Robot 6

Three more stores decide not to stock Card’s Superman comic [Updated]

Adventures of Superman #1

Adventures of Superman #1

At least three more retailers have joined Dallas’ Zeus Comics in deciding not to stock the first issue of the DC Comics anthology Adventures of Superman, which features a story by sci-fi author and vocal gay-rights opponent Orson Scott Card.

Citing the author’s efforts against the legalization of same-sex marriage, Whatever Store in San Francisco, I Like Comics in Vancouver, Washington, and Ralph’s Comic Corner in Ventura, California, have all said they won’t carry the print edition of the digital-first comic when it’s released May 29. (However, Mike Sterling, manager of Ralph’s, said his store will still order “the couple of copies for customers who have preexisting, ongoing comic savers for Superman items.”)

Best known for his award-winning 1985 novel Ender’s Game, Card has become notorious for his outspoken views on homosexuality and his advocacy against gay rights. A board member of the National Organization for Marriage, a group dedicated to the opposition of same-sex marriage, the author has tried to link homosexuality to childhood molestation, and advocated home-schooling to ensure children “are not propagandized with the ‘normality’ of ‘gay marriage.'” Following rulings by “dictator-judges” in 2008 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, Card infamously endorsed a government overthrow.

DC’s announcement last week that he would contribute to Adventures of Superman sparked almost immediate outcry, leading the gay-rights advocacy initiative All Out to spearhead a petition demanding the publisher drop the author. As of this afternoon, more than 12,000 people have signed. DC is standing firm, however, releasing a statement that said, “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, whose group launched boycotts last year against Starbucks and General Mills for their support of marriage equality, spoke out against the Card backlash, saying, “This is completely un-American and it needs to be stopped, “Simply because we stand up for traditional marriage, some people feel like it’s okay to target us for intimidation and punishment.”

For the three retailers, the issue comes down to whether they can justify supporting, even in a small way, someone who advocates denying marriage rights to lesbians and gays.

“We refuse to give money to someone who will then turn around and use that money to fund more anti-gay hatred,” Whatever Store wrote on its Facebook page.

In an email to ROBOT 6, I Like Comics owner Chris Simons explained, “After reading about what he [Card] believes and what he does to back up those beliefs I’ve just made the decision not to carry that book either. While Washington just recently legalized gay marriage I’m in a part of the state that definitely leans to the conservative and I expect some fallout from my actions. I know how naive this may sound, but it’s what Clark Kent would do. To me, at their core, comics are mostly about doing the right thing no matter what the cost. If I can see this and back it up with my actions I can’t imagine why DC can’t do the same.”

Sterling, a longtime comics blogger, acknowledged his store’s position on Card is a little inconsistent, but said in this situation a boundary has been crossed. “I know, I know … we carried the Ender’s Game comics. We’ve carried other comics by creators with reprehensible positions (though mostly expressed via Internet hot air, rather than being on a board, like Card, to try to enforce those positions on people),” he wrote this morning on his blog. “But this particular Superman comic is the one where the line is being drawn, where a message is hopefully being sent that we don’t want to support someone who is on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of progress, and, when you get right down to it, on the wrong side of basic human decency.”

UPDATE (Saturday, Feb. 16, at 6:45 a.m.): Funny Business in Nyack, New York, also won’t be stocking the comic, with owner Chris Barchuk writing in ROBOT 6’s comments, “I would never tell one of my customers that I will not order a book for them. They are the customer and have the right to read whatever they want. What I did tell my customers is that I will not stock this book on my shelves and if they want it they will have [to] special order it. (Just so that you know not a single customer has asked to order it.)”

“He continued, “What I really find odd in this whole thing is Mr Cards decision to work for DC. To me it shows a lack of conviction on his part. For Mr Card to have these wild opinions about gay marriage and then agree to work for a company that 7 months ago reintroduced a major character(Alan Scott) as a gay man who in his first appearance asks his gay lover to marry him just seems strange. I am very much so a supporter of equal rights and if I for example knew that a company was supportive of the KKK I would never turn a blind eye to that fact for a paycheck. Mr Card has made comments about overthrowing the government if the legalize gay marriage but yet he will work for a company that seems very open to the idea of gay marriage and gay rights? … Not to let DC off the hook I also find it is sending a confusing message when they so actively support the gay lifestyle yet they hire someone who is so against that. It shows a lack of forethought on their part not seeing this as a confusing message.”

Meanwhile, Challengers Comics in Chicago is taking a different approach to the controversy. In a blog post titled “All Things Being Equal,” the store revealed it will donate all of its profits from the sales of Card’s Adventures of Superman to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights advocacy group: “I think [Challengers co-owner] W. Dal Bush put it best when we were discussing this via email: ‘I’d rather take his book, that his royalties might go to anti-equality causes, and use it to fund pro-equality causes. Plus our profits per book are more than his royalties per book, so, like, double f**k him.’”

News From Our Partners

Comments

289 Comments

Comixology will have the digital issues for these customers.

Wonder if these shops sold/continue to sell Ultimate Iron Man. Odd no one whined about Marvel.

Sounds like Sterling was trying to appease his customers more than his conscience. He admits he never took a stand before this, but now the “line must be drawn”? Right.

Charles J. Baserap

February 15, 2013 at 12:09 pm

I wonder if they’re also removing any back issues or trades they may have of Ultimate Iron I and II, or the Ender’s Game stuff, if they have any of those, or if they already did that when those books were released since Card’s views have been public record for many years.

Chicago Comics on Clark Street told me they will not be carrying it.

Well done, free market.

I can’t believe that retailers of Superman comics would have the gall to stand up for Truth, Justice and the American way!

It’s an outrage!!!1!

— MrJM

Guys, the man definitely already addressed the matter of Ender’s Game comics, so you can stop wondering…

“Card has become notorious for his outspoken views on homosexuality and his advocacy against gay rights.”
Yeah…we know. It’s been bigger than the ACTUAL stories in ACTUAL comics. Way to make sure that people can’t buy comics, guys. Awesome move.

I’d really like to see Chris Samnee’s art please.

@ Camoron, Would you rather he never draw the line at all?

Card has become significantly more odious since Ultimate Iron Man was published in 05-08. He joined the board of the National Organization of Marriage in 2009, and wrote his “gay people are created by pedophiles” interpretation of Hamlet in 2008 (which was re-printed in 2011).

Many people’s opinions on such matters can evolve over 5-8 years.

Finally: When was the last time anyone brought up Ultimate Iron Man in any context? It seemed to be forgotten shortly after publication, if not earlier.

@A_Nominus, no, I’d rather he not be a hypocritical bandwagon-jumper. Censorship sucks, I don’t care what the reason is.

Why are people defending Card? He’s a homophobic piece of shit. At least he’s on the losing side of history.

It’s not censorship, it’s refusing to sell a particular product

Retailers deciding not to order a product isn’t censorship, it’s capitalism.

Please change the link in the story. Whatever… is different from Whatever Comics. Whatever… is the one that will not be selling it. Whatever Comics is a store in the UK. Use this link if you need to. Thanks!

https://www.facebook.com/WhateverStore

Preventing people from buying comics? Please. Anybody who wants this’ll be able to get it.

Which stores are going to boycott DC’s new Harlan Ellison book over his association with Ed Kramer??

I find it odd the Marvel has been publishing Ender stuff through July of last year, but no one in the comics community protested Marvel or stopped carrying those books. Not that his views are acceptable, but it seems unfair to call DC a morally bankrupt company when its biggest competitor hires the same artist to create for it.

WF, retailers don’t order every comic published; they make decisions what to carry, and what not to carry, on a regular basis.

In this instance they’re not preventing people from buying comics; they’re just saying you can’t buy them at their stores. There are plenty of other places to get the comic.

Yeah, that’s a fair comparison.

That was @chap, BTW.

“We refuse to give money to someone who will then turn around and use that money to fund more anti-gay hatred,” Whatever Comics wrote on its Facebook page.

Well he probably already has. I am pretty sure an author like Card was paid for his script by DC. Not too likely to get any more money on the backend.(No pun intended) So not carrying the book is just another reason why a heartless opinionless open 24/7 site like Comixology trumps the aging LCS.

So basically if someone believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are no longer allowed to earn a living – they should be boycotted until they change their mind or they die.

I am pro gay marriage, but this is a monstrous position. Economic boycotts, while not an infringement of free speech rights, still have the same effect.

If the movie industry’s communist blacklist was evil and monstrous, this is as well. At some point, conservatives will effectively use economic boycotts against a favored progressive political position, and things will spiral out of control from there.

@*****, refusing to carry a product because you object to what’s in it (in this case, not even that) is censorship. That decision should be up to the consumer. It doesn’t matter that it’s available elsewhere or that the government isn’t doing it. It’s still censorship on their part. I don’t appreciate when Wal-Mart tries to sell me edited albums with the profanity removed and I don’t appreciate this. Don’t get me wrong, it’s completely within their right to do it, I just disagree with it.

I’m going to buy this issue just out of prinicipal. Who cares what his personal opinions are. We all have them.

*principle.

It’s lunch time and my blood sugar is low.

I know this will get me alot of flack but I loved Ender’s Game and ultimate iron man and alot of other books that Card has written. I never knew about his anti-gay marriage beliefs before and that surprised me. That being said, I have difficulty giving up one of my all time favorite authors because of his personal beliefs (they are opposite mine in this regard). I choose to see it the same way that I see Ray Lewis or a favorite actor. I might admire their work and continue to support, that doesn’t mean that I support their actions or their personal beliefs. Is that really so wrong?

@Chris, I wouldn’t expect any of these protesting comic shops to stop carrying the Ender’s Game comics, either. Especially not as we get closer to the film being released later this year and the slew of movie tie-in comics that will accompany it. We’ll see then just how committed these comic shops are to their stance when it would involve more than just canceling orders for a mere two Superman comics.

Charles J. Baserap

February 15, 2013 at 12:38 pm

@Chris who said, “I find it odd the Marvel has been publishing Ender stuff through July of last year, but no one in the comics community protested Marvel or stopped carrying those books. Not that his views are acceptable, but it seems unfair to call DC a morally bankrupt company when its biggest competitor hires the same artist to create for it.”

I agree. And I think it’s because they’ve jumped on the Bandwagon, as I’m sure they stocked Ultimate Iron Man I and II; it feels they just heard about this now and see all the publicity and are reacting more to that.

Card’s views have been public record for many years and it would be really hypocritical of them to suddenly decide to ban Card if they hadn’t been all along just because the Internet rage brought it to their attention now, kind of like how when the Koney videos came out last year, everyone suddenly started acting like they cared about the Ugandan peoples’ plight. Ban all Card, or no Card. You can’t have it both ways just because the publicity is greater right now.

“refusing to carry a product because you object to what’s in it (in this case, not even that) is censorship.”

Censorship would require government intervention. This is capitalism. Comic store owners make decisions about what they sell all the time, based on perceived demand, the appeal of the creators involved, the quality of the work, personal whim and tastes — any number of reasons.

Probably a side issue, but I think I object to OSC being called an advocate, “against gay rights.” No doubt that he is against the right for gay people to be married, but has he announced his opposition to any other right for homosexuals? Does he oppose gays having freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the right to vote. Anything that the constitution actually lists as a right for people?

I am against kids having the right to go see rated R movies. Does that make me an advocate against children’s rights? Does opposition to one right for a group make you an advocate against “the rights” of that group? I’m sure I am nitpicking, but this report sure seems a bit biased.

“refusing to carry a product because you object to what’s in it (in this case, not even that) is censorship”

No, no it isn’t. Not at all. The logic required to twist any of this into “censorship” is completely absurd.

“I’m sure I am nitpicking…”

Not only are you nitpicking, you’re defending blatant, baseless homophobia. Congrats.

@ no one in particular
Funny how freedom of speech does not apply to people you don’t agree with
I will order copies for my store shelves and if they sell out I will reorder them.
Stores that will not order this book have the right to do what they want.

By the way I can’t order every comic that gets published,
but I will order comics that my sales history justifies
and the ones I wanna “gamble” with.

“Funny how freedom of speech does not apply to people you don’t agree with”

This also has ZERO to do with freedom of speech. I wish I could say I was surprised at the staggering amount of ignorance I have seen from the “fan community” on this one, but I’m not. At all.

and how many of you nerds would be up in arms if card’s organization succeeded in denying rights to same sex partners or if the country enacted anti homosexual laws like uganda? as long as you were still able to buy variant covers of your little fetish objects, that would be alright…

Just want to say thanks to these stores for stepping up to the challenge. For every customer who doesn’t get it (and who probably wouldn’t have bought this title anyway), there are several more who will remember and appreciate your stance on this matter. You just won a lot of customers-for-life.

It’s disturbing to see how a small number of people of a particular sexual orientation can inluence the culture so much. Seems to me that the actions of the homosexual community in regards to those who oppose their lifestyle is rather oppressive. Although they are always screaming about tolerance, I don’t see too much f of it from them.

I support the decision of comic book stores not to carry a book written by Orson Scott Card or any book that he would profit from and I thank them for that support. I personally will not buy a product linked to Card because I am a gay man who married his partner of 20 years last year here in NY.

Orson Scott Card is on the board of the National Organization for Marriage. He is directly involved in shaping their policies, their political agendas and their lobbying. He donates his own monies to these efforts. My buying his books would be giving him money to use against me.

Card has publicly lobbied to have laws against homosexual acts kept on the books, enforced and reinstated where needed.

“It’s disturbing to see how a small number of people of a particular sexual orientation can inluence the culture so much. Seems to me that the actions of the homosexual community in regards to those who oppose their lifestyle is rather oppressive. Although they are always screaming about tolerance, I don’t see too much f of it from them.”

Disgusting and absolutely moronic. Please stop.

Ok people taking up for Card read some of the things he has said:

“Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

That is beyond being “just against” gay marriage. If he said the same thing, but said

““Laws against [African Americans marrying White People] should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

OR

““Laws against [Jewish behavior] should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

Would you STILL be taking up for him?

——–

What about when he starts calling for the overthrowing of the constitution and government??

“Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn’t require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.”

@Pat, censorship is simply the partial or whole suppression of objectionable content. How is this not censorship? Once again, just because it’s being done by a private entity does not disqualify it from being censorship. Wal-Mart is, once again, a prime example, and there have been many articles written regarding its own brand of censorship.

Good job on not carrying the books!

Card’s other work is irrelevant. This is Superman we’re talking about. I expect if some once-brilliant writer decided black people were inferior and should not be allowed marriage rights, that writer should not be expected to start writing Superman without comment. He’s too iconic a character to be entrusted to a bigot.

No one is suggesting Card doesn’t have the right to earn a living, but we, as consumers, do have a right to decide who deserves our money.

@Camoron

Because no one is “suppressing” anything. Card is still free to say what he wants. DC can publish what they want. Stores can sell what they want. People can buy what they want.

NOT SUPPORTING is NOT suppressing. This is fairly simple.

“Not only are you nitpicking, you’re defending blatant, baseless homophobia. Congrats.”

@Pat, while I appreciate the heartfelt congratulations, I’m not sure that I am deserving of it for the reason you say. I don’t believe that encouraging a more precise use of words is the same thing as defending homophobia. Is OSC somehow off the hook if this article instead of saying “against gay rights” said “against gay marriage” or “against the right of gay’s to marry”. Again, all I have said is that I think the phrases that the author has used demonstrates bias and is not a precise use of vocabulary.

The reason no one gave a damn about the Ultimate Iron Man series is because it was total garbage anyways.

@Pat, the comic book store owners are suppressing the comic book from their store shelves on the grounds that they object to the views of one of its creators. This is not about Card saying what he wants or DC publishing what it wants, this is about the comic book and the stores refusing to sell it because they object to it which is, frankly, a textbook definition of censorship. Look up the terms censor and censorship and tell me I’m wrong. You seem to be under this impression that censorship is only censorship if government tyranny is involved, but the actual meaning of the word is more broad than that. While it is fully within their right to do so, I personally don’t appreciate a store that decides what is morally objectionable for me.

Right on @ percy lau. I will be going to the comics shops in my area that will be carrying the comic and I will be buying a copy from all three. I will also thank them for not jumping on the bandwagon of censoring writers/artists because of their controversial viewpoints. And if you don’t like it well then as Stephen Fry put it, ‘It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so f•••••• what?’

If the owners of these shops don’t want to sell Card’s stuff, that is their decision.

Ahhh yes, the tolerance of the left. If refuse to stock something written by a legendary sci fi writer because you disagree on a political matter than you’re a tool.

I swear the rainbow mafia is just as bad as any religious fanatic when it comes to trying to shut up people they don’t agree with.

I support Card 100%. I’ll be buying multiple copies of this issue.

If a bunch of comic shops decided not to carry Batwoman or Earth 2 with its gay lead characters, and then said the reason why is because they arent going to “promote a gay agenda” and expose their readers to what they feel is “morally disgusting”or some other rhetoric then it would be all over the news as “hate talk” and “bigotry” by the media.

But when another group of retailers decides to take similar action against someone whose ways and ideals they similarly dont agree with, viewing them as “morally disgusting” and “promoting a hateful agenda” ….then its different somehow?

Please. Both sides are as screwed up as the other.

Both sides seem to think they are morally superior to the other as well.

Both sides want to program others how to think and behave.

Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling. You’re all the same.

“Think the way I do or I will ostricize and publically humiliate you”.

Tactics both sides use—and both sides are equally fullof u-know-what.

These stores are choosing to not sell the book. They aren’t preventing the book from being sold elsewhere, editing the content of the book, or exerting any kind of corporate influence on the creators of the book to edit it themselves.

That’s the difference, and that’s why it’s not censorship. There’s no suppression taking place. You bring up Wal-Mart, but that retailer is in a unique position (given their massive consumer base) to exert a lot of influence over publishers concerning the content of works being sold. If Wal-Mart refuses to stock something unless the content is changed, then yes, that can be a form of censorship, but it’s only censorship when the content of the work is actually changed.

At this point nobody even knows the content of Card’s story, so it can’t really even be considered objectionable at this point. The issue isn’t with the work, it’s with the author and his views. Three stores (out of the thousands of retailers in the US alone) choosing to not sell the product isn’t suppression.

Come on guys, why not just advocate burning any books Card has written? You know you want to.

As wrong as Card’s view is on gay marriage (excuse me, Marriage Equality), this gay McCarthyism is not the answer.

I’m buying the book because I want to read a good Superman story. Like him or hate him as a person, the guy can write good stories. He’s already been compensated for his work, so my money is going to reimburse DC for paying the guy.

I’m not a fan of marriage, gay or straight so his position on the matter doesn’t really bother me. Does that mean I’m not for straight people’s rights as well as against gay rights? No…I’m against marriage in general. I feel that all people have rights though and are free to exercise those rights where applicable.

Question:
Of the United States of America, that have not approved of gay marriage, do gay people boycott those states and anything that is produced and sold from those states? Seems to me that boycotting a comic book is a cheap way to sound like your fighting the good fight. Stop worrying about a comic book and lobby your Senators and Representatives. You don’t like what Orson Scott Card stands for…then do your part to make it legal in all 50 states instead of whining that he’s funding his whole anti-gay marriage movement off the sales of one comic book.

If Diamond refused to distribute this…then that would be wrong, and dangerous as far as industry censorship (of a sort) goes. Comic book stores and customers boycotting said product is perfectly fine, since they are making the choice to not receive the already existing product.

If Card does not comment on same-sex marriages in the pages of Superman, what the comic stores are doing is undue censorship. I am against censorship. The first amendment grants us the right of freedom of speech. That includes, actually, the freedom to speak out about traditional wedding values. Don’t get me wrong, there isn’t much that Card and I agree on politically. I am for gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay rights in general.

The way America is supposed to work is that both Card and I have the right to advocate for what we believe in, and yes all of you too. Yes, your censorship is a form of speech, comic book stores, but I wonder if if is legally defensible? What if someone who opposes same-sex marriage tries to buy the comic in your stores and you refuse to sell the item to them? I seem to recall a woman who went to Walmart to get a morning after pill and was refused because the pharmacist had a personal opinion and refused to give the customer the pill. In that situation, I opposed the worker. In this situation I oppose the store. Both of you are wrong to withhold a product from your clients.

I don’t know if anyone realizes this, but historically censoring a book or writer tends to make them much more popular and this will probably sell more books than it stops. It is one #1 I’ll buy hoping all this shenanigans makes it worth more.

If you think a store exercising it’s right not to carry a product for any reason whatsoever is somehow suppressing free speech or trampling someone’s rights, please educate yourself: http://carnivaloftherandom.tumblr.com/post/43118933507/osc-dc-and-freedom-of-speech-its-not-what-you-think

I honestly don’t care what your personal politics are, but quit clinging to the logical fallacy that censorship is even remotely a part of this story. Not a single person has tried to deny OSC his right to an opinion, regardless of how repellant they may find it. However, OSC doesn’t live in a vacuum; holding a progressively outdated sensibility and being belligerently vocal about it does not prevent one from public (non-governmental) backlash. Just ask the Klu Klux Klan.

It’s=its

Apologies for the typo.

How is Orson Scott Card’s sensibility ‘outdated’? The majority of states in America don’t support gay marriage. I would think if the idea is outdated, the politicians suppressing same-sex marriage laws would have lost their jobs in the last election.

Are his ideals popular? Probably not. Are they outdated? I doubt it. Feeling that people should own slaves…that would be outdated. We haven’t gotten over the hump yet for same-sex marriage so to say his sensibility is ‘outdated’ is a bit premature.

@Kooblah Khan

Yes it is different because to no one’s knowledge has Card written a word in Superman that has anything to do with marriage equality, whereas the other comics are very much making a statement about marriage equality. I do, however, feel that both are censorship, but to act like those pro-gay comics cases are analogs to this case is like saying a bird is a fish. It is not a defensible position to say the two are the same.

I will buy multiple copies, out of spite. It’s staggering how the homosexual community, when shown any opposition, of any degree, throws around the words hatred, bigot, homophobic, hatemonger, etc.
This is the real world. People don’t have to be tolerant. People don’t have to be accepting. People don’t have to be accommodating of anothers opinion. Being offended over every thing must be a miserable way to live.
Get over yourselves.

Oh @The Bechtloff. No. Equating what gay-rights advocates are trying to do with what their opponents are doing isn’t right. Gay-rights advocates are trying to expand a basic human right so that they are included in it. Their opponents are trying to deny them that right (and, in many cases, their right to exist).

One is saying, “We want what everyone else is already allowed to do.”

The other is saying, “You aren’t human.”

Denying financial support to someone that says a group of people isn’t human is the civilized thing to do.

Dr. Martin Luther King started to call for African-Americans to boycott businesses that treated their African-American workers badly. People that support the civil rights movement joined that boycott.

How is the comic? Is it any good?

@Joshua S., except censorship is a part of it. You’re still missing the point. I REALIZE that the store isn’t required to carry anything they don’t want to. I REALIZE the government is not involved. That DOESN’T MEAN it’s not a form of censorship. And let’s not mince words and pretend this is the same as deciding not to carry a book because of poor sales, there is a stark difference. One has to do with business sense, the other is entirely based on moral authority.

I’ve noticed over the years when it comes to free speech those on the left always seem to say “You have the right to say what you like…as long as it agrees with what I believe”.

Two things result from this ridiculous ban. First off those who believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion will be offended that just because Card’s views differ with someone else’ is a stupid reason to attempt to stifle him or his opinions. If the same were said of someone who promotes gay marriage there would be a public outcry. In doing this those who are trying to silence him only kick down any advances made by comics that support the issue.

Secondly by attempting to stop Card from being heard they only increase the sales of his comic and books. If you need an example of this look no further than Chik-fil-a. Had no one said a word about them it would have had no effect. In condemning them for standing up for what THEY believe, it did little more than elevate them to martyr status and increased their sales.

Had nothing been said about this comic no one would have cared or known. Now my guess is that sales will rise instead as word gets out.

As a libertarian the sad thing I can say to those on the left is that they don’t learn. When it comes to free speech it should be guaranteed to all not just those who agree with you.

Good! I am glad these retailers are taking a stand against homophobic bigotry. Card is a hateful, dangerous man and no one should read his twisted writing.

“How is Orson Scott Card’s sensibility ‘outdated’? The majority of states in America don’t support gay marriage. I would think if the idea is outdated, the politicians suppressing same-sex marriage laws would have lost their jobs in the last election.

Are his ideals popular? Probably not. Are they outdated? I doubt it. Feeling that people should own slaves…that would be outdated. We haven’t gotten over the hump yet for same-sex marriage so to say his sensibility is ‘outdated’ is a bit premature.”

Hence the qualifier, “progressively.” Whether you look at it globally or domestically, the writing is on the wall.

Cool. If enough people don’t buy it, maybe the copies I pick up will have decent market value in a 10 years.

@Joshua S.

I’m not sure you understand what censorship actually is, Joshua. It requires no government intervention. Choosing not to sell something based on your own self beliefs without taking into account the beliefs of your clients is indeed censorship. The stores are telling people that they cannot have access to popular literature because the store owner or some other person disagrees with other things the author has said. This is indeed a case of censorship.

I can understand not buying Card’s books or this Superman comic. I’ve avoided particular movies or shows related to actors or themes that I don’t endorse. However, I understand that in America, Free Speech means I can’t make you stop producing those movies or shows let alone stop someone from watching them.

So I commend the people who say, simply, “I will not buy this book.” Stores not carrying it though, I feel a walking a fine line that I have not yet formed an opinion about.

So I can still go to a store and buy a DVD of The Naked Gun co-starring OJ Simpson
I could go to a book store and buy a copy of Mein Kampf
I’m sure I’ve bought stuff from wife-beaters, child molesters (Michael Jackson?) and other low-lifes
Its fine for organizations to bring their issues to the public’s attention but I would never shop at a store that instead of servicing their customers are using them to advocate a position

@Kevin P.: Every American is entitled to freedom of speech. However, you are not free of responsibility from that speech. Speech and actions can yield consequences. For example, I can decide not to buy a book from someone that thinks one group of people doesn’t deserve basic human rights.

@catsmeow, there really isn’t anything twisted about Card’s fiction, if you’ve ever actually read it you’d probably know that. From the sounds of it I imagine you wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of having a BBQ with Card’s books being on the menu. Frankly I find that kind of anti-intellectual thinking far more dangerous than Orson Scott Card’s anti-gay activism.

As far as the “right or wrongness” of attempting to get DC itself to stop publishing this author’s work… this situation really isn’t the same as being upset at a publisher for employing a writer/artist/ who’s opinions some may find disagreeable (I haven’t really heard the LBGT community rally hard against Fables), but rather, this is a person who is actively trying to bring this hate into actual reality.

Someone on another board (or maybe even up-thread) asked “what if he was a member of the KKK, would DC have employed him then?” Hate groups like the National Organization for Marriage will one day soon be seen as being comparably shameful as groups like the KKK, and corporate entities like DC would avoid the negative PR that would come with it. This isn’t at all a question about the content of a story, or about trying to deny someone work based off of opinions one may disagrees with, but of an individual actively trying to legalize “hate”.

The line has been drawn*

*at least until the tie-ins to the multi-million dollar adaption of Ender’s Game start rolling out this fall…

@Dean – wow, what an uneducated, hateful thing to post

All this a bunch of horse hockey. Don’t like the author, don’t buy his stuff. You want to buy it, but it !

I 100% support your decision to buy this comic ,its your democratic right to be utter hatemongering tools

@Wally It is protected speech to not buy his book. Its censorship not to sell it at a comic book store. Card is responsible for what he writes. I refuse to read books based on the quality of the author. I read based on the quality of the work I am reading.

@dregj Yeah, that’s a fair assessment. Because buying someone’s work means you automatically share their views. Enjoyed a Tom Cruise movie? You’re a scientologist. What a hopelessly myopic world view.

Hmmm, so gays cant be hateful and dangerous? Seems like their call for retailers to deny people of reading OSC’s work just because he disagrees with their equality of marriage stance is just exactly that…hateful and dangerous. no group should have the right to tell a retailer what he can and can’t sell, any more than they can tell someone what they can and can’t read. I believe we have a first ammendment in our constitution.

OMG SOMEONE PREVENTING ME FROM READING MY COMIC BOOK IS EQUAL TO HOMOSEXUALS BEING KILLED AND DENIED RIGHTS! WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

Negro, please.

“Washington
February 15, 2013 at 12:33 pm

So basically if someone believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are no longer allowed to earn a living – they should be boycotted until they change their mind or they die.

I am pro gay marriage, but this is a monstrous position. Economic boycotts, while not an infringement of free speech rights, still have the same effect.

If the movie industry’s communist blacklist was evil and monstrous, this is as well. At some point, conservatives will effectively use economic boycotts against a favored progressive political position, and things will spiral out of control from there.”

Washington, I do hate to burst your bubble, but it are the progressives who are doing what you are stating, not conservatives. It is liberals who try to ostrasise and bully their point into being the right one. You never hear of arrests at conservative rallys, but with liberals, it’s commonplace, much like Robert kennedy jr, picketing the White House.

Good to see additional stores stepping up to the plate. No matter how some of you spin it, hate is hate. It just makes me laugh that DC would even let someone with views such as his write for Superman. His views fly in the face (no pun intended) of what Superman represents.

It’s a prickly situation to be honest.

On one side I completely disagree with OSC, I think that their concept of “traditional marriage” is a fantasy that a lot of marriages that they seem to be ok with aren’t living up to. Additionally, I dislike that rather than a so-called indoctrination of public schooling he advocates an indoctrination of home schooling.

But! Freedom of speech is important, he might be a (from reading a few things) homophobic bigot, but he is not a criminal, he is simply exorcising his right, for DC to not hire him could be seen as a sense of discrimination. If his work does not reflect his beliefs, then I can understand why they do not have a problem with hiring him.

As an entertainment company DC need to remain unbiased, by either dropping him or agreeing with him they are putting themselves on one side of the argument.

“any more than they can tell someone what they can and can’t read. I believe we have a first ammendment in our constitution.”

DC is within their rights to hire OSC, OSC is within his rights to say what he wants, just as pro-gay marriage people are within their rights to disagree with him, the retailers are within their rights to not sell the book, and we are within our rights to not buy it.

@silver age guy – That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever ever read. It isn’t about stopping people from reading it, it is about these people not wanting to help line the pockets of someone whose personal money goes towards paying for something they strongly disagree with. It is well within their rights as retailers to decide not to stock something, even if it is over personal matters, as in the end it is their business. Is it a shame that some people wouldn’t get to read this? Yes, but then I’ve gone in to shops before and I’ve not been able to buy what I want, and I haven’t moaned.

If I might be allowed to raise a rather valid but overlooked point.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the publication in question is actually an anthology comic, i.e. it is several stories written by several writers and drawn/painted/photoshopped*/whatever by several artists. Therefore an retailer saying they wont stock this comic, or a consumer saying they wont buy it is not only not proving OSC with the funds but also denying those other creators their due.

Surely a far better solution would be to purchase the comic, ignore Mr Card’s story (remove it completly if you wish), send a donation equal to (or slightly larger) than Mr Card’s share of the profit to an organisation which supports gay marriage and at the same time send a POLITE letter/e-mail to the organisation he supports telling them what you have done and that you find their stance quite unappealing. A similar letter could also be sent to DC explaining why you dont want OSC writing for them anymore.

Just a thought from a Brit who (to be honest) doesn’t even read super-hero comics.

*see Clint Langley’s recent work.

providing not proving. DOH!

@Hysan, that’s a red herring. Nobody is trivializing the gay rights issue, just expressing a concern for censorship. Your hand-waving dismissal of such concerns is troublesome and serves only to create a false dichotomy wherein those who are against censorship and employment discrimination cannot simultaneously be in favor of marriage equality, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Coupla spelling mistakes, but typed quite quickly, my apologies.

In the past few years, there have been boycotts against Nabisco, General Mills, Starbucks, and numerous other companies for holding pro-equality and pro-gay marriage positions. I’m at a loss to see how this is different. Is it because:

1. Boycotts are only acceptable when the boycott goes along with what the person believes? I mean, a boycott itself is something more protected by the notion of free speech than a Superman story.
2. It is more important for nerds to have access to Superman comics–the stories they *deserve*, dammit–than, say, Oreos or coffee?

@Ed Cunard, I don’t really understand your point. Boycotts are always an “acceptable” form of speech, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with them.

It’ll be ‘interesting’ to see what Book stores and DM retailers do when the Ender’s Game movie comes out….

It’s weird. I really enjoy Ender’s Game, Speaker for the Dead and actually even Ultimate Iron Man. The fact he’s a ridiculous bigot doesn’t prevent that (although I only found that out after). As far as I can tell his agenda ISN’T in those works and to me it’s well worth reading. Which makes this situation… odd. Is this story going to forward his absurd beliefs? Well, if it doesn’t, is it good and worth reading, because one day he’ll be dead and gone and the work will stand alone as it’s own thing….

Three views that enrage the masses…

1) Being pro traditional marriage.
2) Being pro life.
3) Having religion.

To the people saying they are gonna buy multiple copies of this book out of spite or just to go against the grain. Stop trying to be so cool. Or use that.extra money for other comics or donate to charity. Grow the hell up.

@ D. Tombling –

I agree with you on that point, that is the strongest argument I have heard regarding it, that unfortunately, by refusing to stock these comics in order to punish 1 man, they are invariably punishing all the others who work on it, and based on my knowledge of the industry, the letterers and colourists need the money a whole lot more than OSC does.

It is a bit of a sticky affair, the retailers are using their business to promote their agenda, whether that is right or wrong, they are able to do so, as, unlike DC, there won’t be massive outcry from them doing it.

@Tim
Proving my point. You disagree with my opinions, so that makes them and possibly me hateful and
uneducated? Very broad assumptions.
Again, being offended at everything is a terrible way to go through life.
Buy the book, don’t buy the book…to each their own. Stop attempting to make everything a tale of victimization.

@Dean – you’re the one who – in your own words – is going to by several issue of a comic book out of spite. I feel bad for you.

Superman would believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Ma and Pa Kent raised him right.

“@Hysan, that’s a red herring. Nobody is trivializing the gay rights issue, just expressing a concern for censorship. Your hand-waving dismissal of such concerns is troublesome and serves only to create a false dichotomy wherein those who are against censorship and employment discrimination cannot simultaneously be in favor of marriage equality, but the two are not mutually exclusive.”

Your point would be valid if:

1. This was 1982 and people could only get comic books at newsstands or specialty outlets. You can read comics ONLINE. No one is being censored for %$#@ sake.

2. This “concern” strikes me as more than a bit phony. When other issues are brought up, issues of expression, issues of race, fans (especially straight, white male fans) are quick to claim that others’ views are valid and they should let the “market” decide what will sell. “If fans want to read a book with a gay/female/black main character, the market will dictate it.” Well, guess that, this is the market dictating what they will and will not put up with.

Not so fun when it works against what you believe, is it?

Censorship would involve Card not being allowed to voice his views AT ALL. It would result in him being dropped by DC, his publisher, and not being allowed to even speak in public. None of which will happen if Superman (which sucks, sales-wise anyway, compared to most books) is suddenly no longer carried in a few brick and mortar stores.

You might want to look up red herring and apply it to your own “concern.” I’ll save my concern for people whose rights are actually being actively violated, thanks. I have no love for bigots, and won’t apologize for that.

I have already instructed my retail store to purchase and additional 20 copies for me. So all it really takes is four more people to do the same, and this is utterly offset. Nice try to make a guy lose his job because he doesn’t agree with your agenda.

Meant to say “others’ views _aren’t_ valid.”

Hey, 20 extra copies means Superman might actually break the 30,000 copies mark.

You’re helping DC more than Card. He makes money regardless of how many apologists try to “get his back.”

Comics have shown that marriage is a sacred institution that can only be undone by a reboot, finding out your wife is a shapeshifting alien or robot or a deal with Satan to erase the past.

@Nico If you can find me one time Ma or Pa said anything anti-gay I’d be very interested to read it. Another thing Card’s organization does is try to prevent gay people from adopting children. So no home for you little one because seeing people of the same sex kiss makes me feel gross.

It’s not tolerant to tolerate intolerance. These stores are doing what they think is right and I support them.

Hey, if DC has the balls to say to militant intimidators that they support good writing and good stories over the impotent threats of the whining minority, I’m thrilled to help.

Brian Brown has a very loose definition of “un-American” if he seriously thinks supporting equal marriage rights is “something that needs to be stopped” despite the fact that it poses no threat to heterosexual marriage by any long shot. The fact that he thinks people need to “stand up for traditional marriage” at all despite having been the norm for as long as civilization has been around is in itself pretty hilarious.

I think Card should be congratulated. I haven’t seen so much name calling, holier than thou behaviour, and vitriol on both sides of the argument since the Before Watchmen titles came out. Any news is good news apparently. The comics industry can only benefit.

My opinion? This is all a storm in a teacup. Inconsequential. Someone made a comment asking if you watch a Tom Cruise film do you endorse Scientology? I liked that line of thinking. As a result..
Do we boycott Ben Hur and Ten Commandments because the Charlton Heston was a gun nut? Of course this only applies to pro-gun control advocates.
If you believe women should not be sexually harassed and treated in an appropriate manner should you destroy your Terminator, Predator, and Conan DVDs because it stars an actor widely known for his poor behaviour.
How can we all hate Card so much but find the rapist Mike Tyson so delightful in those Hangover movies?
How can we love Game of Thrones so much when it clearly displays misogynistic behaviour towards women I’ll those gratuitous sex scenes. Guess we better burn those DVDs too.
Don’t get me started on Rhianna.
Interesting things to think about. I won’t be buying the Superman book myself, but only because I’m not interested.

@Jimmy Superman is different than all the characters you listed. If you don’t know why, you’re not going to get it no matter how I explain it.

Just curious. How many Catholics out there are currently boycotting the Catholic Church after all the paedophillia antics of the past gazillion years?

I gotta call B.S on that. Your ordering 21 copies of 1 book just to prove a point…..That’s just stupid.

Ian, it’s not the characters that are important but people’s behaviour. You can’t get all preachy about Card and then go and sit down and happily watch the Hangover thinking about how righteous you are for taking a stand. That’s a simple example. And ending a comment with, “but you just won’t understand,” is a common device employed by self righteous people like yourself. Yes Ian, you’re so much smarter and deeper than me.

“Washington
February 15, 2013 at 12:33 pm

So basically if someone believes that gay marriage should not be allowed, they are no longer allowed to earn a living – they should be boycotted until they change their mind or they die.I am pro gay marriage, but this is a monstrous position.”

Honestly, I don’t see a valid reason to be against marriage equality. Don’t like it? Fine. Don’t get married to a member of the same sex then. No one’s making you. But trying to deny other people their heart’s desire just seems spiteful, meanspirited and pointless. If you’re not involved, why involve yourself to the detriment of others?

Now, that doesn’t mean I’m going to boycott every creator who disagrees with my views in this regard. In fact, OSC is the first creator I have ever consciously boycotted, but, like the store owner in the article above, I felt that I needed to draw a line here. OSC has freedom of expression. I have freedom of choice. So, because of the inhumane viewpoints OSC expresses, I have chosen I do not wish to support him or his work. What OSC does not get is freedom from consequences.

“I am pro gay marriage, but this is a monstrous position. Economic boycotts, while not an infringement of free speech rights, still have the same effect.”

I agree with you. This is not good. I am anti-gay marriage for similar reasons that Card is anti-gay marriage. However, someone’s political ideology has nothing to do with profit margins.

@ Victor “I have freedom of choice. So, because of the inhumane viewpoints OSC expresses, I have chosen I do not wish to support him or his work. What OSC does not get is freedom from consequences.”

Same applies to you.

@ Bruce “Washington, I do hate to burst your bubble, but it are the progressives who are doing what you are stating, not conservatives. It is liberals who try to ostrasise and bully their point into being the right one. You never hear of arrests at conservative rallys, but with liberals, it’s commonplace, much like Robert kennedy jr, picketing the White House.”

Bruce is right here.

@KirbyLee “I’ve noticed over the years when it comes to free speech those on the left always seem to say “You have the right to say what you like…as long as it agrees with what I believe”.

Two things result from this ridiculous ban. First off those who believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion will be offended that just because Card’s views differ with someone else’ is a stupid reason to attempt to stifle him or his opinions. If the same were said of someone who promotes gay marriage there would be a public outcry. In doing this those who are trying to silence him only kick down any advances made by comics that support the issue.

Secondly by attempting to stop Card from being heard they only increase the sales of his comic and books. If you need an example of this look no further than Chik-fil-a. Had no one said a word about them it would have had no effect. In condemning them for standing up for what THEY believe, it did little more than elevate them to martyr status and increased their sales.

Had nothing been said about this comic no one would have cared or known. Now my guess is that sales will rise instead as word gets out.

As a libertarian the sad thing I can say to those on the left is that they don’t learn. When it comes to free speech it should be guaranteed to all not just those who agree with you.”

Free Speech is guaranteed to all in principle. You are making a martyr of a very fine man for Civil Rights. A ban like this will turn the Civil Rights movement on it’s head. Really it would. It’s like saying only certain number of people with a certain ideology is allowed to have civil rights.

You are taking the civil rights away from a man who does deserve to speak his mind out on this issue. I’m anti-gay marriage politically, but from eternal perspective there’s nothing wrong with it. However, politics affects nations.

The Greeks were taken over by the Romans because they tolerated sodomy.

The Romans were taken over by German Barbarians because they tolerated sodomy (among other things — the Romans of 350-450 A.D. had the same complex problems we are having).

The Achemenid Empire (Persian Empire) was conquered by Alexander the Great because they became unjust and corrupt, and they also tolerated pedastery in their Army.

The Chaldean Empire of Nebuchadnezzar lasted until the populace became thoroughly corrupt and were eventually conquered by Cyrus the Great’s Persians and the Medes.

The same will happen to us if we aren’t careful.

Denying someone their lawful Civil Rights because they do not conform to your ideology is stupid. It goes against everything that Martin Luther King stood for and against what Clark Kent would stand for during the Silver Age of Comics.

@ Elton Robb…so will the Chinese take over the USA if we let those nasty gays get married?

Elton Robb said –

“The Greeks were taken over by the Romans because they tolerated sodomy.

The Romans were taken over by German Barbarians because they tolerated sodomy (among other things — the Romans of 350-450 A.D. had the same complex problems we are having).

The Achemenid Empire (Persian Empire) was conquered by Alexander the Great because they became unjust and corrupt, and they also tolerated pedastery in their Army.

The Chaldean Empire of Nebuchadnezzar lasted until the populace became thoroughly corrupt and were eventually conquered by Cyrus the Great’s Persians and the Medes.

The same will happen to us if we aren’t careful.”

What. The. Frak!

Seriously, are you saying that the sole reason several ancient civilisations were overrun or destroyed is because they engaged in homosexual acts!?!

Your mouth is so full of wrong it hurts for me to imagine how you are able to breath.

@Camoron ” I don’t really understand your point. Boycotts are always an ‘acceptable’ form of speech, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with them.”

Of course not. My point: a boycott is more in line of the concept of “freedom of speech” than letting Orson Scott Card–or anyone, for that matter–write and publish a Superman story, and to have that story sold by retailers. Heck, if DC decided “Well, that settles it–we aren’t going to publish Orson Scott Card Superman stories at all, ever,” that isn’t censorship either. Card has no intrinsic right to have his Superman story published. Not publishing it wouldn’t be censorship. The same would be true if we replace “Card” with “Grant Morrison,” or “Geoff Johns.”

Ah I love how republicans automatically attribute views the apose to democrats. You do realize there are gay republicans too right? And that Regan did a lot for gay rights when he was the Governer of California. You also might want to look back to the sixities when people were saying all these same things about blacks and interacial marriages. They all sound pretty backwards and stupid. Welcome to your future.

Will the stores get boycotted in turn by their customers for their boycotting and censoring action?

I wonder if these same stores refuse to sell Punk Rock Jesus because it’s offensive to Christians? I somehow doubt it.

They might, Leocomix. I’m guessing they feel it’s work the risk.

But, again, it is not, by any means, censorship.

If this was the real Superman, I would be more offended, but this is the pointless New52 reboot Superman.

Also OSC is a hate-mongering bigot.

@ Victor Redman
“Honestly, I don’t see a valid reason to be against marriage equality. Don’t like it? Fine. Don’t get married to a member of the same sex then. No one’s making you. But trying to deny other people their heart’s desire just seems spiteful, meanspirited and pointless.”
Don’t like anti-homosexuals? Fine, don’t be one then. No one’s making you. But trying to oppose other people’s causes just seems spiteful, mean-spirited and pointless.
Incidentally did you know that homophobia is probably genetic(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347968)?

Your not on the right side of history. There will be a day when each of US will give an account for his or her life. You can deny it all you want but it will happen.

Here is a different approach that neither suppresses the author, nor supports his cause: http://challengerscomics.tumblr.com/post/43176937330/all-things-being-equal

The idea it’s censorship is absurd – it’s capitalism. The retailers by the books on a non-returnable basis, they are the true customers to the publisher, and they are entitled to spend their money as they see fit. They don’t want Card, or zealot’s like him, working n the product they buy, so they aren’t buying it.

I also liked that guy who is worried if they will still stock Ultimate Iron Man – any shop that still has copies of those has had them for years because they over ordered. It’s it a perennial money maker. Same with the Ender’s Game adaptation. Maybe if Card had a rep as a solid sales hitter retailers would be more lenient in judging DC for his hire, but these shops are just seeing him as lose-lose.

@Hysan I’m done explaining why it’s censorship. I’ve explained it 3 times already. If you can’t be bothered to look the word up in a dictionary and understand how it does, in fact, apply to this particular situation, and does not require for complete and utter silencing of a person/their views, then I can’t be bothered trying to explain it to you anymore than I already have done. Letting the market decide would be letting the consumers decide what to buy. Unfortunately, certain retail outlets are taking it upon themselves to be a moral authority to their customers and refusing to stock the book. That is not letting the market decide.

Don’t make presumptions about what I believe just because I don’t agree with you. I am opposed to Card’s views and support equal marriage, but I do not support censorship of artists just because I disagree with beliefs they hold that are totally unrelated to their work.

“I am anti-gay marriage for similar reasons that Card is anti-gay marriage.”

Then you are a terrible, terrible person and no one should give a damn what you have to say.

“I’m done explaining why it’s censorship. I’ve explained it 3 times already.”

Nope. You haven’t once. You are utterly ignorant regarding the topic, but hey, don’t let that stop you from defending a piece of garbage like Card.

“As a libertarian the sad thing I can say to those on the left is that they don’t learn. When it comes to free speech it should be guaranteed to all not just those who agree with you.”

As a libertarian, you might want to educate yourself on what “free speech” is, so you’ll be identify free speech issues properly. This isn’t one. Sorry.

“I will buy multiple copies, out of spite. It’s staggering how the homosexual community, when shown any opposition, of any degree, throws around the words hatred, bigot, homophobic, hatemonger, etc.
This is the real world. People don’t have to be tolerant. People don’t have to be accepting. People don’t have to be accommodating of anothers opinion. Being offended over every thing must be a miserable way to live.
Get over yourselves.”

I hope you realize that your grandchildren will be absolutely nauseated by the idea of anyone saying anything remotely close to this.

@Pat, don’t let your anger stop you from lashing out at people who disagree with you. I cannot make it any more clear cut, it’s censorship. Is it an authoritarian, scary, Orwellian form of censorship? No. It’s a “nice” form of censorship that appeals to the sensibilities of people like you. Yes, the comic shops are individual people making purchases for their store, but they are also retail establishments and I feel that with that comes a certain level of duty to the consumer. Let me ask you this: if a comic book store had refused to carry a comic book like Nemesis because they disapproved of the violent content within it and it had nothing to do with bigotry, would you still be saying it wasn’t censorship? Perhaps more pointedly, what if a conservative comic book store refused to stock a comic with gay characters in it? Would you still say it wasn’t censorship?

Or how about this, a thought experiment: what if all of the comic book stores, every single one of them including online retailers, refused to stock a comic book because of its perfectly legal content or because of the views of the person who wrote it. At that point does it become censorship, since it is effectively impossible to acquire? How many stores must refuse to carry it on moral grounds before it becomes censorship, in your eyes?

“Let me ask you this: if a comic book store had refused to carry a comic book like Nemesis because they disapproved of the violent content within it and it had nothing to do with bigotry, would you still be saying it wasn’t censorship?”

Yes.

” Perhaps more pointedly, what if a conservative comic book store refused to stock a comic with gay characters in it? Would you still say it wasn’t censorship?”

Yes.

Because I understand what “censorship” means.

“Or how about this, a thought experiment: what if all of the comic book stores, every single one of them including online retailers, refused to stock a comic book because of its perfectly legal content or because of the views of the person who wrote it. At that point does it become censorship, since it is effectively impossible to acquire?”

It would not be impossible to acquire, nor would it ever be censorship, since this issue has nothing to do with free speech or censorship.

“How many stores must refuse to carry it on moral grounds before it becomes censorship, in your eyes?”

Again, irrelevant.

The way you continue to use concepts you clearly don’t understand even after it has been pointed out to to defend a disgusting, homophobic monster like Card is disturbing.

censor (verb): to suppress or delete as objectionable.

And no boycott involves suppression or deleted. How are you still not getting this?

*deleting

My bad.

I should really just crank out a movie script. Then, when no movie studios decide to buy and produce it, I can claim censorship and count on all you dopes to buy copies of it, right?

The concept of censorship is not that complicated, and I am not the one who doesn’t fully understand it. I posted a dictionary definition for you, it doesn’t get much simpler than that. I understand that you’ve been inundated with this idea that censorship can only occur in the form of big brother, but that’s complete crap. Censorship happens everyday, all around us. Corporate censorship, self-censorship, etc. Once again, I am not denying them their RIGHT to censor what they deem objectionable, I am simply expressing my own personal distaste at the idea that a comic book store would be so presumptuous as to act as a moral barrier between me and a piece of art.

This isn’t about defending Card. I realize you don’t understand that, but this is about having conviction. I would stand up and decry censorship against any artist, whatever their personal views. Agreeing with their beliefs or work is not necessary for me to want to protect it from censorship.

“I posted a dictionary definition for you”

A definition that in no way describes what’s happening. You’re done.

@Pat, this isn’t about the consumer boycott, it is about the stores refusing to buy it. Do not try to misdirect the argument or fire back at me with this nonsense. There is, once again, restating what I’ve already said hours and hours ago, a stark difference between not stocking a book because of sales figures vs. not stocking it explicitly for the reason that you find it objectionable. Once again, it is totally within their right to do that, but I will absolutely call it out as the anti-intellectual, idea-stifling BS that I believe it is. It’s not so much the fact that they are refusing to stock this particular comic book as it is the idea that it’s okay for anyone to suppress things in any capacity because we object to them that I take offense to.

Repeat away. You’re done. Good effort, I guess.

Despite being on the opposite side of the fence to Card here (very much so) I don’t really see why someone’s work should be disregarded because of their opinions. I’ve been a fan of Card’s work for a long time, don’t particularly care about his personal opinions in the same way that I’ve always loved Bogart as an actor without caring about his awful private live. If views I find offensive came across in his work I would probably like it a lot less, but they don’t. People are entitled to their views, even when they are crazy and offensive.

If we reach the point where we say ‘you can’t think this because your views offend people and if you state your unpopular views your work will suffer for it, either share our opinion on this subject or shut up’ what exactly have we become, and how have we made the world a better place?

“this isn’t about the consumer boycott, it is about the stores refusing to buy it…”

You do realize you just said “It’s OK if people don’t buy it, but it’s not OK when people don’t buy it”.

Nah, nevermind. I’m sure you didn’t.

Comic book stores that do not carry a comic book for moral reasons are making the choice for their customers. That is not right. It should be the customer’s decision to buy or not buy. There are some people that do not have the option of buying/reading comics online and can only purchase comics at their local shop. This is censorship plain and simple. If you can’t comprehend that then you have your head up your arse. .

@Alice

I hope you realize that if you have ever paid money for anything Card has ever produced that you have contributed to and supported homophobia.

Card is a Mormon, and as such, must provide the Mormon church with a percentage of his income.

@Pat
Well, as long as you keep insisting that I’m “done”, I suppose you think you have me up against the ropes. Anyone with a rational mind capable of following a logically structured argument can see otherwise. I know you want Card fired for being such a “monster,” so anything I say comes across as little more than a crude defense of anti-gay bigotry in your mind, but consider the dangerous precedent being set when large groups of people think it’s okay to petition for someone to be fired because of his political activism and cheer as retail outlets refuse to carry his work because they find it objectionable. Because that is the reality of what is happening here, and you can call him a monster until the cows come home but it won’t change that fact.

“Comic book stores that do not carry a comic book for moral reasons are making the choice for their customers.”

What about a store that doesn’t carry a comic because not enough people buy it?

I would probably be more impressed by Mike Sterling’s decision not to carry the comic if he hadn’t talked on his blog about how much he loved Glamourpuss by Dave “women are inherently inferior to men” Sim. So supporting one of comic’s most infamous misogynists (who openly expresses these opinions in his work) is fine, but stocking a comic by someone who opposes gay marriage would be crossing the line? Thanks for standing up for equality, Mike.

“but consider the dangerous precedent being set when large groups of people think it’s okay to petition for someone to be fired because of his political activism and cheer as retail outlets refuse to carry his work because they find it objectionable.”

Slippery slope arguments are the final resort of people who can’t actually argue the topic at hand.

@Pat
“I hope you realize that if you have ever paid money for anything Card has ever produced that you have contributed to and supported homophobia.”

^ That’s a nice black-and-white, myopic, absolutist view of the world you have there. Okay, that’s really all I needed to hear. Seeya Pat.

“That’s a nice black-and-white, myopic, absolutist view of the world you have there. Okay, that’s really all I needed to hear. Seeya Pat.”

Card is a Mormon.
Being a Mormon requires tithing.
The Mormon church is a homophobic organization.

These are all demonstrable, objective facts. Sorry reality is too myopic for you.

@Camoron

Are you actually reading the dictionary definition? Because the ones I’ve looked up explicitly refer to an institutional suppression of speech, and a retailer declining to carry a product doesn’t fit the bill.

@Pat, and by the way, that’s not a slippery slope fallacy, it’s a precedent. A slippery slope fallacy would require me to actually name some consequences, and I have no desire to speculate on things that may or may not come to happen. I am just saying I disagree with the stance of stores refusing to carry items on moral grounds because I think it’s wrong and it sets a foul precedent. Considering you didn’t address anything I said other than what you incorrectly consider a fallacy, you are yourself committing the fallacy of arguing from fallacy.

He couldn’t even be bothered to look up “suppress” apparently.

“What about a store that doesn’t carry a comic because not enough people buy it?”

That means the people had the choice and chose not to buy it. That’s freedom of choice and the free market at work. Comic book series get cancelled all the time because of this very reason. We just saw DC cancel several of their New 52 titles precisely because not enough people bought those titles.

Feh! NOM….nothing but a bunch of tin Hitlers that need to be pacified. I know that if they ever had a rally in my town, I’d ruin it by walking up to the speakers while paraphrasing Dan Akroyd in the “Are you a god?” scene from Ghostbusters (with a megaphone):

“National Organization for Marriage? Good afternoon. As a duly-designated representative of the city of Seattle, King County, and the State of Washington, I order you to cease any and all Nazi-esque activity, and return forthwith to your place of origin, or to the nearest, convenient parallel dimension. Is that clear????”

How’s that?

@Tim M.

So what? Wal-Mart doesn’t sell dildos. They aren’t required. The customer can go elsewhere. Sellers get to choose what they sell. No one is saying anyone cannot buy this comic. THAT would censorship.

“@Pat, and by the way, that’s not a slippery slope fallacy, it’s a precedent. A slippery slope fallacy would require me to actually name some consequences, and I have no desire to speculate on things that may or may not come to happen. I am just saying I disagree with the stance of stores refusing to carry items on moral grounds because I think it’s wrong and it sets a foul precedent. Considering you didn’t address anything I said other than what you incorrectly consider a fallacy, you are yourself committing the fallacy of arguing from fallacy.”

What do precedents impact? Oh yeah, “consequences”. Nice try.

“That means the people had the choice and chose not to buy it.”

No, it doesn’t. Please answer the question.

“Sellers get to choose what they sell. No one is saying anyone cannot buy this comic.”

Shocking how hard this is for some to grasp.

If I print my own comic, and Diamond chooses not to carry it because it’s crappy and it wouldn’t sell, are they censoring me?

@Adam, I posted a definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary. Words can have more than one meaning. If you want to get very technical we could go all the way back and say that it’s not censorship because it has nothing to do with a Roman censor, but that’s just ridiculous. We should all know what censoring is and that it does not require “big brother” to implement. This argument is purely semantics; even if you disagree with my use of the word censor my stance has still been made clear, has it not?

“I posted a definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary.”

Did you look up “suppress” and “delete” yet?

@Pat, the only thing shocking is your reading comprehension skills. I have addressed both of these points in previous posts while arguing with you and others. Sellers can choose what they sell, yes, nobody is restricting anyone from buying the comic, etc. It’s all still missing the point that I made, which is that I DISAGREE WITH THE STORES FOR SUPPRESSING IT ON MORAL GROUNDS. PERIOD.

“So what? Wal-Mart doesn’t sell dildos. They aren’t required. The customer can go elsewhere. Sellers get to choose what they sell. No one is saying anyone cannot buy this comic. THAT would censorship.”

That’s the dumbest comparison i’ve ever heard. Wal-mart has NEVER sold any adult materials like that. Comic Book stores sell comic books- especially Superman comic books. People expect them to sell Superman comic books. And if they don’t find a specific Superman title available because the owner decided to not sell the title because they didn’t like the beliefs of one of the artists then that is wrong. It’s really that simple.

“@Pat, the only thing shocking is your reading comprehension skills. I have addressed both of these points in previous posts while arguing with you and others. Sellers can choose what they sell, yes, nobody is restricting anyone from buying the comic, etc. It’s all still missing the point that I made, which is that I DISAGREE WITH THE STORES FOR SUPPRESSING IT ON MORAL GROUNDS. PERIOD.”

“nobody is restricting anyone from buying the comic”

sup·press
/səˈpres/
Verb

Forcibly put an end to.
Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.

So no one is suppressing anything. Blatant contradiction in one post. In capitals even!

Pat, enough, troll. If you can’t understand how a word like SUPPRESS would apply to a retailer NOT ALLOWING (i.e. SUPPRESSING) something into his shop, then I am not the one in need of a dictionary.

“Comic Book stores sell comic books- especially Superman comic books.”

Not all of them.

“People expect them to sell Superman comic books.”

Irrelevant.

“And if they don’t find a specific Superman title available because the owner decided to not sell the title because they didn’t like the beliefs of one of the artists then that is wrong.”

It’s not, and you haven’t even come close to making any argument for why.

“Pat, enough, troll. If you can’t understand how a word like SUPPRESS would apply to a retailer NOT ALLOWING (i.e. SUPPRESSING) something into his shop, then I am not the one in need of a dictionary.”

sup·press
/səˈpres/
Verb

Forcibly put an end to.
Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.

Keep reading it. It might finally sink in.

If I print my own comic, and Diamond chooses not to carry it because it’s crappy and it wouldn’t sell, are they censoring me?

How come nobody can answer this?

It is not a dumb comparison. It is an outrageous comparison used to illustrate the ridiculousness of saying a merchant’s choice of what they sell is in any way censorship. If you do not like the free market, well, tough. Because you think something is wrong does not make it censorship. Give your opinion, just don’t cloak it in inappropriate language.

I think the people who are saying this is censorship are reaching. It’s not like people are not allowed to buy this book ANYWHERE. It’s just that some stores will choose not to carry it. As for the scenario as to whether or not it’s censorship if a store refuses to carry a book that’s by a homosexual creator, that’s not censorship, either. Bigoted and hateful, sure, but censorship, absolutely not since I’d most likely be able to pick this book up somewhere else.

“I guess 1.2 million websites (including credible news articles) discussing Wal-Mart’s retail censorship don’t know the definition either.”

I completely agree.

I guess 1.2 million websites (including credible news articles) discussing Wal-Mart’s retail censorship don’t know the definition either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I hope you’re learning something here.

Read those. Get a credible news source calling it censorship, not just a quote of someone else calling it that. Your Google search is not an almighty trump card.

And based on your logic, all censorship is bad, correct? Telling children the Easter Bunny is make believe is censoring them from the truth. Let’s call social services. So far, the only argument I’ve seen is “it’s wrong because I think it is.” Dig deeper if you care. If not, don’t be surprised when you’re called out on flimsy opinions unsupported by actual evidence.

Actually, based on his logic, anyone not agreeing to do anything you ask them to is “censorship”.

Allow me to give you an ad hominem Pat, because if you don’t see how the use of a word by a large number of people and credible sources gives that particular definition weight, you truly are an idiot with a narrow and ignorant understanding of how language works. The fact that I can find definitions fitting my usage of the word in every major online dictionary just further cements your idiocy.

Dictionary.com – censor, verb (used with object): to examine and act upon as a censor.
censor, noun: any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

Huh, now what is refusing to carry a book that you intend to sell to others in your store if not supervising the manners or morality of others by proxy?

American Heritage dictionary – censor, noun: 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. —

In this case the comic shop owner authorized himself to determine what is too objectionable to be sold in his store, again, perfectly within his right but something I do not agree with.

American Heritage – censor, noun: 3. one that condemns or censures.

And what are they doing if not condemning the book from their store?

But seriously now, I am going to bed. This is going in circles and it’s just extremely frustrating. I have an opinion that differs from yours. I use a word in a way that is supported by a wide number of people and credible sources but which you may not agree with. Deal with it.

@John, opinions need not be supported by evidence. That’s part of what makes them opinions. They’re entirely subjective. What evidence COULD I present to support my opinion? You criticize my very word choice to distract from the real point. If you don’t agree that refusing to stock someone’s art in your store because you find it morally objectionable is vile, anti-intellectual behavior, then that is a difference of opinion. No amount of evidence (what evidence could I even present?) would convince you otherwise.

“Huh, now what is refusing to carry a book that you intend to sell to others in your store if not supervising the manners or morality of others by proxy?”

Supervising your own morality. Duh.

I don’t need to go any farther than that. Again, based on your logic, anyone not agreeing to do anything you ask them to is “censorship”.

I don’t need to explain why that’s absurd.

“…what evidence could I even present?”

One, single sound argument. Not that YOU could present it, but that’s what someone would need to do.

“Dictionary.com – censor, verb (used with object): to examine and act upon as a censor.
censor, noun: any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.”

“refusing to stock someone’s art in your store because you find it morally objectionable is vile, anti-intellectual behavior”

You have just argued that you are acting as a “censor”. Well done, you’ve shattered your own arguments yet again.

“I don’t need to go any farther than that. Again, based on your logic, anyone not agreeing to do anything you ask them to is “censorship”.”

You’re so full of shit with the assertions and conclusions you jump to it’s unbelievable.

If I print my own comic, and Diamond chooses not to carry it because it’s crappy and it wouldn’t sell, are they censoring me?

Free market means the consumer gets to choose, what to buy or not buy, not the retailer. The retailer then sees what the consumer is buying or not buying and then makes business decisions based on that. Preventing a consumer from buying something because it does not fit into your belief system is not business or free market; it is censorship. And it is wrong.

Pat, your debate tactics are those of an arrogant bully who seeks only to mis-characterize and insult his opponent. I wish luck to anyone foolish enough to debate you.

“Preventing a consumer from buying something”

Which no one is doing or proposing. You’re arguing with no one.

“Pat, your debate tactics are those of an arrogant bully who seeks only to mis-characterize and insult his opponent. I wish luck to anyone foolish enough to debate you.”

“Dictionary.com – censor, verb (used with object): to examine and act upon as a censor.
censor, noun: any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.”

“refusing to stock someone’s art in your store because you find it morally objectionable is vile, anti-intellectual behavior”

You have just argued that you are acting as a “censor”. Well done, you’ve shattered your own arguments yet again.

How is directly quoting you “mis-characterization”?

As a store owner who will not be carrying this book I would like to make a few points.

I would never tell one of my customers that I will not order a book for them. They are the customer and have the right to read whatever they want. What I did tell my customers is that I will not stock this book on my shelves and if they want it they will have special order it. (Just so that you know not a single customer has asked to order it.)

People are assuming that everyone in the world knows Mr. Cards views on on homosexuals. Even though his views are out in the public it does not automatically mean that every retail owner has read or heard about his views so they may have carried books of his not knowing about his stance on this issue. Since this has become such a hot button issue in the industry people who never knew his views are now aware and are making a decision based on what they have learned. This does not mean they are jumping on the band wagon, it just means they are making a decision now that they have more information.I myself am gay and I am very aware of Mr. Cards opinions. I have never carried an Ender’s Game comic or trade and won’t even with the movie coming out. I did order Ultimate Iron Man but only as a special order item and I do not stock the Ultimate Iron Man trades.

I think one of the reasons this may have become such a hot button issue is because it is Superman. Superman is supposed to stand for everyone and Mr Card does not support that ideal in his personal life.

In regards to this being censorship everyone who is claiming that is totally off base. I and every other retailer have to make decisions on a monthly basis about what they will carry in our stores. A perfect example of this is Rob Liefeld. I personally think he is a horrible writer and artist and do not support any project he is a part of because it has been my experience that with my customer base he is a book killer. If one of my customers wants one of his titles I will gladly order it but I will not stock his titles on my shelves. Retailers make these kinds decisions every month. It is up to the retailer to judge his customer base and make decisions on where they want to spend their money. The comic book market is not an easy business to be in and the last thing any store wants is to be stuck with books they feel they cannot sell. This does not equate to censorship.

What I really find odd in this whole thing is Mr Cards decision to work for DC. To me it shows a lack of conviction on his part. For Mr Card to have these wild opinions about gay marriage and then agree to work for a company that 7 months ago reintroduced a major character(Alan Scott) as a gay man who in his first appearance asks his gay lover to marry him just seems strange. I am very much so a supporter of equal rights and if I for example knew that a company was supportive of the KKK I would never turn a blind eye to that fact for a paycheck. Mr Card has made comments about overthrowing the government if the legalize gay marriage but yet he will work for a company that seems very open to the idea of gay marriage and gay rights?

Not to let DC off the hook I also find it is sending a confusing message when they so actively support the gay lifestyle yet they hire someone who is so against that. It shows a lack of forethought on their part not seeing this as a confusing message. To be honest though this does not surprise me with Bob Harris at the helm.

Chris B, I appreciate your polite candor. If you are not stocking books because you don’t think they will sell, that is one thing (good business sense), but if you are not stocking them explicitly because of one of the creator’s personal beliefs, I do not agree with that stance. I do appreciate that you will order them for customers who ask, however.

WOW, what a comment thread!

After reading some of Card’s comments, I find them offensive and hurtful. I have never and will never purchase any of his work, because I would never want any of my hard-earned money to find its way into his pockets. That being said, I’m not going to crucify DC for working with Card. A person’s political beliefs doesn’t invalidate their work. If he can write a good Superman story, he can write a good Superman story. That’s all that DC should be concerned with. Like any employer, DC should only look at the work a person can do when it comes to making a hiring decision. I wouldn’t expect DC to fire someone for being gay and I won’t sign a petition that says they should fire Card for having what I consider an ignorant and primitive opinion.

What saddens me is I’d really love to have Samnee’s Superman art in print.

@ Elton Robb

“I am anti-gay marriage”…”As a libertarian”

Great to see how consistent you are in your ideals there

1000% pro gay rights here

February 16, 2013 at 12:28 am

Mel Gibson is a good actor and the entire world LOVED him in the 80s & 90s….. now his career is over and his old movies dont even get play on cable anywhere these days….. why?

Because his personal persona has killed his career.

Orson Scott Card might be a great writer — but when you do such public things in your personal life… things that are so controversal and create negative reactions in people….. well guess what- in america that means you are done!

I had no clue he was anti gay until this week. I enjoyed his comic work prior to this… but how one support anything he does ( quality work or not) if he a vocal opponent against gays???

Would you buy your mortal enemies painting- even if it was cool?… why would you support your enemy?

1000% pro gay rights here

February 16, 2013 at 12:35 am

When Bob Harris was the top dog at Marvel in the mid- late 90s…… correct me if i am wrong but…. CREATIVELY ( not financialy) wasnt that period of Marvel Comics its WORST in their history???

And now with DC…. someone please tell me how CREATIVELY the new 52 is better than the previous DCU….
Sales dont mean somthing is better….

The ALAN SCOTT is gay stunt… was just that.
Now supporting an anti gay activist….. well thats an offensive stunt i think.

was it censorship too to jewel store refuse to buy Blood Diamond?

Boycott all you want. I ordered 1,000 copies and will be selling them on e-bay. Scarcity sells. Thank you for helping me make a lot of money.

It is not censorship for these retailers to shut out Card’s Superman story. That decision does not change the form of the story, it does not intrinsically negate the story’s right to exist, and it does not ultimately prevent people from reading it if they’re actively interested. But any regular customer in those stores will experience their purchase as a small-scale political decision (and possibly a medium-sized inconvenience — god forbid). These stores aren’t public libraries, where a political selection bias would have a very different context and meaning.

And any statement can be called a stunt, but it is entirely possible for an insincere statement to be entirely true despite any misgivings about intention or consistency.

@Shane: “Why are people defending Card?” Because if you want to build a society based on tolerance and acceptance, you need to practise tolerance and acceptance. Otherwise, you’re simply building a society based on the prejudices and discrimination you prefer.

Tim M.: “Free market means the consumer gets to choose, what to buy or not buy, not the retailer. The retailer then sees what the consumer is buying or not buying and then makes business decisions based on that. Preventing a consumer from buying something because it does not fit into your belief system is not business or free market; it is censorship. And it is wrong.”

Retailers of all kinds decide what to order or not to order all the time (worth repeating in this thread). Comic stores couldn’t possibly stock every title released each month, and so they pick and choose based on any number of factors. Hey, my local Christian bookstore opts not to stock 50 Shades of Grey and Harry Potter, but I can’t imagine anyone would accuse them of censorship.

Beyond any of that, though, because of the structure of the direct market, the retailers are the customers — they are who publishers (and Diamond Comic Distributors) are selling to. And those comics aren’t given on consignment; with rare exception, they aren’t returnable. In this case, and in every case, comic-store owners are deciding which titles (and creators and publishers) they want to invest their own money in. And here some retailers have decided a certain comic by a certain creator isn’t going to get their money.

Camoron- it is absolutely my right to make that decision. It is I who will have to suffer the consequences if a customer is lost to one of my competitors who decided to carry the book. I am willing to take that risk. I am not saying Orson Scott Card does not have the right to work or that other stores should not sell his books but I will not actively support his work.

Those busnisses won’t ever have to worry about getting any business from me, my family, or my friends! I hope the people in those cities will join me and many others in boycotting these stores for their support of gays and gay marriage! Our country is under attack from these evi, hatemongering, people! Our upstanding citizens with morals and values of the true America need to stop being the “silent majority” and stand up to stop this perversion that has started to cripple and destroy our once proud nation! This may be one small piece of the “gay attack” but it’s a part of the complete picture! Religion, the boy scouts, marriage, the work place, comics, etc! This evil must be stopped! Stand up for your rights, America!!!

To say, “I am against same-sex marriage” does not equate to people lynching blacks or beating members of the LGBT community!

This protest is getting silly and people are not allowed to have opinions and it sucks!

the personal views of an writer have no Bering on the quality of their work,

Thomas Jefferson was a serial rapist,and all of his shit is still pretty good

“Those busnisses won’t ever have to worry about getting any business from me, my family, or my friends! I hope the people in those cities will join me and many others in boycotting these stores for their support of gays and gay marriage! Our country is under attack from these evi, hatemongering, people! Our upstanding citizens with morals and values of the true America need to stop being the “silent majority” and stand up to stop this perversion that has started to cripple and destroy our once proud nation! This may be one small piece of the “gay attack” but it’s a part of the complete picture! Religion, the boy scouts, marriage, the work place, comics, etc! This evil must be stopped! Stand up for your rights, America!!!”

You are an awful human being. Fortunately, time and popular opinion trends aren’t on your side. The sooner people like you grow old and die off, the better the world will be for it.

“To say, “I am against same-sex marriage” does not equate to people lynching blacks or beating members of the LGBT community!”

It’s still stupid, immoral, and gross.

“This protest is getting silly and people are not allowed to have opinions and it sucks!”

No one has said people aren’t allowed to have opinions.

Has anyone else noticed that those defending Card, his idiotic bigotry, and trying to argue against this boycott are constantly referencing things that no one has ever said?

“the personal views of an writer have no Bering on the quality of their work,”

No one said they did.

@Tim When this “issue” has settled down, what will the oppressed and victimized find to whine about next? Cry wolf enough and people stop listening. Please do not feel bad for me. Im not offended.
Again….time for people to get over themselves.

“@Tim When this “issue” has settled down, what will the oppressed and victimized find to whine about next? Cry wolf enough and people stop listening. Please do not feel bad for me. Im not offended.
Again….time for people to get over themselves.”

Disgusting.

I oppose Grant Morrison’s views on masturbatory sigil magic. Can they stop stocking his books, too?

I am pro-traditional marriage, and I will buy a comic book written by anyone, as long as it’s good. Heck, the author could be getting busy a room full of guys (or girls) when he wrote it and that would be fine with me. That’s his/her life. I just want a good story and good art to go with it.

I understand where the stores are coming from; that’s just not my approach. If I boycotted everything created by anyone that didn’t agree with me on everything then what would be left?

@Pat Exactly! It is disgusting.
Jeez….enough.
Find a legitimate reason to be upset.

@Pat Reading some of your older comments on this “issue”, where you are wishing people to “die off”, kinda makes you sound like a hatemonger.
The hypocrisy is laughable. Where’s your tolerance?
Maybe, just maybe, you only practice it when it suits your needs?

I think we should try to educate FLCS owners. Not try to be morality police, but just let them know who Orson Scott Card is and what he is writing, and then leave it up to them to decide if they’ll stock it or not. I imagine there are a lot of retailers that aren’t following this news, but may change certain decisions if they knew this was happening. I’ll be letting the store owners know about this controversy at my FLCS next Wednesday.

To those of you who say ‘what about Marvel’, many of us boycotted Marvel’s publications due to OSC. Just because you didn’t see an article on CBR doesn’t mean that many people were aware of his hatred and bigotry and complained to Marvel about it.

I wish he’d take his riches and just retire. At least, his evil attitude would just go away (like it should).

Less hate, more love!

@Camoron

While I don’t necessarily agree with Pat’s tone, his argument is sound in all but one respect: Walmart’s actions are censorship. They require musicians to alter the content of their music to be stocked in stores. As musicians can ill-afford not having their work sold by one of the largest music retailers in the country, they comply with Walmart’s standards. This is suppression of speech–content is changed or deleted to be found “suitable” by an organization forcing its views on others.

Some important distinctions:

If Walmart were simply to not sell any content they found objectionable–as is the right of any retailer–this would not be censorship. Choosing not to carry a product, even on moral grounds, is not a suppression of free speech. You may disagree with that decision, as you may disagree with the decision of comic book retailers not to sell products by Card, but it is not by definition censorship.

If DC were not to publish Card’s story because of this outcry, an argument of censorship could be made, but even that would be murky. Choosing not to publish material regardless of its content because of an author’s personal views certainly demonstrates a bias, but DC retains the right not to have content created they believe will not sell. Work for hire is not considered protected speech.

Similarly, a Christian bookstore owner choosing not to sell literature written by a gay man because they believe homosexuality is sinful is not censorship. Under your argument Camoron, this would be censorship–choosing not to sell something on moral grounds, effectively acting as a “moral authority” for their customers. However, that is entirely within the rights of a retailer to do so, which have stated as such, but it is not censoring the gay author. The author may sell less books, but the bookstore owner’s actions neither prevent the author from publishing nor do they prevent the author’s works from being sold in other markets.

If, like Walmart, that one owner controlled a disproportionately large share of the retail market and required the author to renounce homosexuality or change the content of their work in order to be sold–which the author would then be compelled to do lest they have low sales that impact their ability to publish future content–that would be censorship.

Personally, as a gay man, I have no problem with DC hiring Card. If anything, their actions have brought renewed attention to Card’s bigoted views. I am all for separating the art from the artist as long as the artist’s misdeeds are acknowledged. Not that I’m a particular fan of his work, but Polanski cannot release a film without spurring discussion about his rape of a minor. Though I wish DC came out a little more strongly against the views expressed by Card, they have acknowledged Card’s views are not their own. Homophobes, racists, anti-semetics, etc. have and will continue to produce worthy art. If such artists were not to be hired for their personal views, I believe we would begin a descent down a slippery slope. Not hiring someone because they are a minority, gay, or Jewish would be equally wrong in my opinion.

However, claiming that those with opinions against homosexuality are being censored or religiously persecuted when their beliefs are questioned or when people decide not to support their beliefs financially is absurd. The symbol of our country cannot just be the American flag, but must also be the right of everyone to burn that flag. Choosing not to give money to someone lighting that sucker on fire is not censorship.

I hate Orson Scott Card’s views, I’m very pro-gay rights, but boycotting and blacklisting artists is a very petty thing to do. Worse, it’s traditionally been done by the very individuals that share Orson Scott Card’s opinions and outlook.

Instead of boycotting Card, the stores could pledge to donate all money acquired from products with his name to a pro-gay organization. And if you feel bad about buying an Orson Scott Card’s novel or comic, then donate some money too. That way you will be truly helping the cause.

I don’t think you should fight evil with evil tactics.

Still superman has no gay co-stars unlike all the other big two of DC (Batman-Batwoman, Wonder woman-Amazons (Mostly the paradise island ones, over the newer mortal ones)). so this could go down as either a good sci-fi story or a horrible piece of insensitivity (or both if he tries to go the alien analogy route). regardless the LCS by me said they would not get the single issues but might order the trades if it is passable since it is superman and superman is the second most recognizable DC character out there.

“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

What about their LGBT readership though? Did they think about them at all?

@Mark

Wal-Mart’s actions are censorship. I disagree that a local comic book shop is not performing censorship when deciding something they find personally objectionable will not be carried in their store. I don’t think the distinction is that important– if all of the comic book stores refused to carry a book on moral grounds, you admit that would be censorship. Why does it cease to be censorship just because it is on a smaller scale? If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it’s probably shit. Just a tiny shit. I completely agree that every consumer has a right not to buy something on moral grounds, and I understand retailers are people too and they certainly have the right to do what they want for their ship, but once again, I do not agree with that decision. I am not saying that makes them horrible people; they’re taking a stand for their convictions, but in my opinion, they’re doing it in a bad way. As far as a Christian bookstore, these stores have an obvious agenda and you probably wouldn’t be going into one if you didn’t know that already. If comic book store owners want to pass their agenda along through their store, fine, but I don’t have to like it and would personally prefer to take my business to a store that will make stocking decisions based on business sense and not their personal beliefs.

It’s also worth noting that in many areas (such as the one I live in) there aren’t a lot of options for comic book stores. I drive 40 miles to my “LCS” (more like an “RCS” – Regional Comic Shop). Though, yes, I could always take my business online, I just prefer brick and mortar stores. The issue of refusing to stock a couple of books doesn’t bother me that much, I just hate knowing it’s an option.

That was suppose to be,

: to prohibit especially by legal means (ban discrimination); also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of (ban a book) (ban a pesticide)

The erratic availability of the issue will cause the speculator market to make up for the sales that are lost despite the boycott. Hence, there will be more professionally graded copies of this issue than are required or deserved.

“I am pro-traditional marriage”

This is a cute way of saying “I’m a homophobe”.

Definition of CENSOR
noun
1
: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

censor
transitive verb

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (censor the news); also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages)

Definition of CENSORSHIP

1
a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Definition of BAN
transitive verb

: to prohibit especially by legal means (ban discrimination); also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of (ban a book) (ban a pesticide)

merriam-webster

The reason I posted the definitions is to show that a LCS not selling these issues are not practicing censorship. The LCS in question can not delete or change anything in the book. All they can do is ban it from their stores. Unfortunately, banning books is a whole other can of worms.

Always hilarious when intolerant bigots claim they are victims of intolerance. They’re right though. We won’t tolerate their bullshit bigotry.

Censorship does not require nor imply -ONLY- PARTIAL suppression. That is a FORM of censorship, it is not the ONLY form. Suppression of the entire product from their shelves is still a form of censorship. Banning a book is a form of censorship too. Banning something outright is in fact censorship in its simplest form.

Here’s an interesting article about libraries that I feel is somewhat relevant on the topic of censorship: http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/basics/notcensorship

@Camoron: The article makes an interesting distinction between selection and censorship, but I don’t think that those categories translate well between a public library and a privately owned store. A retailer does not have the same responsibilities as a librarian, in that stores may influence the sphere of public knowledge in any number of ways but they do not ultimately speak for it. Banning books demands some form of authority, whether government oversight or the systematic self-regulation of an industry, while an individual store can ever only ask for the purchaser’s consent.

So, perhaps you want to call both of these things censorship, but let’s not get hung up on the word. The point is that the differences between formal regulation and commercial boycotts are not just differences of scale.

A single library can refuse to carry something on moral grounds and it’s wrong, even though you could always go to another library that does have it. Now you’re right, a retailer does not have the responsibilities a librarian has, that is why most will agree that it’s an outrage when a librarian bans a book. I am not suggesting that retailers have the same degree of responsibility as librarians, but I do personally believe it is a bad decision. It’s not all about the level of responsibility, it’s about the level of availability of a piece of art being diminished on moral grounds. Obviously no retailer ever took an oath not to ban anything from their store, I am only making MY preferences clear that I APPRECIATE retailers that do not presume to sell me that which they have personally cleared as morally acceptable.

These stores can do what they wish its their right. But free speech is also for those opinions you don’t share. Seems a lot of liberals forget this fact.

Free speech protects the haters of bigotry too. Funny huh

“These stores can do what they wish its their right. But free speech is also for those opinions you don’t share. Seems a lot of liberals forget this fact.”

This isn’t a free speech issue. Not even close. Sorry.

“I don’t think you should fight evil with evil tactics.”

Absolute insanity.

“Hey, sell this for me.”
“No, I don’t want to.”
“YOU’RE EVIL AND CENSORING ME AND TRAMPLING MY FREE SPEECH”

“I am only making MY preferences clear that I APPRECIATE retailers that do not presume to sell me that which they have personally cleared as morally acceptable.”

This has ZERO to do with retailers making any moral judgment regarding the material they are selling.

You really have no idea what’s going on here.

Hold up, everyone. The bigots are now claiming that people are being bigoted towards them. I think we need to pause a second and think about this.

It’s not evil if its justified. If you get locked in prison for no reason: bad. If you get locked up for murder: good.

To all the furious little man-children who plan to order a dozen extra copies, just to prove how much they support Card’s right to be a big ol’ bigot: cool story, bros.

Just to clarify something for those wondering about why there was no similar outcry over OSC’s work for Marvel, I just looked it up on Wiki and Ultimate Iron Man came out in 2005 and 2007, prior to his deranged call for a violent overthrow of the government in order to preserve his right to be a homophobic bigot.

I’m no fan of Card or his work, but this boycotting of him by a bunch of fundamentalists just strikes me as bullying.

As far as I know, Bryan Hitch is an atheist. We disagree – profoundly – on the very nature of the universe. That doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t work or be allowed to tell his stories. And by golly, I just might buy some of ‘em.

Phil Jimenez, who is gay, draws one of the most gorgeous versions of Wonder Woman I’ve ever seen. Again, I’m sure we disagree on some things pretty profoundly – but I think boycotting his work (out of either hatred of him or fear that he might work “the homosexual agenda” into his comics) is ridiculous.

Dave Sim has said some things about women in general that could be construed as cruel or hateful, and yet I don’t recall any organized boycott (at least on this level) over the years. Still a very talented guy. Still says things I either don’t agree with or don’t understand. But if he gets the chance to do something he wants, that’s his deal.

Frank Miller. Do I need to say more? FRANK MILLER. If anyone deserves a boycott, it’s probably Frank, and as far as I know, he’s still rockin’ in the free world. And he should be. If he can convince a publisher to let him tell his story, I might not like it, but he’s free to do what he wants.

Long story short, the same thing is true for anyone you or I might not agree with, or even who we might think is a pretty despicable person. It’ll work out. Calm down.

@Camaron

” I don’t think the distinction is that important– if all of the comic book stores refused to carry a book on moral grounds, you admit that would be censorship.”

Actually, no. As I specifically stated, a large retailer (or every comic book store) refusing to carry a book on moral grounds is not censorship–requiring content be changed for it to be sold is however. You may not think the distinction is important, but this distinction is, in fact, the crux of the issue here. I understand your moral qualms with a retailer “forcing” their views on their consumers, but this is not censorship. Categorizing it as such does a disservice to actual instances in which freedom of speech is impinged.

“As far as a Christian bookstore, these stores have an obvious agenda and you probably wouldn’t be going into one if you didn’t know that already. If comic book store owners want to pass their agenda along through their store, fine, but I don’t have to like it and would personally prefer to take my business to a store that will make stocking decisions based on business sense and not their personal beliefs.”

You also miscategorize my argument here. My example was of a Christian bookstore owner, not of a Christian bookstore, though knowing a retailer’s agenda is irrelevant to the issue anyway. As you state, retailers have every right to pass their agenda along through their store. It is your right not to take your business to such an establishment. Their actions, though you may think they are misguided, do not constitute censorship. A capitalist establishment choosing to not make something available demonstrates selection, not censorship. You can say such selection is improperly motivated or–in the instance of a Christian bookstore owner refusing to carry works by gay authors, homophobic, bigoted, etc.–but this is simply not censorship.

You’re caught up on the notion of retailers enforcing their beliefs on others through inventory decisions, but boycotts are not censorship–they are merely an alternative form of expression. You’re logic equates any instance of a group choosing not to support the actions of an individual (or institution) with the active suppression of that individual’s actions. The Montgomery bus boycott would, by your definition, be a form of censorship against the segregation policies of the public transit system of Montgomery, Alabama. Church leaders (comic book retailers) chose not to financially support the transit system because of its segregation policy, in effect forcing their congregations (customers) to do the same. Church leaders were not actively selling bus passes, but their actions created an environment in which it was untenable for black parishioners to purchase such passes–the equivalent of not stocking a Card comic. You very well may dismiss such a claim as unfair, but it is merely an extension of your aforementioned arguments.

I doubt that any of these people have read the Superman story that Card has written. I also seriously doubt that DC would publish an anti-gay Superman story.

So I have to wonder: What if the story that Card wrote is deeply pro-gay because, as a professional writer, that is the story DC hired him to write, would these stores still feel it is important to boycott it?

As reprehensible as Card’s antigay activism is, it seems to me that this boycott is as poorly thought out and reactionary as his politics.

Yes, it is censorship. There is no definition of censorship that says it is only done by governments. Censorship is the act of a goverment, business, church or even a group of individuals controlling what thoughts, ideas or information others have access to.

And capitalism is letting the free market decide for itself what material and authors people want to read.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – attributed to Voltaire

Pissing off, and shaming people who buy comic books will not in any way shape or form change laws, and get gay people married. In fact… the “New 52″ without all the gay publicity stunts, and closet love retailers… sucks. Once you get beyond the fanboys excuses for propping it up you realize not even all the gayness of Green Lantern is enough to save this reboot. Maybe it’s time for gay’s, and those who agree with them to stop fighting over comic books, and actually go write to their congressman instead.

@Hugo Sleestak: Enlighten us. Have Hitch, Miller, Jimenez or Sim advocated for the violent overthrow of our government recently?

Some of you, Camoron especially, seem to have equated this so-called “censorship” with the boycott against Chick-fil-A. What’s forgotten there, already, isn’t that Chick-fil-A was suddenly discovered to be a Christian-run company that didn’t think much of the gayz. This had been known for decades. No surprise. What prompted the boycott was CFA admitting that they were making huge financial contributions to hate groups like the National Organization for Marriage, etc. THAT was the problem. I doubt that Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin would have been in such a rush to buy nuggets from them if they were caught contributing to Hamas, and they wouldn’t have been using the same arguments I see here: their owners have a RIGHT to believe what they want, as does, truly, Orson Scott Card…

…but when Card crosses the line into supporting hate groups with money, while at the same time advocating the violent positions that he takes, then any reasonable person must surely do what they can to deny him that money.

Same thing with Dragon*Con. The stink isn’t “guy who used to run it is accused of pedophilia,” it’s “guy who used to run it still gets paid ~$125,000 a year in con profits, which he uses to obfuscate prosecution and avoid a trial via legal roadblocks for 10+ years, oh, and run up to New England to shack up with teenage boys.” You can’t continue spending money on things when the people on the other end use that money for ugly, evil purposes.

And the CFA boycott? I understand that it worked. CFA quietly acknowledged that they’d send their WinShape Foundation funds to non-controversial groups, not like the NOM or their brethren in hate.

“I’m no fan of Card or his work, but this boycotting of him by a bunch of fundamentalists just strikes me as bullying.”

Calling people who are anti-homophobia “fundamentalists” is hilariously sad.

“Phil Jimenez, who is gay, draws one of the most gorgeous versions of Wonder Woman I’ve ever seen. Again, I’m sure we disagree on some things pretty profoundly – but I think boycotting his work (out of either hatred of him or fear that he might work “the homosexual agenda” into his comics) is ridiculous.”

So is attempting to equate a person’s sexuality with a person’s beliefs.

Though, if someone did choose to not support Jimenez because he was gay, it still wouldn’t be censorship or any sort of free speech issue. It would just be stupid and awful.

@Mark, Expunging content is not the only form of censorship, something I’ve been harping on for a while, but seeing as a definition of censorship cannot be agreed upon, (methinks perhaps because nobody wants to be associated with supporting something with such negative connotations), I’ll politely refrain from using the term in reference to comic shops banning the book from their stores. Just to point out first, the librarian article I posted earlier creates a nice distinction between selection and censorship– selection is made from a positive approach while censorship is made from a negative; that is, the selector looks for reasons to keep something while the censor looks for reasons not to.

What Wal-Mart, as a large retailer, does is censorship, but not because they expunge the contents of the albums, etc. that they sell; rather, they simply refuse to carry albums unless they are expunged. The actual expunging is done by the record labels/artists/etc. specifically so Wal-Mart will stock it. Effectively, Wal-Mart is banning products on morally objectionable grounds unless they perform self-censorship in the form of expunging that which is morally objectionable. Card’s beliefs cannot be expunged from the material because they exist outside of the material.

The Montgomery bus boycott analogy doesn’t work for me for several reasons: 1. You can’t “censor” a bus-line. It is not a creative endeavor. 2. It was organized by private citizens who weren’t purveying anything to the public. There was no middleman dictating their morals. The issue was totally one of free choice of the individual. The buses were not withheld from anyone by the boycott organizers; anyone was free to get on the bus if they wanted to. If anti-segregation store owners refused to stock works that were worthy of consideration based upon the merit of the work itself because they had been created by pro-segregation authors I would be equally critical of that decision.

@Richard Bagge, NOM is not categorized by any credible organizations as a hate group. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center, whom some have cited, categorize it as an “anti-gay group” while having a separate category for “anti-gay hate groups,” in which it is not listed. If you consider it a hate group, fine, but I think comparing it to Hamas is a bit extreme. NOM hasn’t been implicated in the involvement or affiliation with any attacks on civilians or suicide bombings. As for supporting the group with his money being the issue vs. just simply believing what they stand for and not acting on it, it seems to me like everyone is saying they’re okay with him having opposing beliefs on the issue as long as he doesn’t stand up for those beliefs. Seems a bit draconian to me.

“So I have to wonder: What if the story that Card wrote is deeply pro-gay because, as a professional writer, that is the story DC hired him to write, would these stores still feel it is important to boycott it?”

Probably, since giving Card any money means you are financially supporting the Mormon church and organized homophobia.

“Yes, it is censorship.”

No, it isn’t. For the millionth time.

“There is no definition of censorship that says it is only done by governments.”

Which is irrelevant to this case.

“Censorship is the act of a goverment, business, church or even a group of individuals controlling what thoughts, ideas or information others have access to.”

Also for the millionth time, no, it’s the act of suppressing and/or deleting said information and/or ideas. “Not helping to spread” is not the same as “suppressing and/or deleting. Again, by the absurd logic you lay out, if you ask someone to help you get a message out and they say no, they are censoring you.

“Hello, store owner. Please sell this for me.”
“No, sorry, I don’t want to for some reason.”
“YOU ARE CENSORING ME”

If you can’t see how insane that is then there’s really nothing left to be said.

“And capitalism is letting the free market decide for itself what material and authors people want to read.”

And boycotts by both readers and retailers is exactly that.

“There was no middleman dictating their morals.”

There is no middleman dictating the morals of the store owners either. Give it up.

“The issue was totally one of free choice of the individual.”

Apparently an individual’s freedom to choose is super-important, until you own a store, then you’re not allowed any choice in what you’re selling.

Interesting.

The store owner is the middleman.

Of course you’re allowed to choose. If I owned a store, I’d choose to put out content regardless of whether or not I agreed with it or the people who wrote it. What you still can’t seem to grasp is that I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to do this, just that they shouldn’t do it as a matter of principle.

“What you still can’t seem to grasp is that I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to do this, just that they shouldn’t do it as a matter of principle.”

What you still can’t seem to grasp is that creating a baseless, arbitrary, and unique standard for the morality of anyone selling something is absurd.

Again, here’s your logic:
“Sell this for me, whatever it is.”
“No, I don’t want to, for some reason.”
“YOU ARE CENSORING ME AND YOU SHOULDN’T DO THAT”

In. Sane.

And actually, in this case, it’s really:

DC Comics: “Hey, retailer, buy this from us.”
Retailer: “No, I don’t want to.”
Camoron: “IF YOU DON’T BUY THAT IT’S CENSORSHIP”

I’ve made it abundantly clear that the reason is what’s important. You’re picking out parts of argument while ignoring the context and then taking it to the most extreme absolute possible and I think you know it.

Pat, you are either a deliberate character assassin or you were deprived of oxygen as a newborn, possibly both. Either way, I will no longer be responding to your comments. In your own words, give it up.

How is it acceptable for organizations who oppose the rights of the LGBT community to hold protests and boycotts against any person or organization that disagrees with THEM, but when the other side does the same thing it’s a downward spiral into censorship and tyranny? The hypocrisy is so thick, you could it it with a fork.

We live in a democracy. I get to choose how I spend my money. Why I spend it the way I do is nobody’s business but my own. The same goes for the owner of your LCS, who puts comics on the shelves using HIS money for you to buy. He or she doesn’t HAVE to, but nevertheless chooses to do so. In this case they have chosen not to. It is most definitely NOT censorship.

Groups like those Card is affiliated with throw around boycotts like they’re going out of style, but when someone tries it on them they cry foul and play the victim.

I may not know Superman’s stance of gay marriage, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that he’s neither a hypocrite nor a coward.

“I’ve made it abundantly clear that the reason is what’s important. You’re picking out parts of argument while ignoring the context and then taking it to the most extreme absolute possible and I think you know it.”

And I’ve (actually, not just me, a few others have explained this as well) made it abundantly clear that the reason is irrelevant and have been taking to the logical conclusion (which only seems extreme because your logic is insane).

Feel free to keep ignoring anyone that points out how flawed your arguments are. I’ll be sure to keep explaining it anyways.

Remember everyone, according to Camoron, consumer choice is of the utmost importance, but any retailer MUST buy this book for their store(s) or they are “vile”.

A position so flawed he can’t even keep it straight.

“We live in a democracy. I get to choose how I spend my money. Why I spend it the way I do is nobody’s business but my own. The same goes for the owner of your LCS, who puts comics on the shelves using HIS money for you to buy. He or she doesn’t HAVE to, but nevertheless chooses to do so. In this case they have chosen not to. It is most definitely NOT censorship.”

Camoron, pay close attention to this part.

Gyroscope_Trout, I am not sure if you are referring to me or others (certainly there have been a few anti-gay comments on this), but speaking for myself, there is no hypocrisy in my beliefs. It is acceptable for both sides to boycott whatever they want. I seek to deprive nobody of their choice, not even the comic store owners, I am merely expressing my own personal opinion that those in a position of purveying creative works ought not to ban works they disagree with on moral grounds. I fully recognize they will do it anyways and that there’s nothing I can do nor nothing I would do (short of trying to convince them otherwise) about that. It is the classic struggle of the way the world is vs. the way the world ought to be. In the way I think the world ought to be (vs. the way it is), anyone who purveys creative works ought not refuse to purvey a work solely on moral grounds. It is the categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. I believe banning creative works on moral grounds is wrong, ergo I would personally act according to that particular maxim.

“there is no hypocrisy in my beliefs.”

Demonstrably false.

On why bus boycotts were acceptable: “The issue was totally one of free choice of the individual.”
On individual choice by retailers: “refusing to stock someone’s art in your store because you find it morally objectionable is vile, anti-intellectual behavior”

“I believe banning creative works on moral grounds is wrong”

No one is trying to ban anything.

Actually we don’t live in a democracy. A democracy is two wolves, and a sheep voting over what’s for dinner. The United States is really just an Oligarchy disguised as a representative republic.

Fundamentally, people are entitled to their opinion. The US prides itself on its freedom of speech on the one hand, then vilifies people for exercising that right and expressing views that are simply unfashionable. Not the act of a society that truly believes in its ideals. This sort of intellectually chauvinistic hypocrisy annoys the crap out of me.
BTW Vegnawar – good comment.

Superman stands for truth and justice but above all else, he is ” Champion of the opressed” In Action comics number 1, the very first time superman was introduced to the world, It clearly states champion of the opressed. This is why Orson Scott can not write superman. He’s not writing, batman, wonderwoman or any of the other comics…He is writing the superman.

“expressing views that are simply unfashionable”

Homophobia is irrational and immoral, not “unfashionable”.

You should probably learn what “freedom of speech”, “chauvinistic”, and “hypocrisy” mean before you start talking like that.

“You know the deal Metropolis… Treat people right, or expect a visit from me.” –Superman in Rebooted Action Comics #1

Sounds like Truth, and Justice has allready been thrown out the window. Only a tyrant would think it’s a brilliant idea to violently enforce a police state, and cause oppression.

@Steve

It’s true, people have the right to say whatever they want, but you can’t force me to listen. I have the right to not buy a comic written by Orson Scott Card, and choosing to do so does not mean I oppose free speech.

There are dozens if not hundreds of comics that I do not buy from one month to the next. Many of them, I choose not to buy for flimsier reasons than that they are written by a hateful bigot. This denies their creators revenue, and perhaps even their jobs. Nobody would suggest that I be forced to buy those comics in order to support those people. I am not a charity, after all.

Consequently I will choose not to buy OSC’s works because that is my right. Suggesting that this somehow means I don’t support free speech is simply ridiculous.

Card’s personal views about the Gay Rights agenda should not effect his right to make a living any more than any individual’s personal sexual choices should effect THEIR right to make a living.

The willingness of the gay community to commit rampant reverse discrimination in what is supposed to be a free country where freedom of expression is constitutionally protected sickens me. Hypocrites!

“Card’s personal views about the Gay Rights agenda should not effect his right to make a living any more than any individual’s personal sexual choices should effect THEIR right to make a living.”

Homosexuality (like heterosexuality) isn’t immoral, it’s amoral. Card’s homophobia is just flat-out immoral. Your comparison is idiotic.

“The willingness of the gay community to commit rampant reverse discrimination in what is supposed to be a free country where freedom of expression is constitutionally protected sickens me. Hypocrites!”

You don’t understand freedom of expression or what hypocrisy is.

Oh, and also, your saying “gay rights agenda” says a lot about you. None of it good. At all.

“It seems like at least 20 people on here, probably a lot more, have called OSC ‘hateful’ ‘bigot’ ‘anti-gay’ ‘homophobe’, etc.”

Because he is.

“Supporting marriage extends to not wanting our tax dollars used to teach children that gay marriage is a good thing”

Gay marriage is objectively as good a thing as heterosexual marriage. Why would anyone want their children taught otherwise?

“So why should tax dollars be used to teach anyone anything about homosexuality, when the opinions are so different?”

Because the opinion that homosexuals are less than heterosexuals isn’t a valid one.

‘Some of us study the topic instead of simply declaring that everyone who disagrees with us is a ‘stupid, old fashioned, homophobic, hateful bigot.’”

Your moronic rambling comparing affording equal rights to two consenting adults to bestiality and pedophilia makes it quite clear that you are a stupid, old fashioned, homophobic, hateful bigot.

And that doesn’t have a damn thing to do with whether I agree with you or not.

Know this, if you have children, and they ever have children, and someone was to show them what you just wrote, their shame for being related to you would be immeasurable.

LOL!!

I stopped arguing with that dude/(lady?) when he couldn’t even figure out that brick and mortar stores not selling a comic doesn’t prevent people from reading a book.

Seriously, this is the 21st century…unless you live in China, you can read damn near anything within reason online.

But the back and forth is hilarious, because at least five people refuted their weak arguments and they just keep posting the same thing, only with more condescension and more capital letters.

It’s a good thing Superman doesn’t exist…after reading this news story and the pro-Card side of things, he’d leave the planet faster than you could say “Lois Lane is pregnant with your baby.”

@Rene:

“I hate Orson Scott Card’s views, I’m very pro-gay rights, but boycotting and blacklisting artists is a very petty thing to do. Worse, it’s traditionally been done by the very individuals that share Orson Scott Card’s opinions and outlook.”

According to your reasoning, boycotting anything is wrong. What do you say about people boycotting segregated public buses in the South during the Civil Rights Era? People who boycott Chick-Fil-A? Apparently all that is wrong, according to your reasoning.

More specifically, you are arguing that boycotting artists is very petty. Since when are artists more protected that, say, anyone else? Since when are artists (or anyone else, for that matter) to be protected for their views? Views, which are ideas, are to be challenged in the open marketplace of views/ideas. That’s very much American.

Also, there is no official blacklist here. There is no Senator McCarthy with his House Un-American Activities Committee investigating. No one is calling for the Government to step it, so don’t conflate the argument with that notion.

To recapitulate, a group of DC fans have petitioned DC to break its contract with OSC. DC defended itself by reasserting their contractual rights with OSC, while disavowing themselves from his extreme, fascist views. It’s as simple as that. It’s completely American to criticize others. Especially if that criticism is aimed at views that advocate hateful, un-American legislation (overthrow of the government, criminalizing gay people, etc.).

As for me, a gay man and a life-time comic book reader, I don’t hate OSC as you yourself state. I hate his views and his work as a board of director for NOM. I can separate the two. I don’t stoop to his level. His critics are not stooping to his level.

“Instead of boycotting Card, the stores could pledge to donate all money acquired from products with his name to a pro-gay organization. And if you feel bad about buying an Orson Scott Card’s novel or comic, then donate some money too. That way you will be truly helping the cause.”

Yes, you’re right. And at least one of these stores is doing precisely that. (Check the latest update of this article.)

“I don’t think you should fight evil with evil tactics.”

There’s nothing evil about pointing out the evil of another. “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you think that bringing public attention to OSC because of his extreme views that advocate discriminatory, un-American legislation, then we should all remain silent on anything and refrain from being critics *period*. (Ironically, your reasoning allows for him to virulently criticize gay people and to promote legislation to criminalize gay people without criticism. That is, he can criticize others, but we can’t criticize him. Where’s the logic in that, I ask?)

We critics of OSC are not calling for what he himself wishes upon gay people. We are not seeking to have him criminalized as sub-human in front of the law. We just want his bigotry and his work with NOM exposed. Big difference.

Erik (and Pat) –

I don’t much care if something is American or Un-American, as I’m not American myself.

I also never said you shoudn’t tell people that Card is a hateful homophobe. By all means, do. I have done it myself to a few friends of mine who were fans of Ender’s Game and never knew of Card’s opinions. As a public person and a very outspoken one, Orson Scott Card is fair game anytime someone wants to publicize how full of shit he is.

Just don’t ask me to support the boycotting of a writer. I will never do that. Boycotting has a long, shameful history. Pratically every writer that wrote something worthwhile and even vaguely daring, from D. H. Lawrence to Bret Easton Ellis, has been targeted for it. High-minded moral crusaders were always around to protect society and the public from troublesome ideas – among them any sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality.

Now the wheel has turned and the troublesome idea is the UNsympathetic portrayal of homosexuality. But it’s still the same dirty tactic, it didn’t become heroic because the people using it now are on the side that I consider “right”. I don’t want my name in a list of people that have tried to ban a book from stores. I don’t really care if people boycott junk food joints or other businesses. But stimying the flow of information is something I never want my name attached to, even if done with the noblest of intentions.

‘it didn’t become heroic because the people using it now are on the side that I consider “right”’

Well, that’s true. It’s not heroic because you consider it right, it’s heroic because it is actually, demonstrably right. Also, you haven’t come anywhere to close to explaining why a boycott is inherently bad, while I and others have repeteadly explained how the logic required to claim “you shouldn’t boycott stuff” is completely insane.

“I don’t want my name in a list of people that have tried to ban a book from stores”

No one is trying to ban any books.

“But stimying the flow of information ”

Not happening.

Why are the people trying to argue agaisnt this boycott constantly bringing up things that aren’t happening?

Pat: Strawman logic. They claim everyone else is doing it (projection) but they’ve been engaging in it since this story broke.

It’s not worth arguing with them about it anymore.

@Hysan: You nailed it with the “straw man” comment. Completely spot-on.

@Rene: We can explain this to you, and we have repeatedly, but clearly we cannot make you understand. That’s your choice. Best of luck in life!

You guys say I am using strawman logic, yet you guys keep accusing me of denying your right to criticize Card, when I never did such thing.

I never said you can’t criticize Card. Do so, please. Do so in any venue open to you. Do so as vocally as possible. Publish books, comics, make movies about it, be my guest. I’d love to see a documentary denouncing Card. And if people try to boycott you or your books or documentaries about Card, you can be sure I won’t be among them, because I don’t believe in boycotting books and movies, unlike you guys, and I’ll be there telling them they are blockheads for boycotting your book/movie too.

And I don’t remember ever saying that you guys are aiming to do to Card the same he’s trying to do to you. Another instance of doing the strawman routine on my arguments. I also never did say that you need to tolerate intolerance. I just don’t like the tools you have used to fight intolerance. Fight the guy without trying to supress his writings.

Yeah, I have heard all the arguments before. You’re not against free speech, you just don’t think it’s Card’s right to have a major publisher broadcasting his speech. It’s not book banning because Card would still have the right to distribute his books out of his own pocket. It’s not blacklist because it’s not official.

All it amounts to is a bunch of people who are commited to the technicality of free speech, perhaps, but not to the spirit of free speech. Peter David calls it Free Speech butheads. “I believe in free speech, BUT…” In this case, the “but” is that if the writer has done some monstrous deed, then it’s okay to make it hard for him to publish his books. And please, don’t be disingenious and say that Card has published a lot of books nonetheless, because being ineffective at boycotting isn’t the same as being blameless of boycotting.

“Fight the guy without trying to supress his writings.”

That is EXACTLY what the boycott does.

“All it amounts to is a bunch of people who are commited to the technicality of free speech, perhaps, but not to the spirit of free speech. Peter David calls it Free Speech butheads. “I believe in free speech, BUT…” In this case, the “but” is that if the writer has done some monstrous deed, then it’s okay to make it hard for him to publish his books. And please, don’t be disingenious and say that Card has published a lot of books nonetheless, because being ineffective at boycotting isn’t the same as being blameless of boycotting.”

What it amounts to is that both Peter David and yourself mistakenly believe that “freedom of speech” means “you should never be held accountable for what you say”.

Here’s your logic played out:
Guy 1: HEY GUY 2 YOU SUCK AND ARE DUMB AND UGLY
Guy 2:…ok
Guy 1: …can I borrown 20 bucks?
Guy 2: No, you just told me that I suck and am dumb and ugly.

According to your logic, Guy 2 is trampling all over Guy 1’s freedom of speech. Do I have to explain how silly that is?

@Lyle: “Way to make sure that people can’t buy comics, guys. Awesome move.”

No one’s preventing anyone from buying comics. Stop speaking hyperbole. Please.

“Fight the guy without trying to supress his writings.”

No one’s going to OSC’s house and preventing him from putting his fingers to his keyboard. Again, stop with the hyperbole.

@Rene:

First you said: “I don’t think you should fight evil with evil tactics.”

Then you said: “And I don’t remember ever saying that you guys are aiming to do to Card the same he’s trying to do to you”

Do you have a short-term memory problem or something?

It seems to me that Pat is just as hateful (if not moreso) than OSC. Like many people, I don’t support gay marriage because my religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I’ve not contributed to any causes on one side or the other, but if and when it comes down to a vote in my state, I will be voting against gay marriage to stay true to my beliefs.

Now I am sure Pat will say that I am a disgusting homophobe and that my children’s children will hate me for writing this. BUT, these beliefs have been held by my particular religion for thousands of years, and I don’t imagine they will be forgotten anytime soon.

Anyway, my only point is that, if you want people to be tolerant of your beliefs and lifestyle, you should be just as tolerant of people with the opposing viewpoints.

“Anyway, my only point is that, if you want people to be tolerant of your beliefs and lifestyle, you should be just as tolerant of people with the opposing viewpoints.”

“Bacon pizza is the best pizza” and “Pepperoni pizza is the best pizza” = opposing viewpoints

“Gay people are less than heterosexuals” and “No they’re not, because there’s absolutely no justification for that position and it’s immoral, unethical, and unbelievably disgusting” =/= opposing viewpoints

“BUT, these beliefs have been held by my particular religion for thousands of years, and I don’t imagine they will be forgotten anytime soon. ”

I highly suggest you check out both of these links:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

“The trendline — derived through regression smoothing — estimates that about 50 percent of Americans now support gay marriage and that 46 percent are opposed, with a small percentage of voters undecided. By contrast, at this time two years ago, the numbers were 42 percent in favor and 53 percent opposed, according to the same technique.

The change — about a 4 percentage-point shift in favor of gay marriage in each of the last two years — is about double the longer-term rate of progress for supporters of gay marriage, which has been between 1 and 2 percentage points per year.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of “this is right because we’ve always done it this way.”

The behavior of the homosexual community towards individuals who have a differing viewpoint is monstrous. They have shown themselves to be opponents of free speech, and handmaidens of fascism. Their insistence of the implementation of economic censorship exhibits their disdain for freedom of speech. Anyone who honestly believes in freedom should condemn their response to Orson Scott Card taking the position to write Superman. If they supported freedom, they would have no problem with Mr. Card writing the title regardless of his own political opinions. Instead they show themselves to be a hate group that intimidates those who differ from them. They are literally no better than the Ku Klux Klan as they perform these economic lynchings.

@jeffk: You know, you’re right. You’ve been shoved into a concentration camp and reprogrammed to be gay. (I’ll try to break you out.) Gays are worse than Nazis or the Taliban because they simply want to be recognized and allowed to live. That’s so wrong! In fact, they’re worse than the Catholic Church. What’s 2.000 pedophile priests in the last half of the 20th century alone compared to an entire community of people that just want to live their lives? First gay people want the right to get married, then they want to file their taxes together. All that disposable income is going to destroy our economy. WE ARE DOOMED!!!

@hysan

For the last 3 months Action Comics has sold 58,645—61,298—and 64,341
” ” Superman has sold 50,621—51,225—and 52,572

hardly sucky numbers as you so eloquently put it so please tell me what your talking about when you say if someone picks up 20 more copies of a book superman might break the 30,000 copies sold mark? if you plead mentally deficient ill accept that as it wouldnt be suprising

I am 80 years old and have been approached/propositioned by homosexuals and bisexuals many times. I have and have had friends, associates and family who are homosexual and whom I like/love/respect regardless of their sexual proclivities. I bear them no ill will and wish them no harm and have come to their aid several times over many years. However, homosexuality is an aberration an abnormality. I do not doubt that homosexuals are “wired” differently. Choice of “lifestyle” is just that, a choice. One may choose to be celibate for example.
It is not mine to judge one’s sexual activities as long as between consenting adults and in private. That judgement if for God.
Two homosexual things to which I strongly object: 1) homosexual’s use of the proper name Gay or Gaye to describe their lifestyle. As to “gay” happy and fun loving I suggest homosexuals are as miserable as heterosexuals if not more so. 2) Forcing the rest of us to accept their lifestyle.
I believe homosexuals should have legal equality (there is no exception Constitutionally) as in a union of some sort but not “marriage.”

Leave a Comment

 


Browse the Robot 6 Archives