be terrifying. I genuinely can't believe somebody would post this.

Card's right to freedom of speech hasn't been challenged. He still has the right to say and think whatever he wants.

Those objecting to him are also saying what they think: they will not buy a book written by him because of his bigotry, and his activism to prevent others from enjoying equal rights.

Are you saying DC doesn't have the right to NOT publish his book? This is the free market in ACTION. Should the government sweep in and tell a company what they can and cannot do?

Noname Given wrote:

---

I'm not against Gay marriage myself (what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own personal business - and if they want to legalize their relationship, they should be allowed that choice <-- My personal belief); but in a country where we value freedom of speech and expression, I DO find it disturbing that we make such a big deal publicly and in effect persecute someone professionally for his private beliefs. Unless the editor or an artist sees something inappropriate in the story itself he's asked to work on - why should the personal beliefs of a co-worker matter in a professional situation?

If it was JUST his private beliefs, I might agree with you. It's his activism that is insulting. He serves on a board that is ACTIVELY trying to stop a whole swath of the American population from getting equal rights.

People are exercising THEIR freedom of speech (and voting with their wallets) and a COMPANY is deciding what to do.

Sindatur wrote:

---

[You've got it backwards. I am the one who says they have the right to hire someone with an unattractive past. That shouldn't matter to the Public, unless that person does wrong in that job. If DC choose to hire someone to write a comic book, that Gay people and Supporters of Gay Rights will refuse to buy based upon their opinion of the Author, that is DC's choice. If DC allows him to use the Comic Book as a platform for those views, then it becomes my business to protest and makes demands.

But, what you are also saying once a company finds out about a person's "sickening" political beliefs, or discover that those beliefs are hostile to the very market they are selling to, they can't DUMP the guy? Are they locked into using someone that might damage how many issues they could sell?

That doesn't seem right.

Imagine, 50 years ago, someone speaking up for Gay Rights, would be just as hated/spurned as someone today is speaking against Gay Rights. 50 Years ago, being Gay was seen as a Mental disorder. Should Public prevent that Advocate from getting a job? There is no difference, exxcpt for what Socity feels today is the "Wrong position"

Yep. So? I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for the bigot. Now, do I want to see him get locked up? No. Of course not. Would I hire him? No. Would I buy a book that he's written? No. Would I tell the publisher WHY I don't want to buy his book? Yes. Let the Free Market sort it out.

Why is Card's Freedom of Speech MORE valuable than mine?