No, sorry, doesnt fly. There is an enormous difference between censorship of ideas, and also “separation of artist and work”, and calling concerned people not to give their money to somebody that is ACTIVELY working for hateful causes and WILL use the money and prestige of it for advancing his agenda of hate.
I’m really disappointed with Mr. Doctorow on this issue. (Although in this case is not something that makes me think he is an awful human being, just I hoped he would see things differently). But as somebody that read and loved Ender’s Game, I CANT in good conscience go and put my money into it knowing that is not that Card is an asshole, is that he is an active political player for hate, discrimination, and fear-mongering.
BTW he is now weaselwording some “truce” in the most hypocrital, coward way. Something like “we lost the fight so I hope the winners are tolerant of our disagreement”. Which is repugnant considering the disagreement is on how somebody should be thrown to jail to encourage others not to be pro gay rights and stuff like that. Or the whole death of democracy, upraise to save the country stuff. Or…
I hope everyone of you reconsider and think, really, if the enjoyment of a movie trumps the fact that YOUR support is going to be used for advancing the cause of oppressing others for their sexual orientation. Because is not an issue of personal failings, and is not an issue of Ender’s Game content. Is an issue of OSC political activity toward gay discrimination and his capability to keep working toward harming others.
My philosophy is, if somebody has the surplus time, money, or power to devote to denying the fundamental rights of others, then otherwise-wrong acts that serve to reduce that surplus (or prevent it from increasing), become justifiable and occasionally moral. So long as the acts fall short of serious harm to people, anyway.
In other words, I won’t be paying to see the movie, but will pirate it freely. (And it may even be a double-dip: Card for his homophobia, and movie studios for supporting SOPA, ACTA, PIPA, etc!)
Great idea. If the studio were to guarantee donating Card’s total income from the movie to LGBT rights, Card would be paid, his idiocy would be highlighted, his harms can be undone. Everybody wins - and I would have no reason to boycott the movie.
I don’t believe in blacklists either. Or crucifying people in the public eye before facts have been established (see Sunil Tripathi). However, boycotts are historically a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, as they are voluntary and nonviolent. It is a function and cornerstone of free market capitalism. Boycotts can be part of moral purchasing efforts and consumer activism, allowing different voices to be heard than just the ones in power. Is it fundamentally different from when BoingBoing was rallying support against SOPA? Maybe it’s apples and oranges. But it all stems from the same tree of civic responsibility.
Personal beliefs are one thing. Making them public is an action which opens you to criticism, particularly when you have an audience and a platform with which to do so. When Card joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage, it was the last straw in translating those “personal” beliefs into actions. He has a long, public history of radical anti-gay rhetoric and actions which consistently and deliberately hurt, defame, and undermine the LGBT community and those who support it. I support Card’s right to exercise free speech and to believe things that I don’t. With the knowledge I now have though, I cannot willingly spend money on his works and I think it’s important for people to know why.
Everyone has a choice. All choices have consequences. But honestly, shrugging one’s shoulders at LGBT nerds and their allies will do far more insidious damage by implying that their voices don’t matter, aren’t welcome, and they should not be respected even amongst their fellow geeks. Especially when the choice is presented at their expense.
“Let’s be clear — the right to free speech is the right to express oneself without state retaliation. It is not a right to speak without social retaliation. Speech has consequences. Among those consequences are condemnation, vituperation, scorn, ridicule, and pariah status. Those consequences represent other people exercising their free speech rights. That’s a feature of the marketplace of ideas, not a bug.”
[quote=“SteampunkBanana, post:144, topic:3138”]
…this looks like a horrible movie made by detestable people.
[/quote]That’s fine, but it’s not really a “boycott” if you don’t watch a movie you had no desire to see in the first place.
I don’t think the people calling for a “boycott” of Ender’s Game actually understand how boycotts work. People see or don’t see movies for any reason, or for no reason at all. “Boycotting” a particular movie is going to have no measurable effect on the film industry – there’s no way to distinguish the economic impact of a boycott from the impact of bad word-of-mouth from just being a crappy movie no one wants to see.
The grape boycott of the 1970s didn’t target those industrial farms that were screwing over the UFW, and it didn’t just target the farming operations that were in conflict with Cesar Chavez in California. It didn’t target tomatoes or tobacco or apples. It targeted table grapes – all table grapes, and only table grapes. It was the impact on fruit distributors and grocers that was directly measurable, and it was pressure from the distributors and grocers that forced the ag industry to sit at the table with the UFW.
An effective boycott against Ender’s Game would target his film distributor, not just one particular film, and it would start now, not when the movie is released. A boycott, starting right now, against Card’s distributor could pressure the distributor to drop the film before its release. That would mean refusing to see any film distributed by that distributor, regardless of content. That would leave Card’s production company swinging in the breeze, trying to find a new distributor – one who would know that picking up Ender’s for distribution is going to cut profits across the board.
Like it or not, that’s how a real boycott works. It’s ugly, a lot of innocent people get swept up in it, and it’s not a tactic to be taken lightly. But just saying, “Ooh, I’m not going to pay to see Ender’s Game” is not a boycott, and it won’t make any difference.
Alexander Graham Bell was the honorary president of the Second International Congress of Eugenics. He thought “the deaf” could be permanently bred out of society.
I, for one, am boycotting the use of all telephones and I suggest you all do the same.
I too love Ender’s game and sequels, but abhor Card. I have not supported his income by buying only used copies of his books and will do so for the movie DVD when it’s been out for awhile. I feel more true to myself by doing this.
So… is the correct response to stop caring about important social issues if we’re not willing to interrogate every single person we come in contact with about their views? To put our head in the sand? The other side of the coin here is supporting businesses that are friendly to social causes/issues you support. Everyone gets to decide what is or is not important to them and what they do or do not want to do about it. And then other people get to disagree.
I read Ender’s Game as a teenager and loved it. Once I was older and I realized the radical stance and actions that Card had taken against LGBT people, it sucked all the enjoyment out of his work for me. I can’t go anywhere near his works now without feeling disgusted by the things he’s done and said.
So yes, if people wanted to boycott Lovecraft’s work, they would have every right to. And once again, we would all have the choice to agree or disagree, as well as do something or do nothing about it. That’s just a free market.
I disagree. Look at the way Hollywood works. If Card gets really bad press and his movie does poorly, it will be blamed on the bad press even if it is a poor movie. No one wants to admit they made a crappy movie. The people who worked on the movie have already been paid, it is the investors (and it sounds like Card is getting a percentage on top of what he already got) who will lose out. Investors who lose money won’t back a second Card vehicle. In Hollywood popularity is everything. Just having a reputation as someone who might cause people to not see your movie is enough to scare Hollywood producers, directors and studios.
I don’t care about the Hugo award. I’m talking about a book that presented the Milgram experiments in a science fiction form. A book that theorized the internet before the internet existed. A book that presented exploitation of children in the disturbing light that it should be shown in.
But to compare it to Hogwarts? I can understand that you dislike the book, but to say that it’s a Hogwarts in Space is pretty intellectually lazy. Magic? There’s no magic in Ender’s Game.
who is denying Card the ability to contribute? he has been and will continue to be very successful despite his hateful views. doesn’t mean i have to help him out. i loved the book when i was too young/ignorant to know his personal views.
I’ve been thinking about this topic since this post, and the more I consider it, the more it confuses me. Today I read Card’s response to the boycott.
Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
Now, beyond the fact that the issue clearly isn’t over and done with, what interests me here is the claim that the movie has nothing to do with the political views Card expressed, which has been part of the argument I’m seeing from many weighing in against an Ender’s Game boycott… It’s worth noting that chicken sandwiches also have nothing to do with individual statements about gay marriage, either, but that didn’t stop many people, (including me,) from boycotting Chick-Fil-A. That boycott, as I recall, seemed to be painted on Boing Boing in a fairly positive light; it was seen as a good idea, a good message. I don’t see the difference between the two boycotts. I was not originally invested in in an Ender’s Game boycott, but the more I think about it, the more I feel I should be. I have stopped patronizing many businesses because their CEOs or founders have pushed an anti-homosexual position and I can’t for the life of me figure out any reason Card should be treated differently. If boycotting Dan Cathy’s restaurant chain is a good idea, then so is boycotting Orson Scott Card’s film adaption.
people always make this false equivalency between “boycott” and “blacklist” because… “sensorship”!
as others have said, it’s not the samething. it was applied by Bill Maher of all people with regards to Paula Deen. she wasn’t sensored. she was fired for not being in line with what the network wanted for marketing. it’s business. you should expect to be fired if you are an asshole in the view of your consumer.
Maher probably feels this is a bit close to home, so couldn’t help but project his fear. I suspect it might be partially the same with Doctorow here.
Card may be the product of his environment, like Deen, but has expressed the opposite of ability to change or grow. Card has stomped all over the very memory he gave me in reading his books. i refuse to give him more power to promote his hateful views.
I love that he brings up tolerance. As in… “Yeah, I hated and persecuted you guys for years, and yeah, I called for open and armed rebellion against the US and the Obama administration… and yeah, I called you all enemies of God and the republic… and , okay, sure, I might have been involved with calling for death for Ugandans who were gay (and others too). But now, if you have ANY ill feelings towards me, YOU’RE being intolerant! That makes you bad!”
Ugh. It’s like getting civility lessons from Pol Pot.
