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
 

I think it's stupid to arbitrarily say "I'm not going to sell media x because one dude involved is an anti-gay activist" when the material in question isn't anti-gay.

I honestly don't care about Card's morals if I'm looking to read something written by him (Ender's Game was great in audiobook form btw), I just care about the writing quality involved. I personally think that Alan Moore is a complete jackass, but I still enjoy reading his comics, and I don't care that he gets a few cents off every dollar I spend on stuff he's involved with.

There are other people involved in the process of creating comic books other than the writers, too. Does Card being involved in a comic mean that the artists, coloring people, and publisher don't deserve anything for producing a decent work because one anti-gay a-hole was on the team? If so, I hope this guy isn't stocking any comics from before the 90's, because the people involved probably didn't have the best views of gay people either.

If anything, this sounds like a publicity stunt, especially given how comic stores have been struggling enterprises recently.

Karma168:
As long as the work a) is not related to the controversial views and b)isn't influenced by them, then I have reservations about restricting something based on the personal views of the creator.

What if he gives money to the anti-gay rights movement, and sits on the board of the National Organization of Marriage?

I think the owner has every right to stock what he does and doesn't want in his shop.

I do however disagree with many calls for DC to take Card off the book entirely, I do not agree with any hiring discrimination that is non-merit based.

TheLycanKing144:
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.

What do you think of the argument that people already brought forth in this thread: That Card uses his profits to support NOM to directly harm homosexuals and their causes? That alone is not something in the comics themselves, but isn't that an understandable reason not to want to support his works?

No matter what you buy, somewhere along the long line from raw material to shop there's quite likely to be person with views you disagree with: Who'll get paid if you buy the product, and who'll thus stay alive to vote for those views[1]. Such is not causing direct and discernible harm.

The best thing is to not make the market a battlefield. Ultimately, it'll harm the livelihood of groups you care about as well, as the opposition inevitably retaliates against your boycott. A product should be evaluated on its own merits, which is usually the only thing it can be evaluated on anyway.

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.

Well, if no one is entitled to being ignorant, then surely spreading misinformation isn't a problem, as only the ignorant would ever fall for it? It falls to each individual to educate itself sufficiently on societal matters. So it is able to critically assess information, and form an informed opinion on its own.

Also, I'm pretty sure stuff like "Homosexuality is a horrible sin" and "America should be a theocracy" aren't "lies", but "opinions". Vile opinions, sure, but still something people are always entitled to have: And present in a free democratic debate.

[1] In fact, if you've ever bought fair trade stuff from Africa or such, it's quite likely that you've facilitated the survival of a homophobe. You bastard! At least demand that the company make all these third world peasants sign a form that they're 100 % behind gay rights, and will vote against any discriminatory measure, before you buy their shit. Or maybe not.

Imperator_DK:

The best thing is to not make the market a battlefield. Ultimately, it'll harm the livelihood of groups you care about as well, as the opposition inevitably retaliates against your boycott. A product should be evaluated on its own merits, which is usually the only thing it can be evaluated on anyway.

You are not seriously suggesting I should buy a product, no matter how good it might be, if I know a part of the revenue made on that product will go to organizations that will actively seek to curtail and infringe my rights and spread propaganda about how harmful I am to society, are you?

Because honestly, that's an actively ignorant position to take. It should be obvious that anyone should seek to avoid products where the profit from the product would, in part, be used to directly or indirectly harm them.

Gethsemani:
...
You are not seriously suggesting I should buy a product, no matter how good it might be, if I know a part of the revenue made on that product will go to organizations that will actively seek to curtail and infringe my rights and spread propaganda about how harmful I am to society, are you?

Because honestly, that's an actively ignorant position to take. It should be obvious that anyone should seek to avoid products where the profit from the product would, in part, be used to directly or indirectly harm them.

Not at all. I'm suggesting you shouldn't call for a boycott of it.

What people quietly do in their own personal life have no political significance. But publicly calling for boycott will inevitably lead to countermeasures against the group you support, so long as a significant opposition exist. It's obviously anyone's right to call for boycott of anything over anything, but it's hardly wise to always do so.

Plus, it's really none of your business what fiction other people might like, so attempting to prevent their access to it by instituting a retailer boycott carries with it an unsympathetic notion of its own (...not to mention being hypocritical if one wish controversial elements of one's own lifestyle to be met with acceptance in civil society). Certainly you might not wish to buy "Captain Corrective Rape and his Last Erect Stand against the Lesbian Hordes from Venus: Limited First Press Edition", but if some other adult wish to buy such a fictional story[1] , that's between him/her and the retailer.

Pushing one's own offence down other people's throat is never something I'd recommend. Not least because they'll usually regurgitate it right back into your face, even more acidic and tasteless than before.

[1] I, for instance, would totally buy a comic with a such a hilariously absurd title, because of the sheer "...WTF?!" factor. This obviously doesn't mean I support correctional rape taking place in real life, any more than me having played GTA IV is a sign of a deep seated desire to commit vehicular pedestrian genocide in real life. Fiction is harmless.

Imperator_DK:

Well, if no one is entitled to being ignorant, then surely spreading misinformation isn't a problem, as only the ignorant would ever fall for it? It falls to each individual to educate itself sufficiently on societal matters. So it is able to critically assess information, and form an informed opinion on its own.

Where did you get all of this from? This is all elaborated from "No-one is entitled to be ignorant"? That adage does not imply any of the above. It states that people shouldn't believe their views to be inherently equal regardless of evidence. If anything, it implies that misinformation is a big problem.

Imperator_DK:
Also, I'm pretty sure stuff like "Homosexuality is a horrible sin" and "America should be a theocracy" aren't "lies", but "opinions". Vile opinions, sure, but still something people are always entitled to have: And present in a free democratic debate.

The former falls in the area of "zero evidence, and as such, the probability applied must be zero". Of course you can still say this in the comfort of your own home, but to take to a public platform and/or state it as fact is another matter.

The latter, yes, is just an opinion. Well observed. What was the point being made again...?

What the UK tabloids do, of course, is not to say that homosexuality is a sin, but simply to print article after article after article criticising the "lifestyle", linking it falsely to all kinds of other behaviour, and contradicting the coroner's report on Stephen Gately's death. The above frequently falls under "misinformation", rather than just "opinion" (particularly the last part; calling Gately's death "anything but natural", as an attempt to smear homosexuality, is a classic Mail tactic).

But even where it is pure opinion, it is hate-speech, and I would regulate it. The result of complete unregulation of the press has been almost every British paper being a a constant stream of minority-bashing. It serves nobody. The body set up to oversee it, the PCC, had the Mail's editor in a controlling position, and was blatantly unfit for purpose.

Again: it's not private statement of opinion, it is the use of a public platform.

I don't quite get why this thread is even ongoing. This isn't about censorship as it has nothing to do with government imposition on free speech. Are people honestly suggesting the shop-owner should be forced to sell Card's comic books? Why, because of Card's free speech rights?
What of the shop-owner's free speech rights? Do you lose those the moment you become a proprietor at a shop?
And yes, calling for a boycott absolutely falls under those rights. It's often pointless and doesn't accomplish anything, but should people have the right to try and organize a boycott? Absolutely!
Fuck, people around here keep trying to organize boycotts against Nestlé because of their business practices, should they not be allowed to do this, either? Should shops be forced to sell Nestlé products?
I don't understand what this is about. A boycott is an action promoted and performed by private citizens and as such free speech regulations denying government intervention don't apply here. It's not censorship!

Silvanus:
...
Where did you get all of this from? This is all elaborated from "No-one is entitled to be ignorant"? That adage does not imply any of the above. It states that people shouldn't believe their views to be inherently equal regardless of evidence. If anything, it implies that misinformation is a big problem.

And thus there's two assumptions inherent to it: That it's possible to decide all questions - political, ethical - on the basis of objective fact. And that it falls to society to correct misinformation, rather than the individual itself to guard against it.

I question both.

The former falls in the area of "zero evidence, and as such, the probability applied must be zero". Of course you can still say this in the comfort of your own home, but to take to a public platform and/or state it as fact is another matter.

No more so than there being "zero evidence" for the statement: "Murder is a horrible sin".

Of course, ethical statements don't necessarily relate to physical fact. They often relate to emotion/empathy, religious dogma, and other subjective cultural standards. And even when they do purport to relate directly to physical facts - in the form of consequentialism - what constitutes a relevant positive/negative consequence is still rather subjective.

If things were as simple as discerning which ethical world view were the "true" one through empirical analysis of fact, things would look rather different. They aren't, though.

What the UK tabloids do, of course, is not to say that homosexuality is a sin, but simply to print article after article after article criticising the "lifestyle", linking it falsely to all kinds of other behaviour, and contradicting the coroner's report on Stephen Gately's death. The above frequently falls under "misinformation", rather than just "opinion" (particularly the last part; calling Gately's death "anything but natural", as an attempt to smear homosexuality, is a classic Mail tactic).

Well, then challenge this misinformation, as you are doing here.

But even where it is pure opinion, it is hate-speech, and I would regulate it.

I wouldn't. The legitimacy of a democracy depends on everyone in it being able to voice their political views freely and put them up for democratic debate, however vile they might be. And there's no suggestion in legal sociology that hatespeech regulation works anyway.

The result of complete unregulation of the press has been almost every British paper being a a constant stream of minority-bashing. It serves nobody. The body set up to oversee it, the PCC, had the Mail's editor in a controlling position, and was blatantly unfit for purpose.

Obviously it serves somebody, or it wouldn't be done. It just doesn't serve agendas or people you agree with.

Again: it's not private statement of opinion, it is the use of a public platform.

A platform the entire public must be able to use, if it is to be called so. Censor away certain views society finds disagreeable, and it's nothing more than a state propaganda platform.

Skeleon:
I don't quite get why this thread is even ongoing. This isn't about censorship as it has nothing to do with government imposition on free speech. Are people honestly suggesting the shop-owner should be forced to sell Card's comic books? Why, because of Card's free speech rights?
What of the shop-owner's free speech rights? Do you lose those the moment you become a proprietor at a shop?
And yes, calling for a boycott absolutely falls under those rights. It's often pointless and doesn't accomplish anything, but should people have the right to try and organize a boycott? Absolutely!
Fuck, people around here keep trying to organize boycotts against Nestlé because of their business practices, should they not be allowed to do this, either? Should shops be forced to sell Nestlé products?
I don't understand what this is about. A boycott is an action promoted and performed by private citizens and as such free speech regulations denying government intervention don't apply here. It's not censorship!

Nobody is question the shop owner's right to do it. It's more on whether it's wise, prudent, and ethical for companies to boycott fictional material because it/its creator is controversial (i.e. "soft censorship", like how virtually no American retailer will carry AO rated media products, and everyone is thus for commercial reasons forced to selfcensor their product, so it can get the lower 17+ rating).

One wouldn't really have much of a platform for criticizing Walmart if it were to refuse to sell books portraying homosexual relationships positively, if one have previously supported this guy allowing his personal preferences to interfere with his business practises. Nobody here disagree that homophobia is bad, but turning the world of fiction into a political battlefield might well be worse.

Imperator_DK:

And thus there's two assumptions inherent to it: That it's possible to decide all questions - political, ethical - on the basis of objective fact. And that it falls to society to correct misinformation, rather than the individual itself to guard against it.

I question both.

How is the first assumption inherent to the statement at all!? Nobody claimed that the statement covered all speech, even pure opinion. That's simply you taking the statement to (illogical) extremes.

Imperator_DK:

No more so than there being "zero evidence" for the statement: "Murder is a horrible sin".

Of course, ethical statements don't necessarily relate to physical fact. They often relate to emotion/empathy, religious dogma, and other subjective cultural standards. And even when they do purport to relate directly to physical facts - in the form of consequentialism - what constitutes a relevant positive/negative consequence is still rather subjective.

If things were as simple as discerning which ethical world view were the "true" one through empirical analysis of fact, things would look rather different. They aren't, though.

There IS zero evidence for the statement "Murder is a horrible sin", because there is no evidence the concept of "sin" has any validity. Whether it is morally wrong or not is a different statement, and one that falls purely within the purview of opinion.

Imperator_DK:

Well, then challenge this misinformation, as you are doing here.

Oh, and that'll get the job done, won't it? I have no platform, because I haven't inherited a business that I can use for the purposes of slander. They have.

Silvanus:
...
How is the first assumption inherent to the statement at all!? Nobody claimed that the statement covered all speech, even pure opinion. That's simply you taking the statement to (illogical) extremes.

Nobody limited it to specific sorts of speech either.

There IS zero evidence for the statement "Murder is a horrible sin", because there is no evidence the concept of "sin" has any validity. Whether it is morally wrong or not is a different statement, and one that falls purely within the purview of opinion.

So saying "Murder is a horrible sin" should be outlawed as being "misinformation" as well?

Or is it only the forms of misinformation you don't like which should be outlawed?

Oh, and that'll get the job done, won't it? I have no platform, because I haven't inherited a business that I can use for the purposes of slander. They have.

Yes, I've found there being people more resourceful than oneself is quite a bother as well. Yet also a fact of life.

Imperator_DK:
One wouldn't really have much of a platform for criticizing Walmart if it were to refuse to sell books portraying homosexual relationships positively, if one have previously supported this guy allowing his personal preferences to interfere with his business practises.

I disagree. I can say that, from my point of view, a particular ideological agenda (like Walmart removing references to homosexuality in this hypothetical) is worse than another (like this shop-owner removing a source of income towards NOM from his inventory). As a consumer who himself votes with his wallet, I don't think there's a double-standard there, as long as people are free to do what they want. But doing what one wants can have certain consequences like a boycott from private individuals, because those people in turn will do what they want to with their freedoms.
Just think of the recent Daily Show boycott. That was ridiculously pointless, but it's up to those people to try and organize something like that if they feel it's necessary.
It's a two-way street and being free to do something does not mean you should be free from any and all consequences. It means you shouldn't be forcefully hindered from doing it and dealing with the consequences as they come, including the possible ire of your customers (and other customers that they might recruit into a boycott).
If public opinion shifts enough in favour of homosexuality to actually affect Walmart via a boycott, then all the better (in my view). If public opinion shifts enough against homosexuality to cause this shop owner to significantly lose business, then that's sad (in my view), but also okay, because that's how the freedom to do this works.
There's no double-standard if you disagree with people and make that disagreement known and act upon it, but treat them equally before the law. Nobody is required to treat everybody the same on a personal, private level, regardless of ideology, motive or where the profits would go. Nobody is required to spend their money where they don't want to because it would go to causes they disagree with or carry an item that they find questionable for any number of reasons. And, yes, that goes for retailers just the same as the customers, because those retailers buy the product they sell onwards.

Nobody here disagree that homophobia is bad, but turning the world of fiction into a political battlefield might well be worse.

It's not really politics, though, as the government has nothing to do with it. It's ideology and personal views of private individuals deciding to or not to support particular groups with their money. And the same individuals asking others to do the same.

Anyway, fiction has always been a battlefield for ideas and ideologies to duke it out in the form of hypotheticals, fantasy, what have you. And people who are opposed to certain ideologies tend not to continue to give money towards those causes. That's perfectly fine.

Nobody is question the shop owner's right to do it. It's more on whether it's wise, prudent, and ethical for companies to boycott fictional material because it/its creator is controversial.

Wise and prudent? Probably not. It might cost him business and probably won't really achieve anything. But ethical? Sure, depending on the person's views. It would be way more unethical to sell something that you have ethical qualms about, just to satisfy some weird notion of equal treatment and/or make money.
Even within the context of your hypothetical... if Walmart's leaders are serious about their beliefs, sure, act upon it. But suffer the consequences from the public's reaction. I'd have to hope the public's reaction would be punishment rather than agreement, but there you go.

(i.e. "soft censorship", like how virtually no American retailer will carry AO rated media products, and everyone is thus for commercial reasons forced to selfcensor their product, so it can get the lower 17+ rating)

Okay, that may suck, but what is your suggestion to solve that? It's not like you can force retailers to carry particular items, otherwise you're infringing on their rights, on what their ideas of morally sound behaviour is (and yes, this would include the Walmart-hypothetical, even if I would obviously strongly disagree with their evaluation of "morally sound"). Which is the worse infringement, really? If you're looking for items that they don't carry, bring your money to retailers that do. Vote with your wallet.

Imperator_DK:

Nobody limited it to specific sorts of speech either.

Uhrm, the very fact that the quote specified information implies that on matters entirely subjective, it does not apply.

Seriously, whenever somebody suggests regulation in any form, we get the same old lobby shouting, "where will it end?!"

Oddly enough, things can be done in moderation. I haven't noticed anti-defamation legislation leading us into a dystopian world just yet.

Imperator_DK:

So saying "Murder is a horrible sin" should be outlawed as being "misinformation" as well?

Yet again I have to remind you that I'm not talking about people just saying stuff here. If somebody runs a national news service and uses it to blather on about the nature of sin, then yes, that shouldn't be allowed. They can go and publish that drivel in clearly-labelled opinion magazines (and receive a significantly lower readership as a result).

And then, if it tips over into incitement or hate-speech, they're given warning or fined.

Skeleon:
...
I disagree. I can say that, from my point of view, a particular ideological agenda (like Walmart removing references to homosexuality in this hypothetical) is worse than another (like this shop-owner removing a source of income towards NOM from his inventory). As a consumer who himself votes with his wallet, I don't think there's a double-standard there, as long as people are free to do what they want. But doing what one wants can have certain consequences like a boycott from private individuals, because those people in turn will do what they want to with their freedoms.
It's a two-way street and being free to do something does not mean you should be free from any and all consequences. It means you shouldn't be forcefully hindered from doing it and dealing with the consequences as they come, including the possible ire of your customers (and other customers that they might recruit into a boycott).
If public opinion shifts enough in favour of homosexuality to actually affect Walmart via a boycott, then all the better (in my view). If public opinion shifts enough against homosexuality to cause this shop owner to significantly lose business, then that's sad (in my view), but also okay, because that's how the freedom to do this works.
There's no double-standard if you disagree with people and make that disagreement known and act upon it, but treat them equally before the law. Nobody is required to treat everybody the same on a personal, private level. Nobody is required to spend their money where they don't want to because it would go to causes they disagree with or carry an item that they find questionable for any number of reasons.

Agreed. But while indeed nobody is required to treat everybody the same on the private level, inspiring them not to do so isn't something I find advisable. And anyone who boycott pro-gay material/writers will be immune to criticism against this method, when made from people who themselves embraced this method. Pro-gay producers may end up being denied things other than Superman comics, and as not everyone will have media attention, not have any compensatory sales to keep them in business.

It's not really politics, though, as the government has nothing to do with it. It's ideology and personal views of private individuals deciding to or not to support particular groups with their money. And the same individuals asking others to do the same.

Pursuing a promoting a particular ideology on a societal issue sounds plenty political to me.

Wise and prudent? Probably not. It might cost him business and probably won't really achieve anything. But ethical? Sure, depending on the person's views. It would be way more unethical to sell something that you have ethical qualms about, just to satisfy some weird notion of equal treatment. Even within the context of your hypothetical... if Walmart's leaders are serious about their beliefs, sure, act upon it. But suffer the consequences from the public's reaction. I'd have to hope the public's reaction would be punishment rather than agreement, but there you go.

I'd take the weird notion of equal treatment. If partly out of concern that it'll negatively effect gay people elsewhere, partly out of dislike for soft censorship.

Okay, that may suck, but what is your suggestion to solve that? It's not like you can force retailers to carry particular items, otherwise you're infringing on their rights, on what their ideas of morally sound behaviour is (and yes, this would include the Walmart-hypothetical, even if I would obviously strongly disagree with their evaluation of "morally sound"). Which is the worse infringement, really? If you're looking for items that they don't carry, bring your money to retailers that do. Vote with your wallet.

I'd criticize those engaging in it. They're is doing it because public opinion favours soft censorship, so if it favours plurality it'll stock up with that. Digital distribution have made it a more principled than practical concern though.

I'd certainly also vote with my wallet, both regarding Walmart (...if I lived in the US) and this comic book store (...if I also bought comics). I wouldn't buy anything at either. But wouldn't call for others to boycott them.

Silvanus:
...
Uhrm, the very fact that the quote specified information implies that on matters entirely subjective, it does not apply.

A line that can't really be drawn too sharply.

Oddly enough, things can be done in moderation. I haven't noticed anti-defamation legislation leading us into a dystopian world just yet.

No, because the state's political interests aren't involved, and it's quite expensive to actually file a defamation lawsuit and see it to the end. Thus, such laws favours the wealthy, but that's a separate problem.

Yet again I have to remind you that I'm not talking about people just saying stuff here. If somebody runs a national news service and uses it to blather on about the nature of sin, then yes, that shouldn't be allowed. They can go and publish that drivel in clearly-labelled opinion magazines (and receive a significantly lower readership as a result).

Pretty sure banning a TV station from discussing the theological concept of "sin" and its reach violates the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Speech of those involved, and Freedom of Religion in general.

And then, if it tips over into incitement or hate-speech, they're given warning or fined.

Which, in regard to hatespeech, is state censorship of political dissidents.

Imperator_DK:

Silvanus:
...
Uhrm, the very fact that the quote specified information implies that on matters entirely subjective, it does not apply.

A line that can't really be drawn too sharply.

It can be drawn clearly enough for me to be happy with. By all means, give me examples where the line is blurred, and I'll reply how I would see it.

Imperator_DK:

No, because the state's political interests aren't involved, and it's quite expensive to actually file a defamation lawsuit and see it to the end. Thus, such laws favours the wealthy, but that's a separate problem.

You're boiling it down to the slippery slope, yet again. The state forcing an agenda on its people is not the logical conclusion of press regulation. Stop assuming it is. Oddly enough, judiciary bodies or regulatory bodies can exist without being in thrall to a political party; they require stringent appeals processes and restrictions on their own conduct, but this is doable, they have functioned relatively well in the past without the world ending.

Imperator_DK:

Pretty sure banning a TV station from discussing the theological concept of "sin" and its reach violates the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Speech of those involved, and Freedom of Religion in general.

Indeed, it would! Well observed! Another thing I never said.

I would not ban a TV station from "discussing sin". I would ban a news program from stating that something is sinful. If it wants to make that claim, it cannot call itself a news network.

One example parallel being, of course, the UK tabloid that runs the story that Stephen Gately's death was "unnatural". That was contradicting the coroner's report; it was utterly without evidence; it was done purely as a method of smearing the "gay lifestyle".

Imperator_DK:

Which, in regard to hatespeech, is state censorship of political dissidents.

The WBC are 'dissidents' now, are they? This is just another way of restating the slippery slope fallacy. If I want to stop a bigot from minority-bashing, then I'm inevitably going to be using my full force against all those harmless political dissenters as well.

No, I'm not. All the many, many regulations that civilised society already lives by have been successfully implemented in moderation before.

Skeleon:

TheLycanKing144:
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.

What do you think of the argument that people already brought forth in this thread: That Card uses his profits to support NOM to directly harm homosexuals and their causes? That alone is not something in the comics themselves, but isn't that an understandable reason not to want to support his works?

As I said above, I am not familiar with this man or his work. I don't know what NOM is, so I cannot comment on those things. However I it is in everyone's right to not buy a or endorse his product if they feel it is harmful, or his intentions are harmful.

However based off of what I have read in the OP, I don't see anything that would suggest the creator of this comic is a homophobic bigot. All he said was that he doesn't believe in gay marriage or gay life style.

Imperator_DK:
...inspiring them not to do so isn't something I find advisable.

But why? If there's an issue you find extremely important, wouldn't you try to do something about it? Personally, I went to a protest about tuition fees, for example, and while, yes, the recipient of that protest was the government and not a private corporation or group or whatever, I don't see why people shouldn't organize to push for social change just because the target is not the government. Boycotting and telling others you think they should boycott, in my eyes, falls under this category. Now, obviously I may not agree with all social changes people may advocate for, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with the practice itself. Customers have way too little power as it is, this is a small way to increase it.

And anyone who boycott pro-gay material/writers will be immune to criticism against this method, when made from people who themselves embraced this method.

Yes, but only regarding the use of the method. They can (and should) still be criticized for the message itself. Consider counter-protests or boycotts. Consider spreading news of their behaviour on the internet or elswhere. As I said already in an earlier post: The people who tried to organize a boycott of The Daily Show? I support the idea that they should try it if they so very much disagree with it. I think it has failed miserably (and I thought that it would when I first heard of it), but, hell, let them try it, let them use those freedoms. I'm going to use my freedoms to make fun of them and spread news of their stupidity.

I'd take the weird notion of equal treatment. If partly out of concern that it'll negatively effect gay people elsewhere, partly out of dislike for soft censorship.

So you would, as a retailer, actually invest money in things you find repugnant, take up the risk that any such investment bears and try to sell them? I don't get that, but it's your prerogative. I certainly wouldn't feel obligated to do something like that.

I'd criticize those engaging in it.

And that's your right. Hell, if it weren't contradictory to your view, I'd even support you boycotting such people and telling others you think they should boycott them, too...

I'd certainly also vote with my wallet, both regarding Walmart (...if I lived in the US) and this comic book store (...if I also bought comics). I wouldn't buy anything at either. But wouldn't call for others to boycott them.

...although it sounds like the first half of that you already agree with. I guess I don't see why telling others you think they should boycott it, too, is such a big issue. In an unorganized form we do that almost automatically. "Nah, I'm not buying that racist/homophobic/bigoted trash." It's simply a way of voting with your wallet more effectively and in a more organized manner.

TheLycanKing144:
As I said above, I am not familiar with this man or his work. I don't know what NOM is, so I cannot comment on those things. However I it is in everyone's right to not buy a or endorse his product if they feel it is harmful, or his intentions are harmful.

However based off of what I have read in the OP, I don't see anything that would suggest the creator of this comic is a homophobic bigot. All he said was that he doesn't believe in gay marriage or gay life style.

If you don't care enough to even check the various posts in this thread mentioning and explaining about NOM, then I can't help you. I won't bother you with it, but I find your reflexive defense of Card without caring about the details rather strange. *shrug*

EDIT: So not worth a new post.

TheLycanKing144:
I'm not "defending" anyone, simply implying that the store owner's reason for now allowing it seem a bit silly. If all businesses decided to stop selling products that are made from people they simply disagree with, then there wouldn't be anything left to buy.

And I'm simply implying that if you changed this right here...

I don't know anything about the man himself or his contributions, nor do I know what NOM is.

...perhaps you would change your opinion of the situation. That perhaps his reason for his behaviour is less silly than you think it is, since it isn't just about "simply disagreeing" with Card's views. I'm saying that knowing about NOM may be relevant to the evaluation and I don't understand your persistence in not wanting to inform yourself.

Skeleon:

Imperator_DK:
...inspiring them not to do so isn't something I find advisable.

But why? If there's an issue you find extremely important, wouldn't you try to do something about it? Personally, I went to a protest about tuition fees, for example, and while, yes, the recipient of that protest was the government and not a private corporation or group or whatever, I don't see why people shouldn't organize to push for social change just because the target is not the government. Boycotting and telling others you think they should boycott, in my eyes, falls under this category. Now, obviously I may not agree with all social changes people may advocate for, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with the practice itself. Customers have way too little power as it is, this is a small way to increase it.

And anyone who boycott pro-gay material/writers will be immune to criticism against this method, when made from people who themselves embraced this method.

Yes, but only regarding the use of the method. They can (and should) still be criticized for the message itself. Consider counter-protests or boycotts. Consider spreading news of their behaviour on the internet or elswhere. As I said already in an earlier post: The people who tried to organize a boycott of The Daily Show? I support the idea that they should try it if they so very much disagree with it. I think it has failed miserably (and I thought that it would when I first heard of it), but, hell, let them try it, let them use those freedoms. I'm going to use my freedoms to make fun of them and spread news of their stupidity.

I'd take the weird notion of equal treatment. If partly out of concern that it'll negatively effect gay people elsewhere, partly out of dislike for soft censorship.

So you would, as a retailer, actually invest money in things you find repugnant, take up the risk that any such investment bears and try to sell them? I don't get that, but it's your prerogative. I certainly wouldn't feel obligated to do something like that.

I'd criticize those engaging in it.

And that's your right. Hell, if it weren't contradictory to your view, I'd even support you boycotting such people and telling others you think they should boycott them, too...

I'd certainly also vote with my wallet, both regarding Walmart (...if I lived in the US) and this comic book store (...if I also bought comics). I wouldn't buy anything at either. But wouldn't call for others to boycott them.

...although it sounds like the first half of that you already agree with. I guess I don't see why telling others you think they should boycott it, too, is such a big issue. In an unorganized form we do that almost automatically. "Nah, I'm not buying that racist/homophobic/bigoted trash." It's simply a way of voting with your wallet more effectively and in a more organized manner.

TheLycanKing144:
As I said above, I am not familiar with this man or his work. I don't know what NOM is, so I cannot comment on those things. However I it is in everyone's right to not buy a or endorse his product if they feel it is harmful, or his intentions are harmful.

However based off of what I have read in the OP, I don't see anything that would suggest the creator of this comic is a homophobic bigot. All he said was that he doesn't believe in gay marriage or gay life style.

If you don't care enough to even check the various posts in this thread mentioning and explaining about NOM, then I can't help you. I won't bother you with it, but I find your reflexive defense of Card without caring about the details rather strange. *shrug*

All I know about this thread is that a comic shop is refusing to sell a man's comics because of his stance on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. I don't know anything about the man himself or his contributions, nor do I know what NOM is.

And you are misunderstanding my position: It is the comic shop's right not to sell it if he does not want to, this is a right that I support. If I had a book store I certainly wouldn't carry something such as Nazi propaganda literature, that would be in my right to do so. However I don't agree with the store owner's reasoning for doing this, it seems to be done over a difference of the man's opinion and not the comic it's self.

I'm not "defending" anyone, simply implying that the store owner's reason for now allowing it seem a bit silly. If all businesses decided to stop selling products that are made from people they simply disagree with, then there wouldn't be anything left to buy.

This is a no brainer, Card has the right to belong to and support groups that want to ban recognition of and protections for gay relationships, but he has to own it and accept what comes with the anti-gay work that he does, including alienating the retailers who he wants to sell his comics. The publishers and artists who want to work with Card also have to accept that his views on gay people are likely to be a liability that might not be offset by his name and his talent and have to consider fully all the financial pros and cons of working with him.

I wish it was a requirement to state what you personally think of same-sex marriage along with whether or not you think that the retailer is right to not stock the comic, because it seems to me that a lot of people who, if I remember correctly, aren't too fond of gay marriage, feel like it wasn't appropriate for the retailer to not stock the comic, and maybe feel nervous about what could possibly happen to themselves for their views and feel like they don't deserve to be challenged or face any consequences for their beliefs.

We all have a right to believe whatever we want, and with that right comes the responsibility to accept whatever ramifications go along with it.

TheLycanKing144:
As I said above, I am not familiar with this man or his work. I don't know what NOM is, so I cannot comment on those things. However I it is in everyone's right to not buy a or endorse his product if they feel it is harmful, or his intentions are harmful.

However based off of what I have read in the OP, I don't see anything that would suggest the creator of this comic is a homophobic bigot. All he said was that he doesn't believe in gay marriage or gay life style.

The good news is that gay marriage and "gay life style" exist whether you believe in it or not. Even if it is not bigoted to say that gay relationships are below straight relationships and gay people shouldn't have any right to be able to form into a legally recognised and protected family unit with their significant other, the point is that that it is offensive enough to some people that they're not going to want to buy anything created by someone who has that belief, let alone someone who doesn't just believe it but actively works towards harming gay families.

Skeleon:
Just think of the recent Daily Show boycott.

Huh. I hadn't heard about that. Who was boycotting over what?

scotth266:
There are people involved in the process of creating comic books other than the writers, too. Does Card being involved in a comic mean that the artists, coloring people, and publisher don't deserve anything for producing a decent work because one anti-gay a-hole was on the team?

It bothers me that you'd describe the other contributors as victims, because that seems like a kind of emotional blackmail. It's also not fair. The people who chose to work with Card are directly contributing to his financial prosperity, which is what the store owner chooses not to subsidize. You don't really get to say that they're somehow unrelated to the underlying problem.

JimB:

Skeleon:
Just think of the recent Daily Show boycott.

Huh. I hadn't heard about that. Who was boycotting over what?

The Catholic League wanted to boycott (and organize other groups into boycotting) Stewart's sponsors and the show because of a comment in regards to the War on Women versus War on Christmas. Basically he used a graphic with a manger in front of a woman's genitals and accompanied it with the idea that maybe if women had nativity scenes in their vaginas, Fox News would get as outraged over the War on Women as they do over the War on Christmas.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/catholic-league-threatens-boycott-daily-show-jon-stewart-article-1.1064508

Skeleon:
The Catholic League wanted to boycott (and organize other groups into boycotting) Stewart's sponsors and the show because of a comment in regards to the War on Women versus War on Christmas.

Oh. The group that has gone on record saying the Catholic Church's seemingly endemic child molestation problem is the fault of gay people and child molestation survivor advocacy groups rather than of the specific Catholics committing the crimes or the organization shielding them decided to get outraged about the Catholic Church being criticized. Yeah, I probably ought to have seen that coming.

EDIT: Oh, but thanks for answering. Sorry, I didn't mean to forget my manners in my rush to be cynically annoyed at the Catholic League. I do appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Skeleon:
...
But why? If there's an issue you find extremely important, wouldn't you try to do something about it? Personally, I went to a protest about tuition fees, for example, and while, yes, the recipient of that protest was the government and not a private corporation or group or whatever, I don't see why people shouldn't organize to push for social change just because the target is not the government. Boycotting and telling others you think they should boycott, in my eyes, falls under this category. Now, obviously I may not agree with all social changes people may advocate for, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with the practice itself. Customers have way too little power as it is, this is a small way to increase it.

I wouldn't do something - or at least this - about this issue. Because I'd fear it would lead to/legitimize boycotts against gay people, the American Christian right being quite organized and all. And because on principle I believe everyone should have access to as much information and art as possible. Be it the "Human Rights Declaration" or "Mein Kampf", "Captain Gay saves the world" or "Superstraightman beats up Captain Gay", I'm not keen on seeing access to information limited. Particularly not through government censorship, but not through soft censorship either.

Yes, but only regarding the use of the method.

Which is significant enough.

They can (and should) still be criticized for the message itself.

That they should, but preferably in way that won't backlash against gay people and access to information.

Consider counter-protests or boycotts. Consider spreading news of their behaviour on the internet or elswhere. As I said already in an earlier post: The people who tried to organize a boycott of The Daily Show? I support the idea that they should try it if they so very much disagree with it. I think it has failed miserably (and I thought that it would when I first heard of it), but, hell, let them try it, let them use those freedoms. I'm going to use my freedoms to make fun of them and spread news of their stupidity.

Not much backlash potential there, nor would the Daily Show ever be taken off the air because people who don't watch it - and who're more importantly in no way in the segment the advertising blocks aired with it target - bitch about it.

So you would, as a retailer, actually invest money in things you find repugnant, take up the risk that any such investment bears and try to sell them? I don't get that, but it's your prerogative. I certainly wouldn't feel obligated to do something like that.

If I sold books with art or information, I'd sell as broad a range as it would be commercially feasible to do. Without censoring my stock based on context or what beliefs the authors of them had. Simply because I believe people are able to think and decide for themselves, and more importantly should be trusted with the information to do so. Same with fiction: If somebody wouldn't want to buy a Superman comic because the author was an idiot, fine by me. I somebody want to buy "Why murdering children is totally awesome and should be legal, the gruesomely illustrated graphic novel", also fine by me. I'd carry both if it was commercially feasible, whatever my personal opinions on their authors and content. Actions are restrained, information and art should be free.

And that's your right. Hell, if it weren't contradictory to your view, I'd even support you boycotting such people and telling others you think they should boycott them, too...

I wouldn't criticize by calling for boycotts against them. What I quietly do in my own life has no political significance.

...although it sounds like the first half of that you already agree with. I guess I don't see why telling others you think they should boycott it, too, is such a big issue. In an unorganized form we do that almost automatically. "Nah, I'm not buying that racist/homophobic/bigoted trash." It's simply a way of voting with your wallet more effectively and in a more organized manner.

It's a way of seeking to pressure information/art off the shelves, which I'd never get behind.

Silvanus:
...
It can be drawn clearly enough for me to be happy with. By all means, give me examples where the line is blurred, and I'll reply how I would see it.

Is a particular political initiative socialist or socially liberal in nature? Is the results of a pollution highly damaging to the environment, or merely damaging? Are "traditional values" under pressure? Is Homosexuality founded in nature or nurture? Is the cat alive or not? Many assessments carry with them factual connotations. To give the government power to determine whether or not they are "misinformation" is to give it power over the newspaper's editorial line (it being well known that virtual all newspapers - not just tabloids - have a political agenda, and this being an integral and legally protected part of the editorial freedom of the press).

If tabloids constantly told lies which were easy to factually disprove - 324 Pakistanis broke into Buckingham Palace and had their way with the Queen! - they'd soon be out of business. They don't though, they tell select bits of fact, told out of context, and presented in as sensationalist a way as possible. That's not a "lie", that's merely manipulatory. And if a majority in a population can't see this after reading one or two articles, then the nation needs a less pathetic population, not less freedom of press.

You're boiling it down to the slippery slope, yet again. The state forcing an agenda on its people is not the logical conclusion of press regulation. Stop assuming it is. Oddly enough, judiciary bodies or regulatory bodies can exist without being in thrall to a political party; they require stringent appeals processes and restrictions on their own conduct, but this is doable, they have functioned relatively well in the past without the world ending.

Oh yes, the UK judiciary works just perfectly when it comes to free speech. Just don't ask the European Court of Human Rights, other stories, such as the time an apprentice were slapped with a £50,000 fine for refusing to reveal his sources might slip out.

And if the state is banning hatespeech, then it's already forcing an agenda on people, namely one that certain political views are unacceptable to speak in favor of.

I would not ban a TV station from "discussing sin". I would ban a news program from stating that something is sinful. If it wants to make that claim, it cannot call itself a news network.

"Tonight at the 11, more on the horrible We have no opinion on it Murder and rape of a 5 year old girl".

Sounds lovely.

One example parallel being, of course, the UK tabloid that runs the story that Stephen Gately's death was "unnatural". That was contradicting the coroner's report; it was utterly without evidence; it was done purely as a method of smearing the "gay lifestyle".

"Unnatural" seems quite a subjective word. Though here it probably refers to a specific and clearly defined medical/coroner term. If so, his estate should simply sue for slander, assuming it can be proven that there was a slanderous intent behind the misreporting.

The WBC are 'dissidents' now, are they?

Yes, they are. They're a religious minority holding views which are extremely controversial and out of touch with the norms of mainstream society. Views they should be allowed to express freely, so that their absurdity may be known to all.

This is just another way of restating the slippery slope fallacy.

Not really: I'm not defending the right of some "nicer" dissidents who're less controversial, more polite, and more in line with my own views and/or those of mainstream society. I'm defending the right to free speech for the WBC, and everyone like them (...so long as it remains speech, and not incitement to/threats of violence).

Imperator_DK:

Is a particular political initiative socialist or socially liberal in nature?

Subjective.

Imperator_DK:
Is the results of a pollution highly damaging to the environment, or merely damaging?

Subjective (the question of whether it is damaging or not is objective; the question of 'highly' is subjective).

Imperator_DK:
Are "traditional values" under pressure?

Subjective.

Imperator_DK:
Is Homosexuality founded in nature or nurture?

Objective.

Imperator_DK:
Is the cat alive or not?

Objective. Remember, the issue here is solely whether fundamentally objective questions can be separated from purely subjective ones. I contend that they can, as far as all reasonable applications go.

The point being, on objective questions, somebody can be said to have stated something factually inaccurately, and 'matter of opinion' doesn't come into it. We don't know for certain whether Homosexuality is founded in nature or nurture, but it is still an objective question, because an objective answer exists, and stating one conclusion as fact at this point would be misleading.

Imperator_DK:
Many assessments carry with them factual connotations. To give the government power to determine whether or not they are "misinformation" is to give it power over the newspaper's editorial line (it being well known that virtual all newspapers - not just tabloids - have a political agenda, and this being an integral and legally protected part of the editorial freedom of the press).

Uh-huh. Judiciary =/ government, though. They are a part of it, but it's misleading to say that I want "the government" to hold that power (just like it would be misleading to say I want "the government" to pass sentence in court).

Imperator_DK:
If tabloids constantly told lies which were easy to factually disprove - 324 Pakistanis broke into Buckingham Palace and had their way with the Queen! - they'd soon be out of business. They don't though, they tell select bits of fact, told out of context, and presented in as sensationalist a way as possible. That's not a "lie", that's merely manipulatory. And if a majority in a population can't see this after reading one or two articles, then the nation needs a less pathetic population, not less freedom of press.

Freedom to lie is not an integral part of the freedom of the press, in my opinion; you are stating it above as if it is. Tabloids do not merely publish 'select' facts. They outright lie. Stephen Gately's death was one such example.

Imperator_DK:

Oh yes, the UK judiciary works just perfectly when it comes to free speech. Just don't ask the European Court of Human Rights, other stories, such as the time an apprentice were slapped with a £50,000 fine for refusing to reveal his sources might slip out.

Strawman. I never said the system that exists is perfect; I said that it has worked in moderation, and shows moderation is possible and that regulations don't inevitably slide down the slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Imperator_DK:
And if the state is banning hatespeech, then it's already forcing an agenda on people, namely one that certain political views are unacceptable to speak in favor of.

If "certain political views" are "minorities should not be treated equally or afforded respect", then yes. If "people should expect to be treated equally by the press, regardless of their nature", then yes.

You're cloaking your language in euphemism to distort what my point is.

Imperator_DK:

"Tonight at the 11, more on the horrible We have no opinion on it Murder and rape of a 5 year old girl".

Sounds lovely.

Are you kidding? This is a ridiculous example. Pulling the most ludicrous scenario out of your ass and presenting it in a way that would never happen is not a valid point.

Do you honestly think a judiciary body, if it wanted to prevent the Daily Mail from printing racist caricatures of Romanians, would have no choice but to also prevent the daily news from calling child murder 'horrible'?

No, I'm sorry, that's just incredibly simplistic. Judiciary bodies make judgements every day, all over the world. Never would that happen and you know it.

Imperator_DK:

"Unnatural" seems quite a subjective word. Though here it probably refers to a specific and clearly defined medical/coroner term. If so, his estate should simply sue for slander, assuming it can be proven that there was a slanderous intent behind the misreporting.

Indeed! As it happens, the Gatelys didn't sue (perhaps because they were dealing with a death in the family). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people read slander printed in a national news outlet, and thousands of them will have believed it.

Imperator_DK:

Yes, they are. They're a religious minority holding views which are extremely controversial and out of touch with the norms of mainstream society. Views they should be allowed to express freely, so that their absurdity may be known to all.

The families of dead soldiers with funerals ruined by their loud presence should be happy with that knowledge.

Imperator_DK:

Not really: I'm not defending the right of some "nicer" dissidents who're less controversial, more polite, and more in line with my own views and/or those of mainstream society. I'm defending the right to free speech for the WBC, and everyone like them (...so long as it remains speech, and not incitement to/threats of violence).

Why the last little exception, may I ask? Surely, if the government is going to decide what is classified as "incitement", we'll inevitably end up with news stations incapable of saying child-murder is bad.

I think he should. Don't get me wrong, I hate Card's guts, but it should be up to the consumers to make the choice not to buy it, not for the shop to not give them the option. But at the end of the day, if he doesn't want to sell it, nobody can make him.

Imperator_DK:
Actions are restrained, information and art should be free.

But isn't one of the main sticking points with OSC's actions? Particularly using his money to support NOM? Is it really about the art or the actions at this point? Remember that - not just as a customer but also as a retailer - you're investing a significant amount of money in this, which not only carries risk but supports OSC's actions. I wouldn't be comfortable with doing that.

It's an interesting issue because I don't even know who's more principled here: The guy who sticks to the principles of free access or the guy who sticks to not financially supporting bigotry, who sticks up for his views.

itchcrotch:
Don't get me wrong, I hate Card's guts, but it should be up to the consumers to make the choice not to buy it, not for the shop to not give them the option.

I don't think this argument holds much water: In this day and age of instant internet access to every comic shop that has a link to Amazon.com, those consumers you're so worried about can definitely get the book if they want it. There is no reason the shopkeeper ought to be expected to bend his moral principles and spend his money on a product he doesn't support just for the sake of providing options to people who already have the option he's providing.

Skeleon:
...
But isn't one of the main sticking points with OSC's actions? Particularly using his money to support NOM? Is it really about the art or the actions at this point? Remember that - not just as a customer but also as a retailer - you're investing a significant amount of money in this, which not only carries risk but supports OSC's actions. I wouldn't be comfortable with doing that.

OSC's "actions" seem to merely be funding more (vile anti-gay)speech, and hence he's doing nothing directly physically harmful.

That doesn't mean consumers can't take issue with it, but it should be the individual consumer who makes that decision for himself, not some shopkeeper who makes the decision for him. That's something which could be reasonably done with things like real snuff films, where the harmful action is inherent to the production, and the sales hence directly create them. Superman comics, not so much.

It's an interesting issue because I don't even know who's more principled here: The guy who sticks to the principles of free access or the guy who sticks to not financially supporting bigotry, who sticks up for his views.

Being principled is generally about sticking to one's beliefs in situation where the result of them contradicts one's own preferences and/or interests. I don't know whether the shopkeeper has incurred any financial loses over this - I'd think the marketing value far outweighs a few lost Superman sales. If he has, or run a significant risk of doing so, then he's principled. Otherwise he's merely sticking with his own preferences, absent thought of the soft censorship he imposes.

Not that I as a consumer am particularly principled either. Otherwise, I'd be boycotting Amazon.com for removing things like some Dachau puzzle, Rapelay, and the Breivik Manifesto from its listings, but I can't really be bothered, as there's no alternative retailer for some things. If I were really into Superman-as-written-by-this-anti-gay-guy, I'd probably buy his comics as well, absent thought of where a tiny portion of the money ended up.

I'll vote with my wallet if there are other - more expensive - places to get what I want to buy though. But if I ran a business, I'd never decide for others what they should and shouldn't buy based on whether or not I liked it/the people behind it.

JimB:

itchcrotch:
Don't get me wrong, I hate Card's guts, but it should be up to the consumers to make the choice not to buy it, not for the shop to not give them the option.

I don't think this argument holds much water: In this day and age of instant internet access to every comic shop that has a link to Amazon.com, those consumers you're so worried about can definitely get the book if they want it. There is no reason the shopkeeper ought to be expected to bend his moral principles and spend his money on a product he doesn't support just for the sake of providing options to people who already have the option he's providing.

That's a point.
And I suppose it's extra important today to let the company know why you're boycotting something, otherwise it's very easy for the whole point to miss them.

Imperator_DK:
Orson Scott Card's "actions" seem to merely be funding more (vile anti-gay) speech, and hence he's doing nothing directly physically harmful.

Is your argument that only physically harmful actions are allowed to be boycotted?

Imperator_DK:
That doesn't mean consumers can't take issue with it, but it should be the individual consumer who makes that decision for himself, not some shopkeeper who makes the decision for him.

Again, the shopkeeper isn't making a decision for anyone but himself. He isn't preventing anyone from getting the book; he's preventing anyone from getting the book through his store.

Imperator_DK:
That's something which could be reasonably done with things like real snuff films, where the harmful action is inherent to the production, and the sales hence directly create them.

Uh. I don't know what the law is where you live, but around here, murder is illegal whether or not it's filmed, so it would be kind of redundant to boycott an illegal product in the first place.

Imperator_DK:
OSC's "actions" seem to merely be funding more (vile anti-gay)speech, and hence he's doing nothing directly physically harmful.

Well, so what. Financially supporting a group that is pushing for legislation like that isn't physically harmful, but it sure is harmful.

...not some shopkeeper who makes the decision for him.

Some shopkeeper who, again, would have to invest money into something he finds despicable, carry the risk of it and is personally attached to the shop and thus the action in question. Yeah, I think this is an additional aspect to it: This is a shopkeeper, not some manager of amazon.com who never steps into the spotlight. He's personally responsible for his shop and as such much more directly tied to the decision to carry Card's things and fund NOM or not. That should be relevant as well.

Being principled is generally about sticking to one's beliefs in situation where the result of them contradicts one's own preferences and/or interests.

Nah, being principled means sticking to your principles regardless of the situation. It has nothing to do with the result; in fact, the very reason one might be considered as principled is because they don't take the result into account but only decide based on their principles.

Otherwise he's merely sticking with his own preferences, absent thought of the soft censorship he imposes.

See above, there's no need for negative consequences to actually happen for someone to be principled.
You'd have a point if he made the decision not to carry Card's work because he knows he won't suffer negative consequences/because he would suffer negative consequences if he did carry it, but otherwise this is merely incidental.

Skeleon:
...
Well, so what. Financially supporting a group that is pushing for legislation like that isn't physically harmful, but it sure is harmful.

The harm is miniscule in scope, nothing which can justify engaging in censorship.

Some shopkeeper who, again, would have to invest money into something he finds despicable, carry the risk of it and is personally attached to the shop and thus the action in question. Yeah, I think this is an additional aspect to it: This is a shopkeeper, not some manager of amazon.com who never steps into the spotlight. He's personally responsible for his shop and as such much more directly tied to the decision to carry Card's things and fund NOM or not. That should be relevant as well.

I doubt anyone would blame him if he continued to sell these Superman comics. He might have more emotional investment in his shop than larger business owners have, but then again, he might not.

Nah, being principled means sticking to your principles regardless of the situation. It has nothing to do with the result; in fact, the very reason one might be considered as principled is because they don't take the result into account but only decide based on their principles.

In theory, yes. Doing what one desires to do isn't much of an indicator of subscribing to a principle though; Only when it leads to undesirable consequences, and one still sticks with it, can the decision be said to be motivated by the principle/ethics. For all practical purposes, principles only come into play when one doesn't already want to do what's in accordance with it.

See above, there's no need for negative consequences to actually happen for someone to be principled.
You'd have a point if he made the decision not to carry Card's work because he knows he won't suffer negative consequences/because he would suffer negative consequences if he did carry it, but otherwise this is merely incidental.

If he desires to not sell the Superman comic because he dislikes the writer, then he's merely going with his own desire. If he doesn't desire it (because it'd decrease revenue), but do it anyway because he believes it to be right, then he's principled. Again, from a pragmatic point of view, principles only come into play where the desire to do right ends.

It's thus not impossible that he holds as a principle that he will not fund things which might[1] lead to harm of gay people. Whether desire or principle, I can certainly sympathize with that.

However, there's another colliding principle in play as well, what could be called "Respect for Autonomy". That one should not stand in the way of people deciding for themselves and making their own choices. And given how miniscule Card's contribution to NOM would be, and that the harm it could do is only potential, I weigh that above the "Don't finance any bigotry" principle.

JimB:
...
Is your argument that only physically harmful actions are allowed to be boycotted?

My argument is that only real world harm - violence, discriminatory laws etc. - can justify censorship.

Again, the shopkeeper isn't making a decision for anyone but himself. He isn't preventing anyone from getting the book; he's preventing anyone from getting the book through his store.

Undoubtedly there'll be people who can for practical purposes only get it there. Such as minors who don't have a credit card to buy online with, nor a car to drive to a different comic book shop. And not all instances of soft censorship concern products that relatively easily available, I'd wager that trying to get hold of a (legal) copy of Rapelay after Amazon.com struck it from its listings is rather difficult.

Uh. I don't know what the law is where you live, but around here, murder is illegal whether or not it's filmed, so it would be kind of redundant to boycott an illegal product in the first place.

It's not illegal to watch a video of a real murder taking place though, and there are already several such videos on the internet. Somebody could put them on a DVD and sell them (as a "documentary"), and it wouldn't be illegal, at least not where I live. As the production of such videos by definition inherently entail vast amounts of harm, it's reasonable to curtail demand for them through censorship. So if a video store refused to put such DVD on its shelves, I'd have no problem with it. Nor would I oppose the state banning possession of it.

[1] It won't inherently do so, as it's only if NOM can get legislators to pass discriminatory legislation that harm arise.

Imperator_DK:

Skeleon:
Well, so what. Financially supporting a group that is pushing for legislation like that isn't physically harmful, but it sure is harmful.

The harm is miniscule in scope, nothing which can justify engaging in censorship.

And yet you later said:

Imperator_DK:
My argument is that only real world harm--violence, discriminatory laws, etc.--can justify censorship.

So I guess you're saying that it's not okay to try to prevent discriminatory laws from coming into place by attacking the groups lobbying for them, because they haven't yet committed an evil worth attacking?

Imperator_DK:
I doubt anyone would blame him if he continued to sell these Superman comics.

I would. He made the choice to stock them; he gets the blame for them being on the shelves.

Imperator_DK:
Doing what one desires to do isn't much of an indicator of subscribing to a principle though; only when it leads to undesirable consequences, and one still sticks with it, can the decision be said to be motivated by the principle/ethics. For all practical purposes, principles only come into play when one doesn't already want to do what's in accordance with it.

I cannot find a definition of the word "principle" that supports your interpretation.

Imperator_DK:

JimB:
Again, the shopkeeper isn't making a decision for anyone but himself. He isn't preventing anyone from getting the book; he's preventing anyone from getting the book through his store.

Undoubtedly there'll be people who can for practical purposes only get it there, such as minors who don't have a credit card to buy online with, nor a car to drive to a different comic book shop.

Then the parents who refuse to buy the comic online are censoring Card? The friends and family who refuse to drive the kid to the next comic shop are censoring him?

Imperator_DK:
I'd wager that trying to get hold of a (legal) copy of Rapelay after Amazon.com struck it from its listings is rather difficult.

I don't care. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about one, specific shop owner's right not to carry products he chooses not to.

JimB:
...
So I guess you're saying that it's not okay to try to prevent discriminatory laws from coming into place by attacking the groups lobbying for them, because they haven't yet committed an evil worth attacking?

It's not okay to try to prevent a miniscule effort to perhaps bring them about, if it means censoring innocent people.

I would. He made the choice to stock them; he gets the blame for them being on the shelves.

So you blame every store worldwide which stocks this comic? Every person who buys it? Every person who buys a product where, somewhere along the long line from raw material to shelf, an unpleasant person profited from the final transaction being made?

I'm pretty sure if you're buying fair trade coffee, there's a significant risk that the third world farmer and his family who gets paid extra might hold some less-than-civil views on homosexuality. Should we demand that companies make them sign an oath that they support gay rights? Can you live with yourself, knowing there's a risk that the coffee you sip is bought from homophobes, that your money help feed such vile creatures?

...I'm all for holding people accountable for their choices, but to such extent isn't really possible.

I cannot find a definition of the word "principle" that supports your interpretation.

"Guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct". Though I was talking about when that (doesn't) comes into play.

Imperator_DK:
Then the parents who refuse to buy the comic online are censoring Card? The friends and family who refuse to drive the kid to the next comic shop are censoring him?

They're the legal guardians, hence they decide for the child. A shopkeeper is not a parent though.

I don't care. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about one, specific shop owner's right not to carry products he chooses not to.

Nobody is questioning his right. I'm questioning his ethics in his embrace of censorship. It might well be a product harder to come by than a Superman comic the next time he feels the need to make decisions for his customers, and impose more censorship.

Imperator_DK:
It's not okay to try to prevent a miniscule effort to perhaps bring [discriminatory, anti-gay laws] about, if it means censoring innocent people.

You have an interesting definition of the word "innocent" if you think it applies to people who attempt to use the democratic process to deny rights to their fellow citizens.

Imperator_DK:
So you blame every store worldwide which stocks this comic? Every person who buys it? Every person who buys a product where, somewhere along the long line from raw material to shelf, an unpleasant person profited from the final transaction being made?

Yes. They are all contributing. They may not know it, and they may not mean to, but it doesn't matter: They are still participating. Like it or not, the money you paid for your iPod justifies the use of what I don't think I'm unfairly describing as slave labor in Chinese factories. It doesn't matter if you know it, and it doesn't matter if you like it. That's still where the cash ends up.

Imperator_DK:
I'm pretty sure if you're buying fair trade coffee, there's a significant risk that the third world farmer and his family who gets paid extra might hold some less-than-civil views on homosexuality. Should we demand that companies make them sign an oath that they support gay rights? Can you live with yourself, knowing there's a risk that the coffee you sip is bought from homophobes, that your money help feed such vile creatures?

I don't drink coffee, but never mind, I get your underlying point. I am not asking suppliers to sign documents; the burden for discovering their contributions to society is on me, not them. This shopkeeper, probably through no particular effort of his own, found out that Card supports discriminatory legislation. Upon obtaining that information, he could no longer plead ignorance, and was forced to confront the reality that at least some of the money he spent on those books would go directly into Card's pocket and, it can be reasonably assumed, from there to an oppressive activism group.

Imperator_DK:
"Guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct". Though I was talking about when that (doesn't) comes into play.

Nothing about that so much as implies that principles demand sacrifice. Easy choices are still choices.

Imperator_DK:

I:
Then the parents who refuse to buy the comic online are censoring Card? The friends and family who refuse to drive the kid to the next comic shop are censoring him?

They're the legal guardians, hence they decide for the child. A shopkeeper is not a parent though.

Nor are his friends, nor his siblings, nor anyone other than his parents. Why does everyone but the shopkeeper get a pass on not buying this book specifically so other people can purchase it?

Imperator_DK:
Nobody is questioning his right. I'm questioning his ethics in his embrace of censorship. It might well be a product harder to come by than a Superman comic the next time he feels the need to make decisions for his customers, and impose more censorship.

That his decision affects his customers does not equate to making decisions for customers. If it does, then McDonald's is making choices for me by not selling tempura.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked