Should the owner put the Superman comic on the shelf?
Yes, he should.
36.3% (33)
36.3% (33)
No, he shouldn't.
63.7% (58)
63.7% (58)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Comic Shop Pulls Anti-LGBT Writer's Work

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dijkstra:
Snippen for the cause

Ignoring all double negatives; one of the benefits of owning your own business is making decisions, good and bad. I am not contesting that. I am however saying that you are also able to make your own incorrect decisions as well, which again, I believe this constitutes, just because it was legal does not mean it was good. Also, just because his beliefs involve being against an issue you're against does not mean that they cannot be discriminated against. They can, and have. Utterly legal yet discrimination all the same.

I never implied (intentionally anyway) that the shop owner's decisions were infringing on Card's rights. As a matter of fact I specifically said that he had every legal right to do what he did. I don't know how else to say that. I said he was wrong from an ethical and business standpoint. He is legally in the right. I think it's wrong to punish people in unrelated ways for their opinions but thats my point of view. I have no right to enforce that on anyone. While the shop owner is trying to harm Card for his views he never did anything to actually silence him.

Again, I never defended Card's rights over the owners. I specifically said the owner had the right to do what he did and this did not violate Card's freedom of speech. If you're just going to start arguing against imagined implications please stop posting, argue against the words I type, not the ones you imagine.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing ... SNIP...

In my mind, the ultimate human right above marriage, above voting, above driving, above not being a slave, is the right to your own thoughts. The day we make it a crime to simply believe something without ever acting on it is the day freedom in the world truly dies.

Shock and Awe:
What they are saying could be the most foul and wrong things imaginable, yet I still think they have every right to do so.

The above is such an appealing (and fashionable) stance to take, but honestly, I can no longer support it. In reality, there is no slippery slope that leads inexorably to a totalitarian state if we tell someone they can't say something awful or ignorant.

Harlan Ellison summed up my feelings on the matter: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant".

Honestly, pretending that every view under the sun is equal serves no purpose. It doesn't serve the purpose of freedom, because quite frankly, freedom is not going to be threatened if the Westborough Baptist Church aren't allowed to lie. It doesn't serve the purpose of debate and diversity of opinion, because those things are both threatened far more by misinformation.

TL:DR version: Misinformation is not a right. Misinformation threatens healthy thought far more than somebody stepping in to stop liars and bigots.

Silvanus:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Attacking him for his views away from the comic comes close to thought policing ... SNIP...

In my mind, the ultimate human right above marriage, above voting, above driving, above not being a slave, is the right to your own thoughts. The day we make it a crime to simply believe something without ever acting on it is the day freedom in the world truly dies.

Shock and Awe:
What they are saying could be the most foul and wrong things imaginable, yet I still think they have every right to do so.

The above is such an appealing (and fashionable) stance to take, but honestly, I can no longer support it. In reality, there is no slippery slope that leads inexorably to a totalitarian state if we tell someone they can't say something awful or ignorant.

Harlan Ellison summed up my feelings on the matter: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant".

Honestly, pretending that every view under the sun is equal serves no purpose. It doesn't serve the purpose of freedom, because quite frankly, freedom is not going to be threatened if the Westborough Baptist Church aren't allowed to lie. It doesn't serve the purpose of debate and diversity of opinion, because those things are both threatened far more by misinformation.

TL:DR version: Misinformation is not a right. Misinformation threatens healthy thought far more than somebody stepping in to stop liars and bigots.

The problem is who decides what is right and what is not? If you are against him having a misinformed opinion you have every right to inform him, he doesn't have to listen buy you can inform him all day. You can't have some things be off limits but some are. A lot of times really unpopular opinions may be right, are we to stifle them anyway? No one is pretending that every view is legal under logic and reason, but we are saying that they are equal under the law.

Shock and Awe:

The problem is who decides what is right and what is not? If you are against him having a misinformed opinion you have every right to inform him, he doesn't have to listen buy you can inform him all day. You can't have some things be off limits but some are. A lot of times really unpopular opinions may be right, are we to stifle them anyway? No one is pretending that every view is legal under logic and reason, but we are saying that they are equal under the law.

I'm saying lies and hate-speech should not be equal under the law, and that legally protecting them serves nobody.

I don't think it would be impossible to have a section of the judiciary be the 'judge' of what is and is not misinformation. We trust the judiciary to pass judgement rulings that effect our lives in extensive ways already; I don't think it likely that we'd end up in Fahrenheit 451. The judiciary would be subject to its own regulations and guidelines, of course.

People are not done a service when they are lied to.

Shock and Awe:

When you run a business, 99% of the time the business angle IS the most important angle. It is stupid to refuse to do business with otherwise good partner just because you don't like him/her. Part of being a professional is doing exactly that; putting up with people who you otherwise wouldn't. Also, if you are refusing to do business with somebody due to personal views, thats discrimination. If I disagreed with things Muslims believed does that mean I shouldn't do business with them? Nyet. Thats discrimination.

Card isn't a business partner. Card did work for DC comics, a massive publisher who produces dozens, if not hundreds, of titles a month. Comic shop owners decide what they want to stock and order them, usually through a distributor. The distributor doesn't much care what particular titles they sell to their customers.

Furthermore, the store is still accepting special orders for the comic, so anyone who wants it can still get it. it just won't be out on the shelves.

On the other hand, the comic shop in question isn't far from a large gay neighborhood. The store owner's decision has also garnered him a ton of publicity throughout Canada and the U.S. and it's entirely possible that the stance he's taken will increase his sales of other titles.

Shock and Awe:
I never said the man couldn't boycott Card. He has every right to do so. Its just that hes stupid and wrong for it doesn't mean I don't think he should be able to. Just because I disagree with what someone is doing or saying doesn't mean I don't think they should be able to say it. People are always saying stupid and hateful things. What they are saying could be the most foul and wrong things imaginable, yet I still think they have every right to do so. Also, doing business isn't loving someone, its doing business.

Can we at least agree that Card is a hell of a lot stupider and wronger?

Just a thought for anyone who thinks "it doesn't matter what else he's written, as long as the comic itself isn't homophobic there's no problem."

Why do you think DC hired Card in the first place? Because he's a famous science fiction writer. The very reason he was a draw in the first place is precisely because of the other things he's written.

Thunderous Cacophony:

My question is, is this right? Should the owner not sell a product because he disagrees with the author's personal views (which may or may not directly influence the work)? Or does he have a responsibility to his customers to provide these comics freely, especially given that it involves such a famous character as Superman? Are there other arguments one way or the other?

I'm skipping over the rest of the thread to point out the crucial detail you neglected to mention in the OP: Card has openly stated that he uses the profits he recieves from his writing to help fund the National Organization for Marriage, which actively opposses Gay Marriage (obviously), Civil Unions, Gay Adoption and in some cases advocates for the re-criminalisation of homosexuality. So if this comic shop owner bought those issues, the cut that goes to Card will by his own admission be used to fund that organisation.

This is not a case of "it's because he has a view and you hypocrites would be up in arms someone did it to a pro-gay marriage writer", a comparable situation would be if it was a writer who took part of every paycheck and used it to fund an organisation for the prosecution of religious people or something.

Shaoken:

I'm skipping over the rest of the thread to point out the crucial detail you neglected to mention in the OP: Card has openly stated that he uses the profits he recieves from his writing to help fund the National Organization for Marriage, which actively opposses Gay Marriage (obviously), Civil Unions, Gay Adoption and in some cases advocates for the re-criminalisation of homosexuality. So if this comic shop owner bought those issues, the cut that goes to Card will by his own admission be used to fund that organisation.

would you happen to have source for that? i don't doubt you at all, in fact i was looking for a quote to that effect.

cobra_ky:

Shaoken:

I'm skipping over the rest of the thread to point out the crucial detail you neglected to mention in the OP: Card has openly stated that he uses the profits he recieves from his writing to help fund the National Organization for Marriage, which actively opposses Gay Marriage (obviously), Civil Unions, Gay Adoption and in some cases advocates for the re-criminalisation of homosexuality. So if this comic shop owner bought those issues, the cut that goes to Card will by his own admission be used to fund that organisation.

would you happen to have source for that? i don't doubt you at all, in fact i was looking for a quote to that effect.

I don't have a quote on me, it's something that comes up every single time I've seen card come up, and the latest place I heard it was at this link, first comment: http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/378-ben-bates

Anyway, from wikipedia here is the link for his relation with the NOM:

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=6938473

It's frustrating because I really do want to find a quote, since it's something I've heard pretty much every time Card comes up, but alas my google-fu is weak.

Captcha: I like people. Oh captcha, how I wish I could agree.

Silvanus:

Shock and Awe:

The problem is who decides what is right and what is not? If you are against him having a misinformed opinion you have every right to inform him, he doesn't have to listen buy you can inform him all day. You can't have some things be off limits but some are. A lot of times really unpopular opinions may be right, are we to stifle them anyway? No one is pretending that every view is legal under logic and reason, but we are saying that they are equal under the law.

I'm saying lies and hate-speech should not be equal under the law, and that legally protecting them serves nobody.

I don't think it would be impossible to have a section of the judiciary be the 'judge' of what is and is not misinformation. We trust the judiciary to pass judgement rulings that effect our lives in extensive ways already; I don't think it likely that we'd end up in Fahrenheit 451. The judiciary would be subject to its own regulations and guidelines, of course.

People are not done a service when they are lied to.

Except as a non-cisgendered bisexual atheist I guarantee you had the world thought like you (and plenty had, anyways), that plenty of bigots would had felt my views on religion, sexuality, etc. would had constituted "harmful lies" and tried to stifle my ability to have them (and again, plenty did and do anyways).

Yeah, maybe if you're a journalist group like a "news channel" you should have to pass peer review like any other doctor or scientist and should lose that accreditation if you lie about something that's an easily checked part of the public record, same as you don't get to just decide both that you're a doctor and snake oil is good for you. But if said "news channel" stopped pretending horseshit was news and labeled it properly then I don't care that they say it.

Shock and Awe:
The problem is who decides what is right and what is not?

Nobody. They can say whatever foul lies about homosexuality they want, as long as it doesn't get slanderous or in another way punishable as a crime.

In return people can judge them for what they say, for instance by refusing to advertise their books because that would bankroll violent homophobic tendencies.

Damien Granz:

Except as a non-cisgendered bisexual atheist I guarantee you had the world thought like you (and plenty had, anyways), that plenty of bigots would had felt my views on religion, sexuality, etc. would had constituted "harmful lies" and tried to stifle my ability to have them (and again, plenty did and do anyways).

That would have been the case throughout most of human history, in most countries, but I don't think that's the case with the Judiciary here in the UK now. We don't have blasphemy laws for them to interpret, but we do have defamation laws.

Damien Granz:
Yeah, maybe if you're a journalist group like a "news channel" you should have to pass peer review like any other doctor or scientist and should lose that accreditation if you lie about something that's an easily checked part of the public record, same as you don't get to just decide both that you're a doctor and snake oil is good for you. But if said "news channel" stopped pretending horseshit was news and labeled it properly then I don't care that they say it.

Admittedly, I care a lot more about regulating the press than I do some comic book writer expressing his personal opinion. Its once these people get a platform that misinformation and hate-speech become harmful.

Here in the UK, the majority of newspapers print absolute fabrications and hate-pieces on a daily basis. The only body that was supposed to oversee them, the PCC, had the editor of the Daily Mail in a prominent and controlling position. To be clear; with this last point, I'm not arguing with you, I recognise that you mentioned news channels as an exception.

Shock and Awe:

Dijkstra:
Snippen for the cause

Ignoring all double negatives; one of the benefits of owning your own business is making decisions, good and bad. I am not contesting that. I am however saying that you are also able to make your own incorrect decisions as well, which again, I believe this constitutes, just because it was legal does not mean it was good.

You're saying it is incorrect on no real grounds.

Also, just because his beliefs involve being against an issue you're against does not mean that they cannot be discriminated against. They can, and have. Utterly legal yet discrimination all the same.

Will you please stop with this utterly stupid crap about 'because he has a different belief'? And no, he isn't being discriminated against for it. His belief against others is reasonable grounds to not wish to deal with him.

I never implied (intentionally anyway) that the shop owner's decisions were infringing on Card's rights.

Yes, you never said self-righteous nonsense like

"I may disagree with what you say but I'll die for you right to do so." Therefore trying to harm someone and muzzle them do to their beliefs is...wait for it....wrong and foolish.

Its the same reason I disagree with Germany banning anything to do with the Nazis. Freedom of ideas is one of the most important things in a society, even if the ideas are shit.

Oh wait, actually I got those from your posts.

As a matter of fact I specifically said that he had every legal right to do what he did.

All the while acting like Card's rights are violated.

I don't know how else to say that. I said he was wrong from an ethical and business standpoint. He is legally in the right. I think it's wrong to punish people in unrelated ways for their opinions but thats my point of view. I have no right to enforce that on anyone. While the shop owner is trying to harm Card for his views he never did anything to actually silence him.

How is it unrelated? His popularity gives him more of a platform. His money helps him continue to do what he does.

Again, I never defended Card's rights over the owners. I specifically said the owner had the right to do what he did and this did not violate Card's freedom of speech. If you're just going to start arguing against imagined implications please stop posting, argue against the words I type, not the ones you imagine.

Right, you just said things about Card's right to freedom of speech as if it was relevant. And hey I quoted 'em. Let's see you actually respond to the fact you kept implying that there was an attack on Card's rights there.

I'd say that a store owner exercising their freedom to support or not support authors they do or do not agree with is about as right a thing as we ever find in this world.

Whether the act of removing his published works from your store based on his beliefs is right depends on your point of view to some extent I suppose. I would argue that anti-gay sentiment and bigotry is objectively wrong, but the bigots might disagree. Doesn't make them any less wrong, they'll just vehemently deny being wrong.

I personally feel that we should have as little censorship as possible, and let people make up their own minds, although with some obvious exceptions that break the law i.e. work containing child pornography or things of a similar disposition, but as the store owner he has the right to sell what ever he wants and he's perfectly entitled to do that. I mean any money he earns/loses will be because of his decisions etc.

As for Orson Scott Card I absolutely love Ender's Game and will most likely be going to watch the film when it comes out in November (think that's right), regardless of his views on gay people and gay marriage; I'm sure you could find something in every author/producer/artist that you disagree with so you'd probably end up boycotting everything, it's similar to Tom Cruise being a Scientologist, I think he's a bit wacky to believe that but I'm not going to stop seeing his films because of his personal beliefs, no I think you have to separate the author's beliefs from their work, as long as the work itself doesn't have/preaches said beliefs.

This is his store, he can pull whatever he wants, he is not being forced to carry any product. If his sales suffer, he will have to deal with that.

Jamieson 90:

As for Orson Scott Card I absolutely love Ender's Game and will most likely be going to watch the film when it comes out in November (think that's right), regardless of his views on gay people and gay marriage; I'm sure you could find something in every author/producer/artist that you disagree with so you'd probably end up boycotting everything, it's similar to Tom Cruise being a Scientologist, I think he's a bit wacky to believe that but I'm not going to stop seeing his films because of his personal beliefs, no I think you have to separate the author's beliefs from their work, as long as the work itself doesn't have/preaches said beliefs.

Here's the thing you're neglecting; Card sits on the board for the National Organisation for Marriage, which campaigns against Gay Marriage, campaigns to ban Civil Unions and to try and revoke them in states where they have been given, and in some cases campaigns to have Homosexualty re-criminalised. He's (apparantly since I can't find a quote) gone on record as saying that he donates part of each check he gets into the NOM, which means that for every dollar you spend on his works part of it goes to directly campaign against homosexual rights.

So, for the sake of argument assuming all of that is true and not one big long game of chinese whispers that comes up everytime Card does, would you still be okay with spending money on his works knowing that part of it will go to these causes? That's where my belief that he should be boycotted comes into effect; because he himself has made it impossible to seperate his works from his political stance.

Here's a good example for it; I enjoy the Cthullu Mythos and other works that were inspired by HP Lovecraft. I know Lovecraft himself was a massive racist and anti-semite (who married a practicing Jewish woman, go figure), but for the most part that's seperate from his stories and the works that came from them. But if Lovecraft had stated in his will that 25% of the royalties that go to his estate (ignoring the fact he put all his works into the public domain) should go to the Klan, there's no way in hell I'd touch his works. The NOM may be less morally repulsive than the klan, but only because they haven't resorted to using physical violence.

Shaoken:

Jamieson 90:

As for Orson Scott Card I absolutely love Ender's Game and will most likely be going to watch the film when it comes out in November (think that's right), regardless of his views on gay people and gay marriage; I'm sure you could find something in every author/producer/artist that you disagree with so you'd probably end up boycotting everything, it's similar to Tom Cruise being a Scientologist, I think he's a bit wacky to believe that but I'm not going to stop seeing his films because of his personal beliefs, no I think you have to separate the author's beliefs from their work, as long as the work itself doesn't have/preaches said beliefs.

Here's the thing you're neglecting; Card sits on the board for the National Organisation for Marriage, which campaigns against Gay Marriage, campaigns to ban Civil Unions and to try and revoke them in states where they have been given, and in some cases campaigns to have Homosexualty re-criminalised. He's (apparantly since I can't find a quote) gone on record as saying that he donates part of each check he gets into the NOM, which means that for every dollar you spend on his works part of it goes to directly campaign against homosexual rights.

So, for the sake of argument assuming all of that is true and not one big long game of chinese whispers that comes up everytime Card does, would you still be okay with spending money on his works knowing that part of it will go to these causes? That's where my belief that he should be boycotted comes into effect; because he himself has made it impossible to seperate his works from his political stance.

Here's a good example for it; I enjoy the Cthullu Mythos and other works that were inspired by HP Lovecraft. I know Lovecraft himself was a massive racist and anti-semite (who married a practicing Jewish woman, go figure), but for the most part that's seperate from his stories and the works that came from them. But if Lovecraft had stated in his will that 25% of the royalties that go to his estate (ignoring the fact he put all his works into the public domain) should go to the Klan, there's no way in hell I'd touch his works. The NOM may be less morally repulsive than the klan, but only because they haven't resorted to using physical violence.

No I wouldn't, but then like I said it's a hard issue because if you research any author/producer/artist then you may find something repulsive with their views, so you could potentially boycott everything, and unless you have a lot of support from fellow consumers I don't think boycotts are that effective, but considering I live in the UK I'm not entirely sure how effective the groups you mentioned are, so perhaps you could help me out and explain them a bit?

Well its not censorship since its not the government enforcing an opinion. But still does an business owner have to not stock something he dislikes I say yes he does not like? I say yes and applaud him for standing up for his beliefs. For those arguing about other stores who would not stock works by pro gay creators? I would just not shop there and give this guy more of my money. That's my right as customer and the shop owners right as an owner. One person here has an excellent idea about a Christian book store not stocking Dawkins or Hitchens. Very much in their right to do so.

Thunderous Cacophony:

For context, Ottawa does not have a large number of independent places to buy comics, and The Comic Book Shoppe is certainly the best-known. As well, the owner, Rob Spittall, is making Card's work available by special order, but says he cannot in good conscience put it on the shelves.

Wait??? What??? He is still willing to order it for you if you are willing to put in the effort to talk to him? I just fail to see any issue if he is willing to do this.

How about this as comparison. Rob Leifeld (sp?) is an artist and writer who I dislike from a purely aesthetic point of view. Would there be such a backlash because I think he lacks talented and do not stock his stuff? I would probably order for you, may be after trying to point more qualified creators.

Anyways, I am a capitalist and feel I should operate my shop how I want.

Jamieson 90:
No I wouldn't, but then like I said it's a hard issue because if you research any author/producer/artist then you may find something repulsive with their views,

Right, but there is a difference between what their views are and them using (indirectly) your money to finiance it.

That's really what the crux of all this is about; with other writers you can enjoy their works in spite of their personal views, because the two are kept seperate. Yet Card went and linked the two together.

Plenty of writers have controversial or repulsive views, but most of them have the common sense to keep it seperate from their work and that makes it possible to enjoy it without agreeing with it, because they're not funding their views with your money.

but considering I live in the UK I'm not entirely sure how effective the groups you mentioned are, so perhaps you could help me out and explain them a bit?

Well I live in Australia so I'm about as far away as you are, but the gist is that Proposition 8 in California passed originally because groups like NOM flooded that crowd with money and funds and drowned out the support side with misinformation. Considering that a fair chunk of American politics boils down to who can throw the most money at advertising, this makes them fairly effective in the short-term.

Thunderous Cacophony:
-snip-

HOLY CRAP ANOTHER OTTAWA POSTER?!
I thought I was the only one!

OT: Yeah, I agree with that. Card is a bit of a twat anyways. Good writer though. If someone wants to buy it though, whoever is ringing it up should give the buyer a warning.

I wonder if some people would still be like "Let him restock the comics; it's his personal beliefs, no matter how harmful they may be" (except, y'know, it's actually not quite that personal; he'd be funding anti-LGBT groups that affect legislation) if he was advocating the re-criminalization of interracial marriage. Or if he was anti-Semitic.

You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to be heard, or freedom to be exempt from criticism. We shouldn't be tolerating anyone that's actively trying to take politics and legislation back 50 years and pettily re-criminalizing things such as homosexuality just because he doesn't like the idea that people that have nothing to do with him are having sex and/or raising children in a way that he doesn't like.

No-one seems to be complaining about Christian bookstores not stocking The God Delusion. Their shop, their rules. It's a different situation if they're actively stopping people from buying a book based on their race, religion or sexuality, though.

Shock and Awe:
Its the same reason I disagree with Germany banning anything to do with the Nazis.

Where the fuck did you get that from? This is just utter BS and something spoken by people who really misunderstand what German laws do in that regard and, if something happens, why it happens.

It is certainly not 'banning everything to do with the Nazis'. I had over a year of history lessons during school, read books written from a serious and comedic standpoint and discussed why the Nazi party is getting more votes in certain areas. This is far from banning.

So please stop spreading that bullshit.

TheKasp:

Shock and Awe:
Its the same reason I disagree with Germany banning anything to do with the Nazis.

Where the fuck did you get that from? This is just utter BS and something spoken by people who really misunderstand what German laws do in that regard and, if something happens, why it happens.

It is certainly not 'banning everything to do with the Nazis'. I had over a year of history lessons during school, read books written from a serious and comedic standpoint and discussed why the Nazi party is getting more votes in certain areas. This is far from banning.

So please stop spreading that bullshit.

Thanks for saving me the trouble, I always get annoyed when I read this nonsense around here.
Anyway, I like to point to Switch, a sketch show that airs in German television and has a particular line of sketches they like to do:


Most folks around here will probably not understand that, but if you want to see more, look for "Obersalzberg". Another comedian who often does Hitler jokes is Bully Herbig, off the top of my head.

The idea that "anything to do with Nazis" is banned in Germany is ridiculous. We have a militant democracy that ensures propagandists don't get free rein, sure, but not only do we learn about Nazism in school, have tons of Nazism documentaries on our TV, we also don't ban its mention from other arenas (like comedy or political commentary).
Even worse than the misconception Shock and Awe demonstrates, though, is the idea that some people seem to have that Nazism is simply hidden in Germany, that nobody talks about it in no context whatsoever, that Germany is denying its past. That annoys me even more.
Needless to say I've encountered that one on here as well.

Skeleon:
Der Schnipp

Well, I'm not a native german, I moved here when I was 8 or 9 and my overall impression is that Germany is really afraid that something like that might happen again so they educate the living shit out of people in the schools (one year of Nazi history when I didn't even had history in my abitur :D ). I really have no clue where the idea comes from Germany somehow tries to forget its history or bans anything to do with them and I start to despise that notion in the same way some Americans may despise the notion that all inhabitants of their country are fat, gunwanking rednecks.

Oh Bully, his Hitler impression is just hillarious! Miss his show.

I may agree that German institutions get a little to jealous to cut Nazi imagery from media but in the last years it got more moderate in that. Aside from that there are mostly laws to prevent propaganda.

Blablahb:
That's a good example of ethically sound and responsible entrepreneurship I'd say. Nobody is forced to do business with homophobic hatemongers.

Not to mention this already happens; ever saw Dawkins in a Christian bookstore? No, me neither.

im going to have to agree with this post

Off topic, i find his avatar picture to be very ironic right now

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

...

Fuck that right?
Now while I completely disagree with what the bigot has said... is a financial embargo really the correct method we should not. For I fear in the future we may not just just use this, but expect to be used.

Imagine a financial blockade 20 years ago on those who were in support of homosexuality...

There is a difference between chosing not to buy someones products because of what they've said, and then the distribution system which we all rely on, making this decision for us...

Comando96:

There is a difference between chosing not to buy someones products because of what they've said, and then the distribution system which we all rely on, making this decision for us...

Well, good for us that this is not even remotely the case. You can still buy this mans work from that store - you just have to talk to the clerk.

And your quote doesn't work here. As long as it is a private owned location the owner can decide if you have a right to be heard and depending on that remove you from his perimeter (in this case don't put the comics by that man on the shelfes). It is normal behaviour that has been around forever. You can't force a private owned store to shelf products the owner doesn't want to shelf.

TheKasp:
As long as it is a private owned location the owner can decide if you have a right to be heard and depending on that remove you from his perimeter

Thats law. I'm saying why the law should be so.

TheKasp:
It is normal behaviour that has been around forever. You can't force a private owned store to shelf products the owner doesn't want to shelf.

Who said anything about force?
Quite frankly the entire notion of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." relies on an induvidualistic ideal of willingness to hear what the other person has to say, and then talk to them... not punch them in the face or stop what they say from being heard.

TheKasp:

Shock and Awe:
Its the same reason I disagree with Germany banning anything to do with the Nazis.

Where the fuck did you get that from? This is just utter BS and something spoken by people who really misunderstand what German laws do in that regard and, if something happens, why it happens.

It is certainly not 'banning everything to do with the Nazis'. I had over a year of history lessons during school, read books written from a serious and comedic standpoint and discussed why the Nazi party is getting more votes in certain areas. This is far from banning.

So please stop spreading that bullshit.

Well I know that historic and things critical of the Nazis are not banned in Germany, I should have been more clear on that. However if my understanding of German law is correct aren't pieces of media that are pro-nazi banned in Germany? If I recall correctly Mein Kampf is currently banned from print and distribution and denying the holocaust lands you in prison. Isn't any party that is considered "anti-constitution" also banned in Germany? There is also your standard hate speech laws in addition to all of this.

If I am wrong please tell me.

Shock and Awe:

Well I know that historic and things critical of the Nazis are not banned in Germany, I should have been more clear on that. However if my understanding of German law is correct aren't pieces of media that are pro-nazi banned in Germany? If I recall correctly Mein Kampf is currently banned from print and distribution and denying the holocaust lands you in prison. Isn't any party that is considered "anti-constitution" also banned in Germany? There is also your standard hate speech laws in addition to all of this.

If I am wrong please tell me.

Well, pro-nazi media is... tricky. Not everything pro-nazi is banned. There are demonstrations by right-wing groups (as long as they go through proper channels) that can be easily classified as pro-nazi. There is basically a line from where pro-nazi media is considered pro-nazi propaganda - which is banned. 'Mein Kampf', being a key piece of literature used to get Hitlers ideals and ideas to the people, is not allowed to be sold. We still had it in our history class as an example of what I stated.

And yes, anticonstitutional parties are allowed to participate in votings. Would leave too much room open since such a party could do a ton of damage to the government if it got enough votes.

I hope you try to be clear further on. You seem to know enough for someone who is not living in this country but a small comment like the one I quoted creates people who take it literal and spread the false idea that 'everything Nazi is banned in Germany' and thus the notion that this country is somehow trying to ignore a critical part of its past.

Comando96:

Thats law. I'm saying why the law should be so.

From what I understand ze law protects you from being persecuted or silenced by the government and its institutions. Basically a general ban on speaking your ideas. It does not guarantee you that people and private institutions will grant you the possibility to be heard in their property.

I feel there is a lot of hyperbole in this thread, to the point that very little of what's being said is describing the actual situation. This is not censorship or oppression: This is two people, one of whom holds views the other disagrees with. The second guy has chosen not to give the first guy any money. Any argument to the contrary is effectively saying that if someone wants to sell something to me, I am morally obligated to buy it or else I'm oppressing him. I'm not: I'm deciding whether the product in question has a value that I want to give my money in exchange for. The owner of this shop believes Card's work is not worth the price he'd pay for it, monetarily or otherwise.

JimB:
I feel there is a lot of hyperbole in this thread, to the point that very little of what's being said is describing the actual situation. This is not censorship or oppression: This is two people, one of whom holds views the other disagrees with. The second guy has chosen not to give the first guy any money. Any argument to the contrary is effectively saying that if someone wants to sell something to me, I am morally obligated to buy it or else I'm oppressing him. I'm not: I'm deciding whether the product in question has a value that I want to give my money in exchange for. The owner of this shop believes Card's work is not worth the price he'd pay for it, monetarily or otherwise.

why did it take the voice of reason so long to show up?

The man has the right to publish or to sell his comics as he sees fit, regardless of his political or social views. However the store also has the right to not allow it (even though in this case I think they are wrong for doing so).

I am not familiar with this particular artist's comics, so I can't speak about their content. But if there wasn't anything offensive about them then I see no reason why they should be pulled. And I don't see how his statement is "anti-gay" in the slightest, to me an anti-gay person is someone that hates gay people or is homophobic.

spartandude:
Why did it take the voice of reason so long to show up?

I'm new on the job. The last guy who held the position...I probably shouldn't tell you this, but the last guy...well, if he was a police officer, the news story would be that he had a "gun-cleaning accident."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked