Hanging Together: Standing with Orson Scott Card

If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.-Benjamin Franklin (attr)

Gay Rights activists have declared war on Orson Scott Card. The legendary Sci Fi author was set to write the first issue of the new Adventures of Superman Digital Comic series from DC until Gay Rights groups put pressure on and the artist quit and DC is still waiting to assign another artist.

Now, they’re coming after him on Ender’s Game  trying to launch a boycott to derail the project: All because of Mr. Card’s views on same sex marriage.

For my part, I really had no intention of going to see Ender’s Game in theaters, but the boycott changes that. If the movie’s decent, I intend to go and see it. If it’s awful, unless I’m in a financial crunch come November, I intend to buy a ticket without actually going. The intimidation must stop.

The story in Ender’s Game has nothing to do with homosexuality or gay rights. What this is about is a witch hunt to punish Mr. Card for his personal political and religious views.  It’s an effort to ruin his career.  And those who support traditional values should support Mr. Card and oppose this bullying campaign against.

I imagine if I mattered enough for Bill Keller to attack me, I suppose he would attack this statement as he did that of those who have shown support for Glenn Beck due to the fact that Card is a member of the LDS Church.

For me, the attacks on Card hit close to home. I’m a writer of fiction. My focus is life is lifting up biblical values and truth, while entertaining.  I fear a culture where we’ve given gay rights groups the power to blacklist people. No Christians who holds to traditional values would have any chance to influence the culture unless they make their faith a better kept secret than the ingredients in McDonald’s secret sauce.

Enough is enough.  The efforts of these bullies must be stopped.

If you like what you read, sign-up to get CT in your inbox!

Comments

  1. says

    The first time I had ever heard of Orson Scott Card was when I read his short story, “A Thousand Deaths,” in the long-defunct Omni magazine. I later read the first four of his Ender Wiggin books, and a slogged through all five books in his Homecoming series, though becoming a bit puzzled by the Mormon imagery toward the end.

    It was only later that I found out what rabid disdain Card had for Gay people. And trust me, I did my research. The utterly nasty things he’s had to say about the LGBT community, coupled with the fact that he’s a board member of the very anti-Gay National Organization for Marriage, tells me all I need to know. I regret that I’ve thrown so much money at him in the past. I will not do so anymore. I’m skipping the film version of “Ender’s Game.”

    Mr. Card has every right to express his anti-Gay vitriol, just as the rest of us have the right to call him out on it. But I have no doubt that conservative Christian churches will still be bring their congregations to the theater by the BUSLOAD to support this movie.

    • Adam Graham says

      So basically, people have every right to express their views. However, you intend to make sure they can’t make a living or have a career because you don’t like their views.

      • Steve Neman says

        Don’t people have the right not to attend his movie, i.e., not contribute to him making a living, dufus?

      • Adam Graham says

        The protest of Card on Adventures of Superman #1 that led the artist to quit working because of pressure was not simply a passive decision to not buy.. It was an active attempt to silence, ghetoize, and intimidate people who support traditional values. An official boycott has the same effect. The aim here is to make any studio refuse to adapt movies by people who are opposed to the gay agenda. This is perfectly legal, it’s perfectly constitutional. But so is my calling this campaign what its: hateful bullying and an effort to ghettoize who doesn’t agree with you.

      • Steve Neman says

        Again, where was the violation of Card’s constitutional rights? First Amendment doesn’t imply a right to commerce. Please enlighten me …

      • Adam Graham says

        Steve, could you enlighten me as to where I said you were violating his constitutional rights. You have the right to harass, intimidate, and bully anyone who supports traditional values so that they cannot peaceably earn a living in entertainment just as Fred Phelps’ folks have a constitutional right to picket funerals. Just as the Ku Klux Klan has a right to hold rallies. The fact that you have not violated his constitutional (and I never said you) did doesn’t make the left’s actions any less of an attempt to bully anyone who disagrees with them through intimidation, bigotry, and attempts at marginalization. The fact that an action is protected by the first Amendment does not ennoble it.

      • Steve Neman says

        You have the right to be stupid and ignorant of the Constitution, too. How is refusing to buy someone’s product, even if only because you don’t agree with the person, “harassment” or “intimidation.”

      • Adam Graham says

        Show me one word I said that this violated the constitution. if you set out to make sure that person doesn’t work and to make sure that no person who holds traditional views is able to write and be paid for their work and have their work judged on their merits. That’s what you want. You want the doors to Hollywood barred to anyone who doesn’t embrace your viewpoint. That’s what this is about. And you can’t just say, “We’re choosing not to go” because the left actively protested and harassed DC comics to get his Adventures of Superman #1 canceled.

      • Steve Neman says

        I already said you being stupid in and of itself is not unconstitutional — what more do you want me to say?

      • says

        Adam, I have no doubt Orson Scott Card will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. He just won’t do it on MY dime. Would you continue supporting writers who spouted viciously anti-Christian views? I doubt it.

  2. Bill says

    In 2008, Card lamented that he had for so long been labeled a “homophobe” because of his stated positions on homosexuality. Here’s a run-down on what he said. Notably, he’s become far more vocal and politically active in the fight against gay marriage in recent years.

    1990: Card argued that states should keep sodomy laws on the books in order to punish unruly gays–presumably implying that the fear of breaking the law ought to keep most gay men in the closet where they belonged.

    2004: He claimed that most homosexuals are the self-loathing victims of child abuse, who became gay “through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.”

    2008: In 2008, Card published his most controversial anti-gay screed yet, in the Mormon Times, where he argued that gay marriage “marks the end of democracy in America,” that homosexuality was a “tragic genetic mixup,” and that allowing courts to redefine marriage was a slippery slope towards total homosexual political rule and the classifying of anyone who disagreed as “mentally ill:”

    A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as “mentally ill”

    Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the ’70s and ’80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

    It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken. …

    If a court declared that from now on, “blind” and “sighted” would be synonyms, would that mean that it would be safe for blind people to drive cars?

    No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships thesame as the coupling between a man and a woman.

    This is a permanent fact of nature.

    Card went on to advocate for, literally, a straight people’s insurrection against a pro-gay government:

    [W]hen government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary… Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down….

    2009: He joined the board for anti-gay lobby The National Organization for Marriage, which was created to pass California’s notorious Proposition 8, banning gay marriage.

    2012: He supported his home state North Carolina’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by arguingthat gay marriage “will be the bludgeon [The Left] use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.”

  3. frharry says

    Mr. Graham, I am a follower of Jesus as well. And it’s precisely *because* of my faith and the values which flow from it that I will not be patronizing Card’s film. Jesus had a lot to say about being judgmental and failing to love one’s neighbor as oneself. He had exactly nothing to say about being gay and his comments about marriage were directed at polygamy and respect for women, not gay marriage. Mr. Card is no doubt a better science fiction writer than theologian or policy maker. And he should stick to what he’s adept at doing. But when he unnecessarily interjects his politics and his prejudices into public discourse, he needs to anticipate that those who are offended by the latter will not patronize the films by which he makes his living and thus is afforded his public stage.

    • Adam Graham says

      So we love our neighbor by punishing them for their views. If Christians staged a boycott of Finding Dory, that would also be okay. I think you believe wrongly that loving your neighbor means condoning their actions which means John the Baptist was not loving.

      • frharry says

        Conservative Christians have been boycotting movies, theme parks and plays as well as banning and burning books since the beginning of time. What many of us are doing here is no different other than the fact none of us would be presumptuous enough to demand the film not actually be shown.

        We should be clear that my refusal to go to this movie has nothing to do with punishment. I do not presume that Mr. Card needs my permission to speak as he sees fit or that I am somehow required to punish him if he says things I don’t agree with. Remember, it’s not necessary to presume oneself to be in a parent/child relationship with the world to be a Christian. The bottom line is that I do not wish to support the maker of ideas and conduct that I regularly observe to be incredibly harmful to the neighbor that Jesus commands me to love. It’s bad enough to be a bystander when abuse of one’s fellow children of G-d occurs. It’s worse to aid and abet that abuse.

        As for John the Baptist, it is interesting to note that though Jesus began in that apocalyptic sect of Judaism, he grew up and left it behind for his own ministry. My guess is that the brittle dualism of the Baptist’s worldview and the retributive punishment endemic in apocalyptic worldviews simply didn’t coincide with the reality of the Kingdom of G-d that Jesus experienced. Perhaps that example might prove instructive for all of us?

      • Adam Graham says

        It’s also interesting to note that Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest that was born among men, and that he specifically appeared to and called the Apostle Paul and that the Apostle Paul, called and chosen by Jesus gave us a list of sins that will not enter the Kingdom of God.

      • frharry says

        Actually, Jesus and Paul never met. Paul speaks of “the Christ” as he understood that notion, one of many possible interpretations of Jesus. And whatever Luke might have said about Paul was at best a literary history, not the account of a first hand observer. Indeed, while it’s clear Luke never met Jesus, it’s hardly clear that he ever met Paul, either. There is a difference between history and the theological musings that ultimately become canonized.

        As for Paul’s list of sins, is it actually Paul speaking? How do we know? Who is he speaking to? In what context? Should Paul or the writer utilizing his name for validity’s sake be seen in the same vein as Jesus? Does Paul in the mid-1st CE speak normatively for a church that will not be fully invented for another couple of centuries?

        Those are all questions of history. But clearly there are theological aspects to these questions as well. So let me speak for my own understandings here.

        I find the Way of Jesus, as best I can know it from the spotty record available to us, to be the most compelling spiritual path for me. It is a path of humility and a tentativeness arising out of an awareness of human frailty. I do not spend a lot of time rehearsing lists of sins or applying litmus tests which define the elect from the great unwashed. But I do recognize harm done to children of G-d bearing the divine image. I see that as inconsistent with the Way of Jesus as I understand it. And I try to avoid those who inflict such harm whenever possible.

      • A C says

        This has nothing to do with punishment, this is how the free market works. If OSC put himself out on the market as just a science fiction author, people would only have to determine whether or not they like his subject matter and style and that would be their criteria. However, OSC decided that he wanted to share his political views with the people in the market and they now have additional criteria with which to judge their purchase. OSC opened himself up to criticism (and praise) by jumping into the ring, so to speak, and throwing a few rhetorical punches. If you were presented with the option of paying money for a product made by a person who supported causes that you found odious, would you do it Mr Graham?
        Also, no one is denying him a career or a living. He hasn’t had his pens or keyboards confiscated, no one is burning down the publishers that put out his books or smashing the presses. His books are still present in stores and (presumably) being bought (as I don’t think a publisher would deal with authors who sell nothing).
        The important thing to remember is that OSC isn’t being called out for some private opinion, he has put himself close to (if not at) the front lines of a serious debate that at least one side views as a basic human rights issue. If he didn’t expect blow-back from that position then he is either woefully naive or willfully ignorant. While I am aware that you didn’t say this was unconstitutional, it is worth stating that freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech. If he didn’t want to have controversy then he should have followed the words of Johnny Cash “Just work on harmony and diction, play your banjo well, and if you have political convictions, keep ‘em to yourself.” (from “The One on the Right is on the Left”)

  4. Andrea Graham says

    To me it smacks of hypocrisy, at least I’m pretty sure homosexuals would think it is prejudiced/wrong to boycott them in a personal vendetta against them over their hateful attacks on Conservative Christians’ religious freedom. I don’t like double standards that allow anyone to say and do whatever they want without consequence, including punish others for doing and saying things they disagree with. Trouble is, we humans are often blind to it when a double standard benefits us. When we try to tear down one double standard, we often end up simply switching to an equal and opposite double standard. Otherwise, IMO, you don’t go see the movies you don’t want to see. Adam go see the movies he only wants to see to because it’s being boycotted. Orson Scott Card can go home happy if the controversy ends up being a boon to him rather than shooting down his career like Paula Deen. (Isn’t she being destroyed over prejudiced things she said ignorantly years ago and regrets?) Please keep in mind, for every loudmouth Christian who wants to force outsiders to live in accordance with what we believe, there are thousands more quiet, peaceable ones who simply want the freedom to quietly live and work in accordance with our beliefs and values, including to vote as we want to vote and to support which causes we want to support and to not support which causes we don’t want to support, without reprisals. I believe both sorts exist within every walk of life in America.

    • Steve Neman says

      That’s rich — Christians have oppressed and even executed gays and many other groups throughout the ages, including lynching blacks who married whites, now we’re “pitched” that it is these groups that are hateful and not Christians. Funny, indeed.

  5. Nick says

    Orson Scott Card has declared war on America. His quote: “Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government
    that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy
    that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a
    government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my
    children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”

  6. artiofab says

    A character from Card’s _Xenocide_ states:
    “The wise are not wise because they make no mistakes. They are wise
    because they correct their mistakes as soon as they recognize them.”

    Card has, over and over again, made the mistaken claim that allowing homosexuals to marry one another is a threat to the rights that heterosexual marriage allows. He has shown absolutely no wisdom in the sense of moving away from this position; if anything he seems to be digging in deeper with his mistaken notion. He is being extremely unwise.

    “those who support traditional values should support Mr. Card”
    Why? Why should someone who supports Christian values (which I assume is what you mean by “traditional” values) support the intentionally hateful statements of Mr. Card? His version of “traditional values” (e.g., two homosexuals should not be allowed to raise their own child) is not an idea that has any place in the 21st century of any nation that wants to consider itself civilized.

  7. Armando Ortega Cisneros says

    “Now, they’re coming after him on Ender’s Game trying to launch a boycott to derail the project: All because of Mr. Card’s views on same sex marriage”.

    So OSC and you Mr Graham want us all to sit quietly then, not taking a stand to let OSC know we don’t agree with his view and that we don´t want to give him OUR money to use against us. Don´t insult our intelligence Mr Graham. You know OSC isn’t holding just a meaningless opinion. He is very active up to this day looking for ways to make our lives miserable legally.

    “For my part, I really had no intention of going to see Ender’s Game in theaters, but the boycott changes that. If the movie’s decent, I intend to go and see it. If it’s awful, unless I’m in a financial crunch come November, I intend to buy a ticket without actually going. The intimidation must stop”.

    In good faith, you are more than welcomed to go and see that movie (which you even may or may not go to see) if that is your wish. But don’t pretend that the rest of the world should feel obligated to go and see his film on the grounds that supposedly we are a bunch of bullies trying to
    intimidate him. Cry me a river…

    Intimidation is the name of OSC´s knife that has stabbed LGBT people in the back all this years. And yet you missed the point. We don´t want anything to do with someone that hates us, that’s all. No more than OSC wants to have anything to do with the LGBT community. Except, apparently, when it comes to money which then he will love to make an exception and that’s where we are drawing the line. That doesn´t make him a mistreated individual, that makes him an egotistical hypocrite who now would like us all forget that he hates us and give him our money.

    “It’s an effort to ruin his career. And those who support traditional values should support Mr. Card and oppose this bullying campaign against.”
    “However, you intend to make sure they can’t make a living or have a career because you don’t like their views”.

    This is not a matter of not letting him live. He will still get his money, you better believe that. No. This is a matter of letting him know that we don´t support his worldview and will not get money from us to give to NOM. And quite frankly sweetheart, no one (not even you Mr. Graham) owes him a living. One would not like to go into a theater to watch a movie made by someone that said all those misguided comments (all laid in chronologically order for your pleasing view in other commenter´s post and honestly if you don’t find them distasteful and hurtful don’t you dare call yourself a Christian, you are NOT because you are NOT upholding the “traditional values” of respect, love, acceptance, and all others that your Lord died in order to make you defend them).

  8. Brent Webster says

    I agree completely, Adam. While the act of organizing a boycott may not itself be intimidation, there has been a concerted effort in the last few years to silence Mr. Card or push him from the public sphere. McCarthyism is alive and well, perpetrated by the very people who decried it when it was aimed at them.

    • A C says

      Then they’ve done a poor job of that silencing, seeing as he still publishes books and now has a major Hollywood film based off his work.

      • Brent Webster says

        Except that they killed a Superman story he was writing for DC Comics and made sure he would not be appearing to help promote the film based off his work at ComiCon. That is harassment and intimidation.

        Those two cases aside, the fact that those who want to silence Mr. Card are largely unsuccessful is not evidence that they are not attempting to do so. That is a non sequitur.

      • Armando Ortega Cisneros says

        You would love to believe that, don´t you?

        I dont get it. First you say that you dont think is intimidation, but now you are very sure it is. There is dissonance between your first post and last one.

        I find it amusing that a lot of people are decrying intimidation and harassment seeing that 1) is neither, and 2) it was OSC´s way of doing things all these years against LGBT people.

        If you are a public figure, everything that comes from your little mouth stays well and alive on people´s minds. Some will agree, some will not. But you are putting yourself out there (much like you and me here, posting our opinions) and you are then vulnerable and will be hold responsible for anything you say or do and there will be some form of backlash one way or another (keep that in mind when typing your response to this post).

        Here is the kicker: now that OSC´s opinions are coming back to haunt him (because everyone has a right to hold an opinion, to manifest and pretty sure also to buy or not to buy other peoples works on whatever criteria, or responding to post like you) he has to face it.

        He could apologize, for example, or admit that some things were wrong for him to say. That would be the adult way of doing things. But won´t do it. His last comment on the boycott suggested as much. In his own words “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute”.

        You see what he did there? So now we are the bullies and he would love it if now we tolerate his intolerance. Now we are the villains, not the victims standing up to the real bully here. Thats not very commendable, thats cowardly.

        And on the front of the boycott itself. I know of certain religious groups that have done it as well and on more terrifying ways. When they believe something is totally unacceptable (like letting LGBT people into theme parks, getting a job or marrying) it must be stopped whatever way possible. From trying to boycott Disneyland to prevent movies from even being screened (notice that on the case of Enders Game, people just dont want to go and see the film) to making a scene of holding big cards with words like “GOD HATES F***”). Thats real harassment, that is real intimidation. You won´t expect it coming from someone who upholds “traditional values”, but there it is!

        But we? We just dont want to go see a film on grounds on not supporting him in his crusade to get us to be second class citizens. Thats all. Will OSC perish because of this? No. Will he be blacklisted from every place that he can land a job? Doubtful. Will he learn from his mistakes as some of his characters do? That remains to be seen.

        But this then begs the question: So its okay when the ball is on that side of the field, but not when it is on ours?

        Hilarious

      • Brent Webster says

        You have a reading comprehension problem. A boycott does not rise to the level of intimidation. Forcing someone to be fired from a project absolutely does. That, in essence, is saying, “agree with us or you will not get any future work.” That is harassment.

        If you want to boycott, do so to your heart’s content. Unless you and everyone involved in the boycott have always supported every other project from this movie studio, the director, etc., it’s meaningless anyway.

        When you try to prevent someone from working, you are censoring and blacklisting. It’s really that simple.

      • A C says

        Clearly you are not aware of the specifics surrounding the Superman incident. OSC was not fired, the artist decided that he did not wish to draw the story and DC didn’t hire another artist to replace him. So you’re going to have to find another argument because “Forcing someone to be fired” never happened.

        More to the point though, NO ONE HAS PREVENTED HIM FROM WORKING! He still has his pens and computers, he still has a publisher, and his books are still sold in stores. In fact, I hear they’ve even adapted one of his best known works into a big-budget movie which will introduce millions more to his work. The only thing that has happened here is a group of people have publicly stated that they do not wish to give OSC their money and they ask others to consider doing the same. That’s all. So stop setting up straw men about censorship and blacklisting, this is nothing of the sort.

      • Brent Webster says

        Again you mistake futility for a lack of intent. You also seem to be unaware of the difference between publishing one’s own work and being hired to write for some other entity.

        I’m very much aware of the particulars of the Superman situation. The artist, intimidated by the protestor bigots, backed out of the project because he didn’t want the attention. DC Comics, intimidated by the same, are not moving forward with the work. That is, for all intents and purposes, forcing OSC to be removed from the project. Do you really believe that these people would not get Harper Collins to stop publishing his books if they could?

      • A C says

        How am I mistaken about publishing and self-publishing? Oh right, I said nothing about self-publishing and you’re just grasping at straws. The person who remains mistaken is you. No one has prevented OSC from doing anything, your argument is completely without merit. He still writes, he still gets published, people still buy his work. The only opposition this guy has encountered here is financial, as a group of people have said they won’t give him their money. No one has tried to stop his work from being published, they merely said they wouldn’t purchase anything by him. DC and that artist weren’t intimidated, they made a BUSINESS DECISION.

        Let’s flip this around because clearly you are not getting it. If DC had hired Christopher Hitchens while he was still alive to write a Superman story and then a Christian group said they would not purchase it because the author’s views conflicted with theirs, would you be crying harassment and intimidation or would you realize that it’s a simple boycott? And if DC decided not to publish it, would it be because of intimidation or because they realize that using too controversial an author would hurt their bottom line? Can you provide a single scrap of evidence to prove that intimidation (threats of force used to compel behavior) happened as opposed to money talking so loud that the artist and the company heard and acted on it? Everything I’ve seen has been simple boycotts, none of this intimidation you keep talking about, but if you can find proof of it I’d like to see it. No, I don’t think people would prevent Harper Collins from publishing OSC’s work, I think they would just continue to not buy his material in boycott as they have been doing already.

        Also, you should look up what intimidation means, you keep using it improperly and it’s getting rather embarrassing.

      • Armando Ortega Cisneros says

        Please… And with that you are pretending once again that Orson Scott Card is the victim here. His misguided and hurtful comments notwhitstanding, he is a mistreated individual. Nevermind how he is approaching to fix the situation making us now the villains (something you clearly ignored from my last post, just to level the playing field, right?). So he is a poor guy who needs all the help he can get from people that see him as a martyr. But that is just a fantasy, taking into account that what he wants is to negate other human beings basic human rights (wich is evil).

        And sweetheart, really, no one is intimidating him. Get your facts straight. You would love for it to be legitimate intimidation to make this issue work on OSC´s favor and yours an Mr Graham´s. We are telling him we don´t agree, so we are not going to see Ender´s Game (you can´t make us go, we have a right of choosing not to go just like everyone else). Period. We are not forcing him. We are not violently throwing him out of buildings. We are not making death threats. Stop pretending is intimidation. What OSC did, THAT was intimidation, looking for ways to legally mess with LGBT people and making threats to the goverment (look it up).

        On the case of DC comics, is just plain buisness. Faced against selling successfully a product or watching it burn to the ground because of the hired author´s controversial worldviews, it´s clear what will do. If that were your buisness, its obvious you are going to make a call in favor of your company. You know who else knows how this works in the industry? Suprise! OSC knows of this! In fact, I recall he came out of the project without making a fuss out of it.

        So, what´s the moral of the story? Everytime you choose to share an opinion in public and try to defend it (something I don´t begrudge Mr Card) take heart that some people will not agree with you, and they will let you know in some ways maybe you won´t like. So make sure you don´t say anything stupid and if you still want to, you´ll have to deal with the logical aftermath of people using their right of disagreeing with you and maybe not supporting you. And in this case (just to make myself absolutely clear) no one is intimidating him, They just won´t see his film as a way of protesting peacefully.

      • A C says

        So have you found any evidence of intimidation yet? I’m willing to accept evidence along the lines of your previously posted (but now deleted) definition of intimidation involving attempts to creating fear in the mind of another (fear of lost revenue from homosexuals and their allies not buying OSC’s material doesn’t count). We’re all waiting for you to blow this story wide open with some damning evidence of fear creation in action!

      • Brent Webster says

        Sorry about the deleted post. Apparently, when you include a link (as I did in an edit of the post), it automatically gets hidden, pending administrative review.

        Allout.org’s stated intent was to make sure that DC does not ever hire Mr. Card. Theirs is not simply a boycott but a petition and a publicity campaign. The artist Chris Sprouse was clearly not worried about his finances. He would get other work from the publisher. He was worried about being saddled with controversy; in short, of having his reputation or public image harmed.

        To be clear, I have no issue with people boycotting Ender’s Game because they disagree with Mr. Card’s politics. I disagree with them, but that’s fine.

        I have a problem when their stated intent is to make sure that I cannot enjoy what they don’t want to. That is where their rights end.

      • A C says

        What part of this are you not getting? The boycotters have done nothing more than state their intention to not give money to a bigot or the company that supports that bigot. That is all these people have done: stated their opinions. DC and Mr Sprouse are the ones who have actually let you down by not standing by OSC, so if you have a beef with anyone it’s with the people who lacked the courage to stand by OSC, not the people who merely stated their opinion.

        Let me ask you again because you ignored my questions the first time: If DC hired Christopher Hitchens (while he was still alive of course) to write a Superman story and Christian groups said that they would not buy that book or support DC in their decision to hire Mr Hitchens, would you have the same objections you do now?

      • Brent Webster says

        What part of it are YOU not getting? That is not the extent of what they have done, and that is not the limit of their stated intent.

        But okay, let’s talk about Christopher Hitchens. While I disagreed with him about religion, I found him to be an intelligent man with an often insightful point of view on many issues. I would probably have been interested, for sheer curiosity’s sake, in what kind of Superman story he would have written. It couldn’t be worse than what currently passes for Superman writing in the comics today.

        If any group claimed that they would not buy that book because of Hitchens’ views on religion, I would disagree with them, but think little more of it. If they, however, started a publicity campaign, filled with wild accusations and distortions, hoping to block publication of the story, yes, I would have a problem with that.

      • A C says

        You keep making assertions about these people’s intent and “what they have done” and yet you have not shown a single shred of evidence for any intimidation, harassment, wild accusations, distortions, or going beyond “the limit of their stated intent.” Your link to allout said they wouldn’t support DC for hiring OSC because of his stance on LGBT rights: that is what a boycott is, not supporting companies that support something you don’t like. Also, of course there would be a “publicity campaign” (if you can call an internet petition a campaign) because it’s not an effective boycott if no one knows that there is one happening.

        Again, the fault for blocked publication is with DC and the artist. They did not stand by OSC, it is their fault this happened, not people who merely stated their opinion and asked others to support them if they also believed in their cause.

      • Brent Webster says

        Since you refuse to see a threat of ongoing persecution and never-ending controversy for what it is, I’m taking my cue from Mark Twain who said, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,” and bowing out of this conversation. I wish you all the best.

      • A C says

        Read: “I have no proof for anything I’ve said and I’m getting embarrassed by the fact that I keep insisting on things I’m pretty much just making up at this point.”

      • Brent Webster says

        Of course you read it that way. I have no evidence when all evidence is summarily rejected and the possibility of the problem itself is denied. Good luck with that.

      • A C says

        So where was this evidence that I rejected summarily? Oh yeah, you never provided any! There are a grand total of ZERO pieces of evidence for any of the claims you’ve made about intimidation, harassment, wild accusations, and distortions. The one link you did provide was to a boycott petition, a practice that you claimed you weren’t bothered by (and the petition wasn’t even sent because they didn’t have enough signatures). So try again.

      • Brent Webster says

        “Boycott petition”? You don’t need a petition to boycott something. You announce what you are boycotting and then you do it. Why the petition?

      • A C says

        Because a boycott isn’t effective if a large body of people don’t know about it and a petition is a good way to let people know there is an issue and to allow those who support the boycott to show solidarity.

        You’re really grasping at straws here.

      • Brent Webster says

        The petition isn’t sent to “a large body of people.” What is the point of the petition?

      • A C says

        Are you really not getting this or are you just trolling? Are you familiar with these things called “social networking sites,” like facebook? This is how internet petitions are shown to large body of people, through the magical wonder of “shares” and links posted in their profiles or on their pages or whatever the site has.

        As I stated before: “a petition is a good way to let people know there is an issue and to allow those who support the boycott to show solidarity.” Also, had the petition actually been sent, it would have shown DC that it wasn’t just disparate people who objected to decisions they made, but a group acting together, which is much more effective as a means of getting your message across.

        I don’t think this could be any clearer.

      • Brent Webster says

        You don’t sign a petition to get the word out to supporters. You get the word out to supporters to sign the petition. You’re putting the horse after the cart.

        The petition, should they have acquired the desired number of signatures, would have been sent to DC Comics. To what intent? What did they hope to accomplish with the petition? To influence DC Comics to change their behavior, perhaps?

        They stated, in fact, that it was their purpose to make sure that DC Comics never again hired Orson Scott Card. Success or failure aside, that is an attempt at censorship. That is an attempt to intimidate. Mr. Sprouse was certainly intimidated. The petition didn’t get the desired number of signatures because once the artist backed out for fear of controversy (his stated reason), the petition became moot. The intimidation worked and Sprouse and DC modified their behavior in accordance with the intent of the petition.

        But you’ll dismiss this, of course, because you do not want to see it. You want to agree with Allout. Blacklisting isn’t blacklisting if you agree with it.

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into.”
        -Jonathan Swift

      • A C says

        Obvious troll is trolling. You sign to show solidarity, you share to spread the word. Both of these things happened. You obviously get this but are looking to distract from the fact that you STILL cannot find any evidence to back up your baseless assertions.

        Prove there was intimidation. Seriously, find a single shred of evidence to back that up. I have looked for this “fear of controversy” remark and all I have found is him saying that the attention detracted from the work. If you can provide a website and an article name so that I can look that up to see it’s not just something else you’ve made up it would be most helpful.

        People saying they will not financially support a company or artist who supports a bigot is not intimidation or blacklisting, it is people saying how they will spend, or not spend, their money. Are people not allowed to share their opinions or let companies know that their actions will have financial consequences? Because that’s pretty much what you’re saying. Once more I have to say this, DC and the artist made a BUSINESS DECISION. They saw that they would lose money if they supported OSC so they decided to take actions that wouldn’t lose them money. This wasn’t intimidation, censorship, or blacklisting, it was that age old saying: “Money talks, BS walks.” If DC decided not to publish a Superman story by Christopher Hitchens because Christians said they would not support a company that supported Hitchens, it wouldn’t be censorship, blacklisting, or intimidation, it would be DC saying “You know what, we like money and we want to make as much of it as we can, so let’s make decisions based on what gives us the most money.”

      • A C says

        Also, you keep missing the major point here. All these boycotters really have no power over what happened. Chris Sprouse and DC were the ones that lacked the courage of conviction to work with OSC and publish his work. They could have just said “haters gonna hate” and went ahead with their work, but they decided to jettison OSC in favor of money. All your upsetness/anger/whatever should be directed at the people ACTUALLY responsible for the decisions you don’t like, not the people who said they would not support a company that hired a bigot.