@101: I believe in later editions he quietly changed the naked boy-wrestling to co-ed.

All this talk about freedom of speech would be very poignant if this issue actually involved a First Amendment violation or two. Yes, Card has the right to write homophobic screeds. He also has the right to write "Superman" for DC comics, and they have the right to hire him. Nobody has said otherwise.

The thing is, there are people in this country besides Card and the DC staff. And these people ALSO have a right to freedom of speech. This includes the right to refuse to sell Card's version of Superman, or to refuse to buy it, or even to try and convince others not to buy it either.

"Free speech" does not mean "Mandatory harmony." It doesn't always involve people recognizing their differences and singing Kumbaya. It often involves disagreement, insults, childishness, unpleasantness, protest, and yes, boycotts. This is a part of free speech, not a violation of it.

People can argue against someone's REASON for boycotting, but not against their legal ability to boycott. When the homophobes boycotted Starbucks over their pro-gay statements, I rolled my eyes. Not because I thought they shouldn't be able to boycott, but because the homophobia that motivated it is pathetic to me. I'd never argue that they were violating Starbucks employees' freedom of speech, though, because they weren't.

A more observant person would note that nobody who supports this boycott is proposing jail time or fines for people who do buy the comic. Nor are they proposing them for Card or the DC staff. See, THAT would be a free speech violation.

The only way to prevent a boycott like this would be to either: 1) Force the store to carry and sell Card's Superman comic; 2) Outlaw people's ability to argue and convince others not to buy it, or 3) Flat-out force people to buy the comic.

Would any of you concern trolls care tell me which of those options is in perfect accordance with the First Amendment? Or are you too busy calling the ACLU to report me for trampling on your rights by arguing against you?

As always, thank you Bonefish. That is exactly the point. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just employing social pressure through twitter, facebook, and slog posts on DC to fire Card. Just like conservatives had the right to employ social pressure to try and get Ellen fired as spokesperson for JCPenny. It's all fair on either side to try and get your point heard and responded to. The point is that it's not coercive and it's not censorship, it's about caring about a beloved brand and not wanting that brand to be tainted by a person's politics/mores/beliefs of that are antithetical to my own. I have a right to get my voice heard to try to influence decision-makers just as much as the other side and vice versa.