Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Fair enough, as long as we are acknowledging that it can lead to censorship of views

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

You and several other in this thread appear to be trying to frame this as the boycotters somehow infringing Card's freedom of speech or the freedom of commerce of the movie studio. Would we still be having this conversation if he had called for interracial marriage to be criminalised, was a prominent member of the KKK and was well known for spouting racist bile? I think not.

I'm not saying that there is any infringement of Card's or the movie studios rights, just that there are many other factors to a boycott than simply not supporting something. There are censorship issues and free commerce issues but people have to know those issues exist so they can decide on the morality of each boycott for them selves.

Implying that they haven't. No one here is ignorant of what they are doing; they've heard that OSC is using his money to fund anti-gay lobbying. They reasoned out that if they give him money, they will inadvertently be funding anti-gay lobbying. They decide to not give him money as a result. It might even be a decision as simple as they don't like him so they won't give him any money. In either case, they can do whatever they please.

 

[Spearmaster]

Fair enough, as long as we are acknowledging that it can lead to censorship of views

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

You and several other in this thread appear to be trying to frame this as the boycotters somehow infringing Card's freedom of speech or the freedom of commerce of the movie studio. Would we still be having this conversation if he had called for interracial marriage to be criminalised, was a prominent member of the KKK and was well known for spouting racist bile? I think not.

I'm not saying that there is any infringement of Card's or the movie studios rights, just that there are many other factors to a boycott than simply not supporting something. There are censorship issues and free commerce issues but people have to know those issues exist so they can decide on the morality of each boycott for them selves.

Implying that they haven't. No one here is ignorant of what they are doing; they've heard that OSC is using his money to fund anti-gay lobbying. They reasoned out that if they give him money, they will inadvertently be funding anti-gay lobbying. They decide to not give him money as a result. It might even be a decision as simple as they don't like him so they won't give him any money. In either case, they can do whatever they please.

Show me one person that is sending a check to Card to see this film.

This movie boycott will prevent more money from getting to popcorn vendors at theaters than it will prevent Card from getting. Just saying...

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Fair enough, as long as we are acknowledging that it can lead to censorship of views

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

You and several other in this thread appear to be trying to frame this as the boycotters somehow infringing Card's freedom of speech or the freedom of commerce of the movie studio. Would we still be having this conversation if he had called for interracial marriage to be criminalised, was a prominent member of the KKK and was well known for spouting racist bile? I think not.

I'm not saying that there is any infringement of Card's or the movie studios rights, just that there are many other factors to a boycott than simply not supporting something. There are censorship issues and free commerce issues but people have to know those issues exist so they can decide on the morality of each boycott for them selves.

Implying that they haven't. No one here is ignorant of what they are doing; they've heard that OSC is using his money to fund anti-gay lobbying. They reasoned out that if they give him money, they will inadvertently be funding anti-gay lobbying. They decide to not give him money as a result. It might even be a decision as simple as they don't like him so they won't give him any money. In either case, they can do whatever they please.

Show me one person that is sending a check to Card to see this film.

This movie boycott will prevent more money from getting to popcorn vendors at theaters than it will prevent Card from getting. Just saying...

Movie ticket sales and/or future success for OSC. The second half of your statement is basically of the mentality of "My vote doesn't count so why bother?" Apart from that, they won't be affected that much if at all because there will be other movies in the multiplex and if this movie fails to bring an audience it will be replaced with another anyways.