Good night, Mrs. Calabash.

I’m just baffled at what you think is wrong with this. Peter David has first amendment rights to say whatever he wants, and so does everyone else who has anything to say in regard to what he says. No one is acting against the First Amendment. No one is calling for government censorship of anyone. Everyone is using their first amendment rights to speak, and disagree: what’s the problem with this?

Mike, you seem to be confused as to what free speech is. Free speech is the right to say what you want. It’s not the right not to be disagreed with.

A boycott is free speech. I’m not following what you don’t understand about this. What makes you think a boycott is somehow anti-free-speech? Boycotts have historically been some of the most effective exercises of free speech ever used: in the era of the fight for African-American civil rights, segregated facilities were boycotted in numerous boycotts. I don’t understand what you think is wrong with a voluntary boycott, or how it’s in any way an act against free speech.

No one subjected to a boycott is having their free speech limited; they’re merely being met with other free speech.

“Maybe you’re just dancing around scoring meaningless points.”

It’s really not necessary to make these sort of personal accusations, Mike. I’m not making original points in a topic no one has ever discussed before, and I don’t understand why you’re responding as if you’re being personally attacked. Is there some reason we can’t have a perfectly civil and friendly conversation about these issues?

I’m not aware that this blog has so much influence that it is going to sway one person, let along fandom, to do anything.

I do think that it is ok to advocate for political action in a blog, regardless of the audience it is pointed at, but I also think that it someone else’s right to advocate for the opposite viewpoint and for someone else to decide that it is an issue they’d rather not get involved in.

I also think that most, if not all of us here, are capable of understanding that each of us is made up of more than one view on more than one issue, and I hope that we remember more of the commonalities than we do the differences when discussing things.

You’re “strongly” in support of free speech. You’re also defending the advocacy of a boycott against Peter David who was exercising his First Amendment rights in authoring this game. Or are you? Maybe you’re just dancing around scoring meaningless points.

Now, I happened to fully support the ERA, and the boycott, myself, but I never thought that the people who were counter-boycotting the convention were doing anything wrong, or that they didn’t have the perfect right to demonstrate their opinions that way, and agitate in favor of their opinions. I don’t understand why I would object to anyone engaging in free speech: I certainly wouldn’t object to it simply because I think it’s silly speech, or wrongheaded.

A bunch of groups boycotted Disney because Disney had Gay Days (unofficially, that is, but Disney didn’t, I dunno, beat up the gay people, or whatever). I thought that was a silly and wrongheaded boycott, but I have no objection to those people expressing their views by trying to organize a boycott.

I just don’t understand what’s wrong with people trying to boycott whatever they want, and voice their opinion about it, and persuade others: it’s all free speech, and I support free speech. (Strongly.)

If you can help me understand where we’re disagreeing, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

No, I’m not following, Mike. How can the internet be used to “compel” anyone?

This seems to be a basic premise to your argument, and I don’t understand it at all. Nor do I understand what’s wrong with a bunch of individuals agreeing with each other. If that’s “collective” by virtue of people agreeing to do something, what’s wrong with that? No one is “compelling” anyone else to agree with them?

Do you think there’s something inherently wrong with people freely choosing to engage in a boycott, if that’s what they feel like doing? If so, why? If not, than what’s your problem here?

“Have you forgotten the proposition advanced in this blog post,”

Perhaps it would help if you quote the specific lines you have a problem with?

Also, might I suggest that a bit of good faith with one’s interlocuter goes a long way towards preventing a pleasant discussing from becoming unpleasant? There’s no need to assume bad faith and accuse anyone of “pretending” anything, rather than simply presuming that they simply aren’t following your argument, or might disagree on legitimate grounds. Let’s keep this friendly, please?

You seem to summarize your statement as: “It is that by the use of our fannish social network people should organize economic sanctions against Card. And not only against Card, but apparently, anybody who does business with him.”

And my response is: and? So what? Why shouldn’t people be free to make these individual choices? Would you have them constrained somehow? I’m not following what anyone is doing wrong here, or why they shouldn’t engage in these actions if they like. The cause is irrelevant: everyone is free to spend their money as they wish, engage in speech as they wish, and attempt to persuade others of their views. What’s wrong with any of this? One is equally free to disagree back, and also attempt to persuade anyone you like that anyone else is wrong, etc., and that’s fine too. But what’s the wrong act that anyone is doing that is somehow wrong?

But is that what this post advocates? No, it advocates collective action by the readers of the post who have not already adopted the plan.

And here I am, a reader who has not already adopted this plan.

So don’t agree. What’s the problem? Is anyone coming to threaten you for not agreeing with them?

I’m not following what your argument is beyond that people disagree with you, and you seem to be saying that, well, they shouldn’t. Which just leaves me scratching my head, so surely I must be misunderstanding you, because you must have some other point than that. I apologize that I’m not, as yet, understanding what it is.

Personally, I don’t feel moved to help organize any campaigns against Scott Card, but I don’t see why I should object to those who do feel so moved so doing. I’m fine with everyone expressing their opinions as they like, including advocating boycotts of whatever they like. People have lots of boycotts that I think are silly, or are against things I support. So what? People have opinions. Either I argue with them, or I don’t.

Have you forgotten the proposition advanced in this blog post, the one your comments are appended to, but are only remotely relevant to?

It is not that individuals may take offense at Card’s views.

It is not even that individuals should express the offense they have taken.

It is that by the use of our fannish social network people should organize economic sanctions against Card. And not only against Card, but apparently, anybody who does business with him.

It’s one thing for you individuals who feel so strongly about this to stop buying Card’s books (an example you should find easy to set, because when did you ever?) or anything based on them.

But is that what this post advocates? No, it advocates collective action by the readers of the post who have not already adopted the plan.

And here I am, a reader who has not already adopted this plan.

I agree it’s too bad that Card says some of the things he does. But again, that’s not the end to which this post attempts to lead fans, it’s to a collective response because some of you feel Card’s opinions are so egregious they must be punished by something much stronger than your personal censure.

But the collective assumption breaks down when I consider the real-world interaction of gay fans and Orson Scott Card. Two different gay fans (one I mentioned, the other co-chaired Loscon 27) each invited Card to be the guest of honor at their con.

The collectivity breaks down because there is evidently a diversity of feeling about Card even among gay fans.

Some of them don’t see him as a person who has to be excommunicated from the field of science fiction whatever his opinions may be.

This call to take economic action against Card and others involved in business with him on the presumed authority of a community opinion about Card among gay fans which I know from personal experience isn’t at all unanimous.

I see it as just another of the frequent attempts to use the internet to compel a political orthodoxy among fans, with the added feature this time that not all the people it allegedly helps feel that they need to be saved from Card.