Orson Scott Card, Anti-Gay Author, Responds To 'Ender's Game' Boycott Campaign

[derspiess]

So then this Card fella is the latest "2 minutes of hate" target, then?  I doubt I would've heard about him, otherwise.

[merithyn]

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

This is funny. I'm not attempting to censor anyone. I'm not calling for the movie to be taken down. I'm not demanding that it never be seen. I'm choosing not to spend my money on it. Period. End of story.

[Barrister]

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though.

[Berkut]

So then this Card fella is the latest "2 minutes of hate" target, then?  I doubt I would've heard about him, otherwise.

It is all so transparent, I am continually amazed at how easily people fall for mob psychology.

[Berkut]

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

This is funny. I'm not attempting to censor anyone. I'm not calling for the movie to be taken down. I'm not demanding that it never be seen. I'm choosing not to spend my money on it because someone associated with it has beliefs I don't like. And hopefully, if enough people do the same, then business will stop associating with people who have views I don't like.

Fixed your post for completeness.

[merithyn]

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

This is funny. I'm not attempting to censor anyone. I'm not calling for the movie to be taken down. I'm not demanding that it never be seen. I'm choosing not to spend my money on it because someone associated with it has beliefs I don't like. And hopefully, if enough people do the same, then business will stop associating with people who have views I don't like.

Fixed your post for completeness.

That's a bit rich. I've never said that I hoped "enough people do the same, then business will stop associating with people who have views I don't like." I said that I am choosing not to spend my money on it. Finite.

[Berkut]

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though.

Of course it is - it isn't active censorship by the government of course (which would clearly be illegal), but it is most certainly an attempt to silence those who have divergent viewpoints by punishing completely unrelated business activities based on those viewpoints. The goal is to make the point that associating with people who hold anti-gay rights views will have an economic cost that makes it not worth it.

This is no different, as garbon said, to someone saying they have the right to not watch a movie written by a Jew, or a black guy, or starring someone who is gay or whatever, and they would like others to do the same, so that movie makers will quit trying to make movies written by Jews.

It isn't illegal censorship of course, but it is certainly censorship.

The irony that some parts of the gay community are engaging in activity that is identical to that which they fought so hard against is almost funny, if it wasn't so depressing.

[Josephus]

How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

[Berkut]

How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

Of course it won't affect him in any real way at all, even if it works - he already made his money.

The point is to send a message to Hollywood about who they can and cannot do business with in the future.

[Camerus]

I honestly feel life is more enjoyable if you can ignore these little political tempests, and just consume the works you enjoy.  I couldn't give less of a shit what his views are on any current hot topics, so long as they don't appear polemically in the film.  I'm sure I've enjoyed countless works by people whose views on certain subjects I would strongly disagree with or even find distasteful, and my life is the richer for it.

[frunk]

How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

Of course it won't affect him in any real way at all, even if it works - he already made his money.

The point is to send a message to Hollywood about who they can and cannot do business with in the future.

Are there conditions under which a boycott would not be a hypocritical self-defeating waste of time?

[Barrister]

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though.

Of course it is - it isn't active censorship by the government of course (which would clearly be illegal), but it is most certainly an attempt to silence those who have divergent viewpoints by punishing completely unrelated business activities based on those viewpoints. The goal is to make the point that associating with people who hold anti-gay rights views will have an economic cost that makes it not worth it.

This is no different, as garbon said, to someone saying they have the right to not watch a movie written by a Jew, or a black guy, or starring someone who is gay or whatever, and they would like others to do the same, so that movie makers will quit trying to make movies written by Jews.

It isn't illegal censorship of course, but it is certainly censorship.

The irony that some parts of the gay community are engaging in activity that is identical to that which they fought so hard against is almost funny, if it wasn't so depressing.

I dunno man - I tend to avoid watching supporting Michael Moore's stuff because I strongly disagree with his politics.  I don't think of that as censorship...

[Malthus]

There are probably a good 200+ people involved in the making of a major Hollywood movie. Hell, maybe even two or three times that number. Who knows.

I can assure you that some of those people will use some of their money to do something you do not approve of, or fund some political group you don't like.

So really, you and garbon and everyone else who want to boycott this movie, need to boycott all movies. And music. And art. And plays. And food. And drink. And clothes. And everything that you can spend money on.

Because I can assure you that there is no item you buy that somewhere in the chain of people involved in getting that item to you doesn't support some cause you don't like.

Why Card and this movie deserves special consideration, I do not know.

Because Card is openly and actively working toward something that I heartily disagree with. I'm aware of it, and I have an option to support or not support his work. It's my choice how I spend my money much as it's his choice how he spends his.

Whether you understand/agree with it is irrelevant to any decision that I might make. I'm not ignorant in my choices, nor am I an "embicile".

I suppose one point Berkut is making is that the writer of a book on which a movie is based isn't the most significant major player in the making of the movie ...  A movie based on a book by Card isn't really "Card's work" in the same way as his books are, even if he writes the screenplay.

[Jacob]

Doesn't one have to act in some sort of official capacity to be a censor?

[merithyn]

I suppose one point Berkut is making is that the writer of a book on which a movie is based isn't the most significant major player in the making of the movie ...  A movie based on a book by Card isn't really "Card's work" in the same way as his books are, even if he writes the screenplay.

I disagree. It affects the sale of his books.