I would just say this: I think tax evaders should be jailed. I do not hate them. Hate is a strong word, and it suggests that someone is incapable of being reasoned with. It is employed to silence people and to shut down debate.
I personally am a Conservative Libertarian, and it is my conviction that we need to stay out of one another's affairs to the greatest degree possible, so please do not confuse my remarks as a defense of Card. They are a defense of freedom of thought, speech and conscience. I can think of nothing worse as a Christian than two Satanists getting married and having as many kids as possible, and then raising them to hate God. But it's legal, and in a free country it has to be. I abhor a witch hunt, coming from any side.
I respect what you are saying, and I appreciate your expanding upon it. But I think you may be misunderstanding what I am suggesting as an attempt to abridge speech or keep thought from being free. That is, simply put, not what I am calling for. So if you want to defend Card's freedom of thought, that is perfectly fine. But you are not defending it against me. As I am not arguing against his right to express himself. (And, to be fair, you may not even be talking to me. You may be talking to the people that would petition to get DC to fire him.)
For me to call what Card is saying hate speech is me making my value judgment on it, and on him. And I stand by that judgment. I find the extremity of Card's stated beliefs-- presented in a WRITTEN, PUBLIC essay. Not some fleeting comment in private caught on tape. Not some drunk comment at a bar. He wrote this and put it into the world-- to make me suspect that he is unreasonable in his feelings. Call that judgmental if you want. But there are unreasonable people in the world. And sometimes we have to make that judgment.
HOWEVER, I am not saying that he should not have the write to think what he thinks, or to publish or post it wherever he wants to. I may choose not to buy his writing because I am not at all interested in stories from his mind, but that is different from me believing he is not within his writes to express.
And I don't see how my calling expression that I am allowing him hate speech is a witch hunt. Not when one is not calling for legal consequences to be visited on the one making the expression.
Witch hunts, historically, are the things that jailed and killed those who were judged to be outsiders, with what is judged to be outsider beliefs that are too out of step with the rest of society. (You know, the sort of thing that Card is calling for in his 1990 essay- what he is calling for is, to me, an excellent example of a witch hunt). But I would not support anyone taking away his freedom of speech, or jailing him for his odious beliefs.
Unlike Card, I am willing to co-exist and society with those who would believe and live a different way than me. But I will call hate what it is when I see it. It is also my right to make that judgment. Trust me, it is nothing I enjoy doing, or seeing in the world. And it is not something I jump to quickly.
Totally agree, @David_D . People often forget that concomitant with the right to speak out for what you believe is the right to speak out against what others believe when you find that speech offensive.
You either believe in freedom of conscience, speech and thought or you don't, and if you freak out every time someone gets a JOB who doesn't agree with you, I can assure you that you do not.
I thought expressing one's opinion was freedom of speech?
No...Freedom of Speech is that the government cannot interfere in your right to CERTAIN types of speech. For example, you can't give out the combination to the nuclear codes or location of CIA Agents and claim freedom of speech.
A company, media corporation, etc... can chose to not allow you to give your message on their forum and it has nothing to do with Freedom of speech.
Not that that was the main topic here...
The model for Freedom of Speech is that there is a marketplace of ideas. Card is able to tell people about his beliefs and attempt to convince people that they are correct. Other people are free to debate with him, or give a competing message and attempt to convince people that he is wrong and they are correct.
As for me, I agree that I will read things by people I disagree with politically, ethically or otherwise. My favorite book series (The Destroyer books) are currently written by people I could not disagree with more, but as long as the action and humor hold up, I'll read past their extreme right wing views and contempt for people like me who disagree with them. There are comic creators that I have met who are REALLY horrid people, but if the work is good, I'll buy it.
On the other hand, Ron Frenz is one of the nicest, kindest, most personable people I have ever dealt with while working on comic conventions. I think he's an all around stand-up guy, but I don't much care for his artwork so I only buy it when he works with a wrtier I enjoy.
I judge the art, not the artist.
If Card does a good Superman story, I'll buy it. However, I didn't feel his Iron Man work was all that great, so I'll wait for the reviews. As long as he doesn't turn Superman into an advocate for his agenda (like how Ditko does with all of his characters). I'll judge it on artistic merits.
But I DO understand how people can be offended by a creator's stand on issues keeping them from buying a book. It's the risk of a creator of any kind becoming a public advocate, because no matter what you believe, you run a chance of pissing off someone who would give you money.
The closest example I can come up with regarding my attitude of Orson Scott Card is my attitude toward Ted Nugent.
I buy plenty of things created by people who are pro-gun. I'm sure most of the crime, military, spy, etc novels I read are written by people who own and love guns. I'm currently reading Gunsmith Cats, a manga that fetishizes guns almost as much as it does women. None of those things bother me.
But I don't buy anything by Ted Nugent because I think he sounds like a lunatic, and I don't want to give him my money.
I don't recall what statement it was that I read by Card several years ago, but whatever it was turned me off so much that I made a mental note to myself to not bother buying anything he did. I don't have a problem with people hiring him, and I'm not going to be signing any petitions against him, but I simply have no interest in hearing what he has to say.
But I don't buy anything by Ted Nugent because I think he sounds like a lunatic, and I don't want to give him my money.
I don't recall what statement it was that I read by Card several years ago, but whatever it was turned me off so much that I made a mental note to myself to not bother buying anything he did. I don't have a problem with people hiring him, and I'm not going to be signing any petitions against him, but I simply have no interest in hearing what he has to say.
I find that to be an ethical position. I trust the motives behind it.
When I hear people wanting to organize to deprive someone of a platform to speak because of disagreement with him/her, or to get them fired, or to shout down and stigmatize them, I think that's driven by fear. There are, in my view, few opinions to be held that are as ugly as that kind of mob mentality.
If Card does a good Superman story, I'll buy it. However, I didn't feel his Iron Man work was all that great, so I'll wait for the reviews. As long as he doesn't turn Superman into an advocate for his agenda (like how Ditko does with all of his characters). I'll judge it on artistic merits.
But I DO understand how people can be offended by a creator's stand on issues keeping them from buying a book. It's the risk of a creator of any kind becoming a public advocate, because no matter what you believe, you run a chance of pissing off someone who would give you money.
I think it's also a question of each person's personal beliefs and what's important to them. I support gay rights and gay marriage, but I can also understand (but not agree with) the POV of people who speak out against gay rights because they interpret their religion as telling them that homosexuality is a sin. I don't agree with that view, but I also have trouble "hating" such people. OTOH, if you told me that Orson Scott Card was a Nazi, and he was pumping all the money into Nazi hate groups, I would not buy the comic no matter how good it was because I personally find that belief system (which preaches that certain humans are lesser than other humans) to be more abhorrent than the view that one's religion condemns homosexuality. And I fully concede that I'm not being 100% consistent here - and that my view on it is 100% colored by the fact that I'm not gay and I'm Jewish. So that's my take on it.
Card was a very early Internet adopter. He had an online presence in the eighties. He was also one of the first writers to write books "publicly". Allowing his fans to read chapters as he went, offering their reactions and comments.
I participated in these forums in the early nineties. And exchanged the occasional email with Card. He always seemed like a gentle and compassionate person. He rarely discussed politics directly. And his indirect comments weren't controversial.
I'd heard that he'd expressed some extreme views in publications geared at Mormons. But it didn't jibe with my experience so I discounted it.
By the mid to late nineties, he'd become much more public with his right wing views. And his online presence went form generous and compassionate to surly and belligerent.
I don't really know if Card had changed. Or if that early persona had been an act. But his views on a lot of things, including writing. Went from rather interesting to very odd.
Well, in the early to mid-’90s I heard that Card was being pressured by the leaders of the LDS to be more overtly Mormon in his writing. I don't know if that’s true or not, as I heard it third-hand from local writers. If true, though, it would explain the shift.
Well would explain the change in views. Maybe even the change in attitude.
And for what it's worth, while his views on gay rights lead people to paint him as a right-winger, he has some rather liberal—or more accurately socialist—views when it comes to the distribution of wealth. From interviews I’ve read, he actually seems to lean left on a number of issues. By today’s standards he’d probably be considered a moderate, not a right-winger.
You're probably right. It's hard to imagine that "Speaker of the Dead" was written by a hardline right-winger.
Looking at the article at The Advocate I feel like DC has made a timid statement that attempts to have it both ways (added emphasis mine):
When The Advocate reached out to DC for an official comment, a company spokesman said, “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
The spokesman also mentioned the new digital Adventures of Superman comic is an anthology series and would feature an ever-changing group of guest writers, of which Card would be one, and should not be confused with the long-running flagship titles Superman or Action Comics.
So do the personal views of individuals matter or don't they? And if they don't matter, why go to such lengths to point out that Card is only writing on an anthology and not on the 'long-running flagship title'. If the personal views of the creators are so irrelevant, then why make that distancing step of, 'remember- it is just the digital anthology he is writing for, not one of the main Superman titles'. Why mention that it if the views supposedly don't matter?
To me that is timid. If you truly believe that freedom of expression and that the creator's views don't matter, then don't qualify it by downplaying which Superman title you are having a creator contribute to as a minor one. Either stand by the person you have hired or don't.
How many people are going to buy the first issue just because of the controversy?
Im excited for the book and Im now motivated enough for this to posibly be the first digital comic I ever actually buy. Not Nec. becuase of the controversy itself (ala the hype) but for various other reasons as well as some related to aspects of the controversy.
Thing is, if it weren't for Card's participation, I probably would have bought the book. I've been finding that I generally like the digital-first comics better than the main New52 books. The caveat has been that I don't buy them digitally, but wait for them to come out in print.
Thing is, if it weren't for Card's participation, I probably would have bought the book. I've been finding that I generally like the digital-first comics better than the main New52 books. The caveat has been that I don't buy them digitally, but wait for them to come out in print.
Agreed. Legends of the Dark Knight has been awesome so far (and proof you can still tell really good Batman stories in 8-12 pages), what I've read of Ame-Comi girls has been way better than I would have ever expected, and I'm really looking forward to Lil' Gotham or whatever it's called. And the print version of Adventures of Superman #1 will not only have the Card story, but also something by Jeff Parker. Parker's good at the comic bookery, and I really want to see what he'd do with a Superman story. I don't want to give Card money, but I do want to give Parker money. I could just buy the digital, I suppose, but I don't want to read it that way. Grrrr... decisions.
Whether it's Dave Sim and his diatribe about women or Orson Scott Card and his anti-gay views, I'm not buying the author's work for either, though in Sim's case his infamous rant was appended to a comic book (issue 186 which also features a Strangers in Paradise back up story - go figure?) I wasn't planning on buying Orson Scott Card's Superman stint, and this latest revelation has done nothing to make me want to do so now. That said, I'm not a huge proponent of boycotting people's contributions on account that I disagree with their stances on other subject. Honestly, it's a big world, and I can't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye on everything. If his comics are used as a platform to promote his personal ideologies, then I would seriously reconsider buying them (that is if I had planned on buying them in the first place). To me, this is like the Chick-Fil-A situation. The head of Chick-fil-A turned his personal views into a marketing campaign, and in doing so lost my business. As long as Orson Scott Card's writing adheres to spirit of Superman, I say let the man have at it.
Whether it's Dave Sim and his diatribe about women or Orson Scott Card and his anti-gay views, I'm not buying the author's work for either, though in Sim's case his infamous rant was appended to a comic book (issue 186 which also features a Strangers in Paradise back up story - go figure?) I wasn't planning on buying Orson Scott Card's Superman stint, and this latest revelation has done nothing to make me want to do so now. That said, I'm not a huge proponent of boycotting people's contributions on account that I disagree with their stances on other subject. Honestly, it's a big world, and I can't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye on everything. If his comics are used as a platform to promote his personal ideologies, then I would seriously reconsider buying them (that is if I had planned on buying them in the first place). To me, this is like the Chick-Fil-A situation. The head of Chick-fil-A turned his personal views into a marketing campaign, and in doing so lost my business. As long as Orson Scott Card's writing adheres to spirit of Superman, I say let the man have at it.
The difference, as I see it, is that Sim's ranting was nothing more than that. He would expound, ad infinitum, but he wasn't joining any anti-feminist organizations of funding any such group. Whereas Card is putting his money behind his beliefs, donating to the anti-Gay causes. Why should I aid him in his contributions by buying his books? I buy the book, DC pays him, and he donates it to a hate cause. I prefer not to feed into that cycle.
Whether it's Dave Sim and his diatribe about women or Orson Scott Card and his anti-gay views, I'm not buying the author's work for either, though in Sim's case his infamous rant was appended to a comic book (issue 186 which also features a Strangers in Paradise back up story - go figure?) I wasn't planning on buying Orson Scott Card's Superman stint, and this latest revelation has done nothing to make me want to do so now. That said, I'm not a huge proponent of boycotting people's contributions on account that I disagree with their stances on other subject. Honestly, it's a big world, and I can't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye on everything. If his comics are used as a platform to promote his personal ideologies, then I would seriously reconsider buying them (that is if I had planned on buying them in the first place). To me, this is like the Chick-Fil-A situation. The head of Chick-fil-A turned his personal views into a marketing campaign, and in doing so lost my business. As long as Orson Scott Card's writing adheres to spirit of Superman, I say let the man have at it.
The difference, as I see it, is that Sim's ranting was nothing more than that. He would expound, ad infinitum, but he wasn't joining any anti-feminist organizations of funding any such group. Whereas Card is putting his money behind his beliefs, donating to the anti-Gay causes. Why should I aid him in his contributions by buying his books? I buy the book, DC pays him, and he donates it to a hate cause. I prefer not to feed into that cycle.
Technically, hasn't DC already paid him? If not now, then by the time the book's gone into print.
Whether it's Dave Sim and his diatribe about women or Orson Scott Card and his anti-gay views, I'm not buying the author's work for either, though in Sim's case his infamous rant was appended to a comic book (issue 186 which also features a Strangers in Paradise back up story - go figure?) I wasn't planning on buying Orson Scott Card's Superman stint, and this latest revelation has done nothing to make me want to do so now. That said, I'm not a huge proponent of boycotting people's contributions on account that I disagree with their stances on other subject. Honestly, it's a big world, and I can't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye on everything. If his comics are used as a platform to promote his personal ideologies, then I would seriously reconsider buying them (that is if I had planned on buying them in the first place). To me, this is like the Chick-Fil-A situation. The head of Chick-fil-A turned his personal views into a marketing campaign, and in doing so lost my business. As long as Orson Scott Card's writing adheres to spirit of Superman, I say let the man have at it.
The difference, as I see it, is that Sim's ranting was nothing more than that. He would expound, ad infinitum, but he wasn't joining any anti-feminist organizations of funding any such group. Whereas Card is putting his money behind his beliefs, donating to the anti-Gay causes. Why should I aid him in his contributions by buying his books? I buy the book, DC pays him, and he donates it to a hate cause. I prefer not to feed into that cycle.
Technically, hasn't DC already paid him? If not now, then by the time the book's gone into print.
It depends on the royalty structure. Certainly they have already paid him something up front, but I would be very surprised if a name writer with profile did not also have something built into the contract to compensate him further depending on how many copies (digital or print) end up selling. My understanding is that royalties are common or even the norm for people creating new content for the Big Two these days*, and I think especially an established author bringing their name to the table would get them.
*But not necessarily for digital sales or distribution of older content- I don't know that creators are being compensated for content being read via the Marvel DCU, or for issues of Big Two titles created prior to certain contractual points.
Whether it's Dave Sim and his diatribe about women or Orson Scott Card and his anti-gay views, I'm not buying the author's work for either, though in Sim's case his infamous rant was appended to a comic book (issue 186 which also features a Strangers in Paradise back up story - go figure?) I wasn't planning on buying Orson Scott Card's Superman stint, and this latest revelation has done nothing to make me want to do so now. That said, I'm not a huge proponent of boycotting people's contributions on account that I disagree with their stances on other subject. Honestly, it's a big world, and I can't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye on everything. If his comics are used as a platform to promote his personal ideologies, then I would seriously reconsider buying them (that is if I had planned on buying them in the first place). To me, this is like the Chick-Fil-A situation. The head of Chick-fil-A turned his personal views into a marketing campaign, and in doing so lost my business. As long as Orson Scott Card's writing adheres to spirit of Superman, I say let the man have at it.
The difference, as I see it, is that Sim's ranting was nothing more than that. He would expound, ad infinitum, but he wasn't joining any anti-feminist organizations of funding any such group. Whereas Card is putting his money behind his beliefs, donating to the anti-Gay causes. Why should I aid him in his contributions by buying his books? I buy the book, DC pays him, and he donates it to a hate cause. I prefer not to feed into that cycle.
Technically, hasn't DC already paid him? If not now, then by the time the book's gone into print.
It depends on the royalty structure. Certainly they have already paid him something up front, but I would be very surprised if a name writer with profile did not also have something built into the contract to compensate him further depending on how many copies (digital or print) end up selling. My understanding is that royalties are common or even the norm for people creating new content for the Big Two these days*, and I think especially an established author bringing their name to the table would get them.
*But not necessarily for digital sales or distribution of older content- I don't know that creators are being compensated for content being read via the Marvel DCU, or for issues of Big Two titles created prior to certain contractual points.
It isn't a matter of his opinion versus the opinion of others. He chairs an organization which is directly responsible for the murder of homosexuals. NOM is the chief supporter of the Ugandan Kill The Gays bill. This isn't about one man's opinion, this is about that man being directly responsible for the suffering of a persecuted minority.
It isn't a matter of his opinion versus the opinion of others. He chairs an organization which is directly responsible for the murder of homosexuals. NOM is the chief supporter of the Ugandan Kill The Gays bill. This isn't about one man's opinion, this is about that man being directly responsible for the suffering of a persecuted minority.
And that would make it something more than just an opinion.
I am fine supporting creators with a wide range of opinions that differ from mine.
My two lines are: 1. Does that view point affect his/her writing to a detriment of my enjoyment of it? I find Dave Sim's work to be dripping with misogynistic themes much like his rants, thus I dont buy his works because he does not separate his beliefs on gender from his work.
2. Does the creator actively advocate for this opposing view point, to the extent that I am in essence helping to fund his/her ability to promote & work towards something I am opposed to? Card sits on the board of a committee created for the sole purpose of something I disagree with (rights restrictions on gays/lesbians and general relegation of the LGTB community to second class citizens), so I cannot in good conscious help fund his ability to do that. I know its just a few coins, but they are my coins.
There are plenty of comic book creators out there who I have opposing view points to, but as long as they arent crossing those lines I'm still ok buying their work and appreciating their craft.
[and Im a fan of those who make a distinction between religious marriage and state marriage, it would be a fine solution to the problem, and I fail to see why we dont use that as an answer. I did not get married in a church, and I dont expect (or care if) a church were to recognize my marriage to my lovely wife. I do care that the state recognizes it and affords her the appropriate benefits that go with being my spouse. I think all states should take this approach. Similarly there are some religious groups/denominations who will marry gay/lesbian couples and recognize their union.
States should get out of the marriage business, just call it a civil union, make it available to all, and leave "marriage" to the churches where marriage has NO legal implications, only state issued civil union licenses. That keeps NOM happy that GLTB unions arent sullying their pristine image of marriage (ps, straight people are doing plenty to sully the concept of marriage but Card doesnt see a problem with that? (divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse all hurt the image of marriage but he's not spending his time worrying about that?))]
I am fine supporting creators with a wide range of opinions that differ from mine.
My two lines are: 1. Does that view point affect his/her writing to a detriment of my enjoyment of it? I find Dave Sim's work to be dripping with misogynistic themes much like his rants, thus I dont buy his works because he does not separate his beliefs on gender from his work.
2. Does the creator actively advocate for this opposing view point, to the extent that I am in essence helping to fund his/her ability to promote & work towards something I am opposed to? Card sits on the board of a committee created for the sole purpose of something I disagree with (rights restrictions on gays/lesbians and general relegation of the LGTB community to second class citizens), so I cannot in good conscious help fund his ability to do that. I know its just a few coins, but they are my coins.
There are plenty of comic book creators out there who I have opposing view points to, but as long as they arent crossing those lines I'm still ok buying their work and appreciating their craft.
[and Im a fan of those who make a distinction between religious marriage and state marriage, it would be a fine solution to the problem, and I fail to see why we dont use that as an answer. I did not get married in a church, and I dont expect (or care if) a church were to recognize my marriage to my lovely wife. I do care that the state recognizes it and affords her the appropriate benefits that go with being my spouse. I think all states should take this approach. Similarly there are some religious groups/denominations who will marry gay/lesbian couples and recognize their union.
States should get out of the marriage business, just call it a civil union, make it available to all, and leave "marriage" to the churches where marriage has NO legal implications, only state issued civil union licenses. That keeps NOM happy that GLTB unions arent sullying their pristine image of marriage (ps, straight people are doing plenty to sully the concept of marriage but Card doesnt see a problem with that? (divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse all hurt the image of marriage but he's not spending his time worrying about that?))]
Technically there already is a distinction between religious marriage and state marriage. The state does not recognize a couple as married until an application has been granted, their requirements met, and the license issued, no matter what religious or non-religious ceremony has been performed. While you and I would be happy to agree to the distinction, calling one a marriage and the other a civil union would merely be a matter of semantics for most people, as they see the two as intertwined and inseparable. It would in no way keep NOM happy, as they believe same-sex marriage will literally lead to the downfall of the country. I know a couple of people who fully support NOM’s cause (though they perhaps turn a blind eye to some of their actions), and they both truly believe this to be the case. They see it as both their religious and patriotic duty to oppose gay marriage. Unfortunately, compromise isn’t an option with them because their beliefs allow no middle ground. It’s either gay marriage is outlawed, or the country falls to ruins.
And, frankly, Card does have a problem with divorce, infidelity, etc., but I'm sure he knows he there is no chance of a bill banning divorce to pass. However, same-sex marriage is a battle that can be won—at least in many parts of the country—as the successes of Proposition 8 showed, and so that is where they carry the fight.
As John Barth said, “Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story.”
While you and I would be happy to agree to the distinction, calling one a marriage and the other a civil union would merely be a matter of semantics for most people, as they see the two as intertwined and inseparable. It would in no way keep NOM happy, as they believe same-sex marriage will literally lead to the downfall of the country.
This is why it's so essential to address this issue properly. If we don't, we'll be right back to square one in 20 years. If the state was seeking to define baptism, we'd have the same issue (that may seem like a ridiculous notion to Americans, but that's only because we've never had a state church, and consequently we dodged those issues altogether). When there was essentially a unanimous opinion about what a marriage was, we didn't see what an outrageous government intrusion this was into the personal sphere. It is none of the government's business who lives together, for what reason, and what rights they want to grant to one another. Adjusting marriage slightly just to accommodate the current social/political climate just kicks the can down the road. For crying out loud, it's not even considered permanent anymore by many people.
Frankly, if marriage as an institution is no longer resting primarily on the biological foundation of reproduction, but is now just a container for the granting of certain rights, there is absolutely no reason to prevent ANYONE from sharing a household and certain rights, even siblings. So give the word "marriage" back the individual (not the church - the individual), and let the government grant Domestic Partnerships to everyone who wants to share a residence on an ongoing basis.
I do think there are serious issues to consider, especially where kids are involved. Is it ethical to deliberately deprive a child of having a mother and a father? I don't think so, and some European countries have some social science data on the matter.
Let's do this right, and then we can all enjoy our Superman. Card believes he can become a God as a Mormon. No one cares. Hopefully this issue will likewise one day be relegated to the personal sphere where it belongs.
While you and I would be happy to agree to the distinction, calling one a marriage and the other a civil union would merely be a matter of semantics for most people, as they see the two as intertwined and inseparable. It would in no way keep NOM happy, as they believe same-sex marriage will literally lead to the downfall of the country.
Frankly, if marriage as an institution is no longer resting primarily on the biological foundation of reproduction, but is now just a container for the granting of certain rights, there is absolutely no reason to prevent ANYONE from sharing a household and certain rights, even siblings. So give the word "marriage" back the individual (not the church - the individual), and let the government grant Domestic Partnerships to everyone who wants to share a residence on an ongoing basis.
Well said. I would only add that the person/entity paying for these rights/benefits (nothing is free) also need a say in the matter. It's one thing when marriage is a monogamous arrangement. What happens when the polyamorous start to demand marriage equality? Granted this won't happen tomorrow or even in a hundred tomorrows, but it will happen. Do we saddle business with the cost of the expansion of benefits. Do they become another in an increasing list of government entitlements?
Comments
e
L nny
A company, media corporation, etc... can chose to not allow you to give your message on their forum and it has nothing to do with Freedom of speech.
Not that that was the main topic here...
The model for Freedom of Speech is that there is a marketplace of ideas. Card is able to tell people about his beliefs and attempt to convince people that they are correct. Other people are free to debate with him, or give a competing message and attempt to convince people that he is wrong and they are correct.
As for me, I agree that I will read things by people I disagree with politically, ethically or otherwise. My favorite book series (The Destroyer books) are currently written by people I could not disagree with more, but as long as the action and humor hold up, I'll read past their extreme right wing views and contempt for people like me who disagree with them. There are comic creators that I have met who are REALLY horrid people, but if the work is good, I'll buy it.
On the other hand, Ron Frenz is one of the nicest, kindest, most personable people I have ever dealt with while working on comic conventions. I think he's an all around stand-up guy, but I don't much care for his artwork so I only buy it when he works with a wrtier I enjoy.
I judge the art, not the artist.
If Card does a good Superman story, I'll buy it. However, I didn't feel his Iron Man work was all that great, so I'll wait for the reviews. As long as he doesn't turn Superman into an advocate for his agenda (like how Ditko does with all of his characters). I'll judge it on artistic merits.
But I DO understand how people can be offended by a creator's stand on issues keeping them from buying a book. It's the risk of a creator of any kind becoming a public advocate, because no matter what you believe, you run a chance of pissing off someone who would give you money.
I buy plenty of things created by people who are pro-gun. I'm sure most of the crime, military, spy, etc novels I read are written by people who own and love guns. I'm currently reading Gunsmith Cats, a manga that fetishizes guns almost as much as it does women. None of those things bother me.
But I don't buy anything by Ted Nugent because I think he sounds like a lunatic, and I don't want to give him my money.
I don't recall what statement it was that I read by Card several years ago, but whatever it was turned me off so much that I made a mental note to myself to not bother buying anything he did. I don't have a problem with people hiring him, and I'm not going to be signing any petitions against him, but I simply have no interest in hearing what he has to say.
When I hear people wanting to organize to deprive someone of a platform to speak because of disagreement with him/her, or to get them fired, or to shout down and stigmatize them, I think that's driven by fear. There are, in my view, few opinions to be held that are as ugly as that kind of mob mentality.
e
L nny
dc's response
To me that is timid. If you truly believe that freedom of expression and that the creator's views don't matter, then don't qualify it by downplaying which Superman title you are having a creator contribute to as a minor one. Either stand by the person you have hired or don't.
*But not necessarily for digital sales or distribution of older content- I don't know that creators are being compensated for content being read via the Marvel DCU, or for issues of Big Two titles created prior to certain contractual points.
My two lines are:
1. Does that view point affect his/her writing to a detriment of my enjoyment of it? I find Dave Sim's work to be dripping with misogynistic themes much like his rants, thus I dont buy his works because he does not separate his beliefs on gender from his work.
2. Does the creator actively advocate for this opposing view point, to the extent that I am in essence helping to fund his/her ability to promote & work towards something I am opposed to? Card sits on the board of a committee created for the sole purpose of something I disagree with (rights restrictions on gays/lesbians and general relegation of the LGTB community to second class citizens), so I cannot in good conscious help fund his ability to do that. I know its just a few coins, but they are my coins.
There are plenty of comic book creators out there who I have opposing view points to, but as long as they arent crossing those lines I'm still ok buying their work and appreciating their craft.
[and Im a fan of those who make a distinction between religious marriage and state marriage, it would be a fine solution to the problem, and I fail to see why we dont use that as an answer. I did not get married in a church, and I dont expect (or care if) a church were to recognize my marriage to my lovely wife. I do care that the state recognizes it and affords her the appropriate benefits that go with being my spouse. I think all states should take this approach. Similarly there are some religious groups/denominations who will marry gay/lesbian couples and recognize their union.
States should get out of the marriage business, just call it a civil union, make it available to all, and leave "marriage" to the churches where marriage has NO legal implications, only state issued civil union licenses. That keeps NOM happy that GLTB unions arent sullying their pristine image of marriage (ps, straight people are doing plenty to sully the concept of marriage but Card doesnt see a problem with that? (divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse all hurt the image of marriage but he's not spending his time worrying about that?))]
And, frankly, Card does have a problem with divorce, infidelity, etc., but I'm sure he knows he there is no chance of a bill banning divorce to pass. However, same-sex marriage is a battle that can be won—at least in many parts of the country—as the successes of Proposition 8 showed, and so that is where they carry the fight.
As John Barth said, “Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story.”
I don't care about the ramifications, if I'm near a Wal-Mart and need something, I WILL go to it.
I've been to both Republican and Democrat dinners, just because of the free food.
The Marvel/DC line doesn't exist for me.
But this one seems tougher for me to swallow. I can only say that I am glad I do not have to make the choice this time. Why?
Because it's Superman. Easy for me to stay away anyway.
Frankly, if marriage as an institution is no longer resting primarily on the biological foundation of reproduction, but is now just a container for the granting of certain rights, there is absolutely no reason to prevent ANYONE from sharing a household and certain rights, even siblings. So give the word "marriage" back the individual (not the church - the individual), and let the government grant Domestic Partnerships to everyone who wants to share a residence on an ongoing basis.
I do think there are serious issues to consider, especially where kids are involved. Is it ethical to deliberately deprive a child of having a mother and a father? I don't think so, and some European countries have some social science data on the matter.
Let's do this right, and then we can all enjoy our Superman. Card believes he can become a God as a Mormon. No one cares. Hopefully this issue will likewise one day be relegated to the personal sphere where it belongs.
robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/02/gay-sci-fi-author-asks-dc-for-balance-offers-to-write-superman/
One of the commenters suggests also getting Phil Jimenez to draw the story.