Please boycott Ender's game if you care about equality and the end

[BriannaElisabeth]

While I find Card's opinions repulsive, I don't think that advocating a boycott is the way to go. Hollywood is a 99.99% LGBTQ friendly industry, and the director and actors (who will make much more from the movie than Card is going to) have stated clearly that they don't share his position.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/0722/Ender-s-Game-director-and-star-discuss-the-proposed-boycott-of-the-film.
The novel and the film are also completely separate from the issue. I've read the book a few times, and I've never come across a single homophobic or anti-gay message. He is a professional, and an artist, and he knows better than to turn his work into a pamphlet for his craziness.

In principle, I also don't feel it's fair to try to shut up public figures by threatening them. They have a right to their opinion, just as much as the rest of us. He can be as wrong as he damn well pleases, and shouldn't have to fear economic instability and public outcries because he holds an unpopular opinion.

Not to mention that you'd be hard pressed to find a classic or famous author with whom your beliefs lined up perfectly. Charles Dickens is considered by most analysts to have been a racist, however he wrote wonderful books that are appreciated by most people - despite his unfortunate opinions.
In the end, Orson Scott Card is a talented author who's on the wrong side of history. But don't let his messed up thinking prevent you from enjoying a work of art. If you're against his views, there are better ways to spend your time. He is not the only one who's anti-equality. Boycott the film if it suits you, but if you're dying to see it - most of the money is going to the producers anyway.

[brokenergy]

 

You either have freedom of speech or you don't, once you put limits on it the freedom is gone. If someone says something that does lead to injury or worse then that person should be held responsible, rights do come with responsibilities, however if no harm can be proven then the person should be free to continue to speak their mind, it's not as if anyone is under any obligation to listen. You accuse him of lying, a lie is told to intentionally deceive or mislead, if he genuinely believes the nonsense he's spouting then he isn't lying, he just wrong, anyway if lies were a crime every politician in the world would be doing time, as would most of us. As I've already said I find his views repugnant but I also find this trend of silencing those who voice an opinion that doesn't fit the mainstream equally repugnant. Our liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate, we should be pushing against it, not actively helping.

 

 

If that's the case then Dark0ne should allow us to say what we want in the forums because it is Freedom of Speech and we all have the right to say what we want. He doesn't allow that because he knows what will happen if there are no mods to enforce rules which were made to make the forums a more pleasent experience. What OSC is saying can be taken to court and won on the basis of discrimination and libal against a minority group. It is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of skin, religion, eithic group, sex, sexuality, disability and policital affilication. It is also against the law to make statements that promote hate and extremist acts, as well as making false claims in public (which he does). There isn't either have it or don't when it comes to freedom of speech, having limits isn't mutually exclusive.

Edited July 30, 2013 by brokenergy

[JimboUK]

 

 

You either have freedom of speech or you don't, once you put limits on it the freedom is gone. If someone says something that does lead to injury or worse then that person should be held responsible, rights do come with responsibilities, however if no harm can be proven then the person should be free to continue to speak their mind, it's not as if anyone is under any obligation to listen. You accuse him of lying, a lie is told to intentionally deceive or mislead, if he genuinely believes the nonsense he's spouting then he isn't lying, he just wrong, anyway if lies were a crime every politician in the world would be doing time, as would most of us. As I've already said I find his views repugnant but I also find this trend of silencing those who voice an opinion that doesn't fit the mainstream equally repugnant. Our liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate, we should be pushing against it, not actively helping.

 

 

If that's the case then Dark0ne should allow us to say what we want in the forums because it is Freedom of Speech and we all have the right to say what we want. He doesn't allow that because he knows what will happen if there are no mods to enforce rules which were made to make the forums a more pleasent experience. What OSC is saying can be taken to court and won on the basis of discrimination and libal against a minority group. It is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of skin, religion, eithic group, sex, sexuality, disability and policital affilication. It is also against the law to make statements that promote hate and extremist acts, as well as making false claims in public (which he does). There isn't either have it or don't when it comes to freedom of speech, having limits isn't mutually exclusive.

 

 

No he shouldn't, this is a private site and what Dark0ne says goes, just as if Card came into my house spouting his nonsense he'd be out the door on the end of my foot. A couple of things to clear up, you cannot libel a group and he is not promoting extremist acts, that would be incitement and he'd be arrested, he is stating his opinion. He is not making false claims, he claiming what he believes to be true, anyway there is no law against making false claims unless you're using them for personal gain. You seem to be under the impression that free speech is fine as long as you agree with what's being said, it doesn't work like that. You know what's really sad about this? people are using hate to fight hate, those screaming about Card are as bad as he is. This is why debate in the west has now descended to playground level, it's become acceptable to shout other people down, to deny others their voice, to attack those you disagree with rather than attacking their argument, both sides end up doing it and the result it what we see all too often today. Reasoned discussion and debate has been replaced by hysterical modern day lynch mobs, it's shame that in the 21st century we are going backwards, funny really when you think the ones most responsible call themselves "Progressive".

[pheo3309]

 

 

You either have freedom of speech or you don't, once you put limits on it the freedom is gone. If someone says something that does lead to injury or worse then that person should be held responsible, rights do come with responsibilities, however if no harm can be proven then the person should be free to continue to speak their mind, it's not as if anyone is under any obligation to listen. You accuse him of lying, a lie is told to intentionally deceive or mislead, if he genuinely believes the nonsense he's spouting then he isn't lying, he just wrong, anyway if lies were a crime every politician in the world would be doing time, as would most of us. As I've already said I find his views repugnant but I also find this trend of silencing those who voice an opinion that doesn't fit the mainstream equally repugnant. Our liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate, we should be pushing against it, not actively helping.

 

 

If that's the case then Dark0ne should allow us to say what we want in the forums because it is Freedom of Speech and we all have the right to say what we want. He doesn't allow that because he knows what will happen if there are no mods to enforce rules which were made to make the forums a more pleasent experience. What OSC is saying can be taken to court and won on the basis of discrimination and libal against a minority group. It is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of skin, religion, eithic group, sex, sexuality, disability and policital affilication. It is also against the law to make statements that promote hate and extremist acts, as well as making false claims in public (which he does). There isn't either have it or don't when it comes to freedom of speech, having limits isn't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

Pardon if I may, the thing is, privately owned sites that have a ToS isn't like the social world around us. Meaning off of the internet. It doesn't work like a public forum on the internet. Freedom of Speech in the states is the right to say what's on your mind. It's against the law to discriminate in some STATES, not all of them. For instance in the state that I live in, I can get fired for being openly gay. I can get denied housing. I can get denied jobs, benefits, and anything else. If you're trying to define hate speech as a hate crime, there's a fine line between them in the legal world. Hate speech is speech based on hate. That's not illegal, however frowned upon and normally gives people a bad reputation in a rational acting community. A hate CRIME is a crime based on prejudices such as race, sex, orientation, nationality, and other prejudices in which is carried out typically through violence or circumvention to specific rights (If you're in a state that embraces equality and has an equal opportunity law for LGBT in the workplace, being fired or denied a job is a hate crime). It's something that the courts use to determine biased-motivated violence. Nothing about speech in there. If that comes to pass, the world we'd be living in with regards to 'other prejudices' is the simple fact that people who are against say, a certain video game industry, can be labeled as hate speakers and ergo punished by law if people see fit. Speech would change drastically, and not for the better.

 

And for the record, I have to agree with Jim, it seems that people are fighting hatred with hatred. Kreia from KoTOR II said it best; "To be united by hatred, is a fragile alliance at best." I also agree with Jim on the fact that Mr. Card believes what he's saying due to several psychological perspectives. How many elitists are speaking out against homosexuality? We have the WBC, the Wallbuilders, DC 40, several political parties, people who organize claiming that it isn't natural, and more. We have homosexuals being killed in Africa, yet we're more concerned what a successful author is stating more than organizations that he's funded? That's why I can agree with the boycott, but I don't agree with silencing him. It's virtually the same thing that they're doing to us. I mean, by all means, do what you want with protest, but there are those of us that don't agree with exacting them with the same tactic as they're doing unto us. Logically, we can't end hate. It's an emotional extremity based on dislike. If you plan on ending hate, you have to look at where it begins, which is in the psychological spectrum. Not the political one. One cannot end hate.

 

To end hate means to actually take out the ability to dislike. Which means there would never be any arguments, there would never be opposing sides, and no one would be fighting for their rights essentially because there wouldn't be anyone disliking the ideas. It's improbable to end hate. It's something I as a gay male have come to accept. Not only because it doesn't affect me, but I had to answer to myself "How would it affect me?" As long as they're not physically harming me or stopping me from getting a job in non-at will states, they've no power over me. I don't have to defend myself against someone like Mr. Card, because 1) he's stating that most homosexuals were sexually assaulted or seduced into it. Unless he can bend the laws of physics and time travel, it's not logically possible. 2) Sure he's funded some organizations, but what about the other organizations that actually HAVE political standing such as the Wallbuilders, DC 40, the 28 State Republican Parties, bigger businesses, other religious groups, and individuals such as US Senators, US House of Representative politicians, governors, and world leaders? Which these groups DO affect me being as they pay into the campaigns, the bills, most of the slogans, the hype.

 

Furthermore, I don't see a need to defend myself against someone like Mr. Card. Again, he's not in power. If he were to be on the street in my face about it, I'd tell him to check with a therapist or psychologist. Seriously. That much hate, there's bound to be a mental problem with it. A fear or something that has people like that so hysterical over such issues. We don't affect them, why are they so abrasive to us? There's a reason why. Most of the time I can guarantee it's psychological. Whether it's through traditional family values gone extreme, to religious figure manipulation (note, it's not the religion that does the harm, it's the people leading such congregations), to even issues within themselves over their own sexuality that they don't understand that they fear and/or come to dislike and eventually hate. From that perspective, I can understand why they're being irrational about the subject. Doesn't make it right, but it does harbor an explanation. Each one of us is guilty of such perspectives based on a dislike or extreme dislike of something. It's human nature and it always will. It doesn't make it right for us to do it either, but we do it anyway. And you know what? We try to justify it. Just like trying to justify silencing Mr. Card. So again, sorry if I make anyone upset, but please don't fight hatred with hate. Because silencing him is based on hatred and THAT would be a hate crime against him, an unconstitutional one. It's also not illegal for him to say such things. If it was, there would be plenty of people taken to court and sued who have said worse things. The case wouldn't even make it to circuit courts. But if you're going to actually ask a judge or/and jury for punishment on him, it'll be thrown out for the fact that it's an unconstitutional right to circumvent the freedom of speech. For your prejudices in calling for his silence. You'd be making him a very valuable martyr which actually goes against equality. Equality goes all across the board into that regard. So would you be willing to sacrifice your right to fight for yourselves vocally at the expense at silencing a bigot? Because I'm sure not willing to do that.

 

Edit: Clarifying on how certain law aspects based on US Federal and various State laws.

Edited July 30, 2013 by pheo3309

[brokenergy]

Anywhere that allows you post stuff is considered public space, from the website forums like this to facebook and news sites. While there are private rules governing from location to location, the servers locations have to follow the laws governed in that nation. Meaning while you can edit stuff here and enjoy anonymity, what you originally release will stay up in the public space forever and follows the laws in that nation. Furthermore, a good hacker can track you down to your IP address and pin-point your location. You have lost all means of privacy the moment that you have stepped into the Internet.

 

I don't care what OSC says or his work, what I care about is that if he wants respect he should start by giving it to other and apologies to the people that he has hurt. And if some of you people don't think that he is breaking the law just because he has the right to say it, well I don't know what to do but to point to the laws in question. If you don't like it, fine but they are designed to protect people who are at the most vulnerable and words hurt more than physical violance.

[i3luemrld]

This really is a silly argument. Your wanting to boycot Card. So your boycotting a movie that has more people invested in it that are for the LGBT community than not. This effort will harm people who stand for your cause rather than one individual. There is one bigot involved in this production and multiple non bigots whom support the LGBT cause. Here take a look at this...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/07/12/lionsgate-enders-game/2513311/

 

 

By the way i am a christian, this type of reaction would be akin to me not buying anything from 90% of the world...

 

One last thing, what Card is saying is not a hate crime, he can say what ever he wants. Now if Card hired people to kick homosexuals out of the theater that were watching his move that would be a hate crime. The difference is one is verbal discrimination, opinion, the other is discrimination in action. If verbal discrimination was a crime than well... the internet would be shut down because the net is full of it. Just to flip the tables.... this argument is a discrimination about people who disagree with you. The ley is not to fight bigots, because that just turns you into a bigot, but rather to ignore them and let them shoot them selves in the foot and Card will reap what he is sowing. Oh by the way that Facebook page that is organizing this boycott is full of posts that are generalizing Mormons, which is actually kind of funny cause they claim not to stand for bigotry and discrimination while actively discriminating and being a bigot themselves.

 

A word to the wise; be careful to avoid becoming what you hate, by stooping to its level. You can't win rights by trampling on another's rights, he has the freedom to be stupid, and you have the freedom to protest. Take away one and you and you wont have either.

[JimboUK]

Anywhere that allows you post stuff is considered public space, from the website forums like this to facebook and news sites. While there are private rules governing from location to location, the servers locations have to follow the laws governed in that nation. Meaning while you can edit stuff here and enjoy anonymity, what you originally release will stay up in the public space forever and follows the laws in that nation. Furthermore, a good hacker can track you down to your IP address and pin-point your location. You have lost all means of privacy the moment that you have stepped into the Internet.

 

I don't care what OSC says or his work, what I care about is that if he wants respect he should start by giving it to other and apologies to the people that he has hurt. And if some of you people don't think that he is breaking the law just because he has the right to say it, well I don't know what to do but to point to the laws in question. If you don't like it, fine but they are designed to protect people who are at the most vulnerable and words hurt more than physical violance.

 

I didn't say this site could ignore the law, you said Dark0ne should allow us to say what we want on these forums if we have free speech, I pointed out why he doesn't have to. If you're going to reply then reply to what I said, don't misrepresent what I said and then reply to your misrepresentation, that's commonly know as a strawman.

 

There are two ways to deal with the likes of Card, the first is to ignore him. The second is to attack his argument (not him) in a calm and rational way, what he's peddling is laughable, it wouldn't take much to leave him looking like a fool. Get him on a talk show, show the world what a idiot he is but do it in a civilised manner, don't sink to his level, two wrongs don't make a right. You should also drop the "vulnerable" line, it's insulting, gay people are no different to the rest of us, some are vulnerable, some aren't. Being gay doesn't make you weak and unable to defend yourself.

[OpheliaNeoma]

So, what this 'boycott' is isn't about the book, it's about "only those who judge should be judged themselves"

 

His personal feelings, I don't agree with, the man has a right to express his beliefs. I never read the book, but if the book itself doesn't have an anti-LGBT theme then it shouldn't be an issue with the book. The man may be a bigot but that doesn't mean he should be hated. Hating someone because they hate will just bring hate towards yourself.

 

 

EDIT: It's like boycotting a new Disney movie because of Walt being antisemitic.

Edited July 30, 2013 by SgtHighwaters

[pheo3309]

Anywhere that allows you post stuff is considered public space, from the website forums like this to facebook and news sites. While there are private rules governing from location to location, the servers locations have to follow the laws governed in that nation. Meaning while you can edit stuff here and enjoy anonymity, what you originally release will stay up in the public space forever and follows the laws in that nation. Furthermore, a good hacker can track you down to your IP address and pin-point your location. You have lost all means of privacy the moment that you have stepped into the Internet.

 

I don't care what OSC says or his work, what I care about is that if he wants respect he should start by giving it to other and apologies to the people that he has hurt. And if some of you people don't think that he is breaking the law just because he has the right to say it, well I don't know what to do but to point to the laws in question. If you don't like it, fine but they are designed to protect people who are at the most vulnerable and words hurt more than physical violance.

 

 

Anywhere online that allows you to post things has a Terms of Service, which that link states that it can be law abiding in it's usage area. When claiming to read a Terms of Service, you're claiming that you acknowledge it and it's in abidance to it's regulations to engage with the services requested. For forums, if you break the rules which even the Nexus states in their Terms of Service, you're accepting the punishments carried by the Terms of Service and rules because you breached the contract. They no longer have to hold up their end of the bargain. In fact, most sites that allow you to post, has something in regards to hate speech in their ToS and how it's unacceptable to post on their sites. Doesn't stop them though and it's not punishable by law, which I'll get to in the next paragraph.

 

Hate speak is quite different than hate crimes. Hate speech issues that went to trial but never became law (Supreme Court Case Law), to be specific about hate speech WOULD be illegal is quoted here.

 

Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, social implementation has failed in the past and it's almost the same thing you're saying exists today. Both of these links go to Wikipedia, however that doesn't mean it's not a credible source in accordance to this. Investigate the resources given at the bottom and you'll find specific court cases, law books, and laws that are in what we call "good law" which means it's still valid. I also encourage you to read about the constitutional framework as it describes much of why the court cases failed.

 

I also encourage for you to read this, which the specifics I'll quote:

 

 

Hate crime law Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:

1. laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
2. criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
3. laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
4. laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.^[15] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanitywith the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.

 

Which is also summed up nicely at the top of that page briefly with:

Hate crime laws are distinct laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.

 

Then going to what is exactly prohibited by law in terms of hate crimes in the United States, there's two things for you to check out. This which states about hate crimes in the United States briefly on main Hate Crimes page on Wikipedia. Then there's this which states hate crime laws already in good law with the US. Note that some of these aren't federal and they're actually state laws. There's not very many federal laws that protect homosexuals. For instance the state where I reside in, has something called At Will Employment. I can get fired for being gay. I can also be denied these.

 

I understand that Mr. Card and people like him upset you, but you have to remember hate is an extreme dislike on something. A prejudice. We're all prejudiced in some way shape or fashion. Does it excuse their behavior? No. But what they're saying isn't illegal. If it was, we'd all be either doing time or sued to silence. There's a difference as of what people are stating the law is rather than what's actually in good law in the US as well as what they actually are.

Edited July 30, 2013 by pheo3309

[Lisnpuppy]

((For those that don't know The Nexus is a British website and would follow those laws. The US Supreme Court probably wouldn't come into play here.

 

However I think all that is off-topic anyway? :) ))