Comic Book Stores Refuse to Carry Hateful Homophobe Orson Scott Card's Superman Comic


"It’s disturbing to see how a small number of people of a particular POLITICAL orientation can inluence the culture so much. Seems to me that the actions of the RIGHT-WING 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."

There, I fixed it for them.
If you don't like someone don't read their work. Wow. What a "freakish" statement to make. I'm surprised Paul pulled his cock out of a cub scout's ass long enough to post that.
This kind of sucks. While these small business owners are perfectly within their rights to refuse to carry a book by a bigot, imagine if every book by a bigot were taken off the shelves. A lot of great writers have been bigoted or otherwise horrible people in their personal lives. It's sad that people can't find common ground in something like Superman and set other stuff aside to just enjoy the comic.
"While these small business owners are perfectly within their rights to refuse to carry a book by a bigot, imagine if every book by a bigot were taken off the shelves. A lot of great writers have been bigoted or otherwise horrible people in their personal lives."

It's not that OSC is a bigot. It's that he's a high-profile anti-gay activist. This isn't about his opinions. It's about his actions.
"Don’t like the author, don’t buy his stuff. You want to buy it, but it !"

That's exactly what these stores have chosen to do, you fucking mouthbreather.
If he wants to be a hateful bigot, he can distribute his hateful bigotry through his own distribution sources. It's not oppressive to say that you won't support somebody's hate speech, though I do find it interesting that they don't see anything oppressive about hate speech in general.
@3: Did you even read any of the articles about this before responding? He's a board member of NOM for fuck's sake. It's insane how people who consider themselves allies are willing to protect lobbyists than they are willing to fight them.
To be fair, there is exactly as much evidence of Superman's opinion on same sex marriage as there is of Jesus'. And it is just as important.
@3: It's sad that you think we should be trying to find common ground with a hateful bigot.
I guess human rights aren't as important as "the free market of ideas".
Wow. Amanda really needs some gay friends. Maybe they didn't hug her enough. Or maybe she just thinks being a hateful bigot is ok as long as you're talented. Yay cult of celebrity.

Seriously, there is a difference between people with ugly personalities and people actively going against whole groups of people. Orson Scott Card has been writing some of the most vile bigoted screeds even for its era the '90s. It goes far beyond gays shouldn't marry.

And, frankly, his name sets me into a rage. His belief system is disgusting, and I don't want to give money to him not to a company that gives him money. It's why I'm not just boycotting his comic, but everything DC, including the upcoming Man of Steel. Everybody knows that OSC is getting paid regardless of whether the new Superman sells or flops. And, if it flops, money from other ventures went to him.
Yeah, you don't have to buy a product by a bigot, but stores do, thus forcing the stores to suffer rather than the bigot.

Solid logic, right there.
I had no idea Teh Gays had grown so powerful. If they already control four comic book stores, imagine what else they are capable of. They could probably build a nuclear weapon too, if they haven't already. I bet they have a moon base.
Hey Misanthrope! Nice reference.

To elaborate, here's a copy and past of my comment from the other post on this topic.

Funny that people are acting like OSC is the first author to ever be revealed as an asshole. Should we boycott libraries and bookstores that carry Ezra Pound books since he was a known anti-Semite? What about boycotting T.S. Eliot for his collaborations with Pound? Or boycotting Charles Bukowski for the poem where he calls Gertrude Stein an old dyke? The list goes on ...
@9 - Whether they like it or not, these comic fans do have common ground with a hateful bigot. That common ground is Superman, who they all love. That was my point.
@15: Your point, " imagine if every book by a bigot were taken off the shelves" is incredibly stupid and misses the point. This goes beyond Frank Miller levels of fascist, OSC literally threatened violent action against the federal government if and when they decide to grant gays full rights. And, as a very active political group, they have the persons to stir up to do so and further harm gays.
And yes, because horrible artists were tolerated in polite society 30+ years ago, let's never speak out against domestic abusers today (hello Chris Brown), or someone actually worse than Santorum being hired to represent "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".
For comparison, Superman used to fight the KKK, not be written by Klansmen. There's no precedent for bigots representing such a symbol of the US.
No. People are acting like OSC is one of the biggest assholes still alive.

But, this isn't just any overall boycott of OSC. I personally boycott him due to his anti-gay writings and anti-gay activism, which I learned about before I read Ender's Game, which I refuse to now. But, I don't call for his complete eradication. I just boycott his stuff and preach every time he comes up.

But, Superman is an existing IP, practically an institution at this point written by many different authors. It's larger than any one author and is the summation of all of them. Thus, to have an anti-gay activist building the blocks to an institution that's beloved across a lot of lines is an atrocity. He can write his own stuff, but he needs to stay out of other people's IPs.

I wonder what a Bukowski version of Superman would be like.
Horse hockey? Horse hockey?! That's a thing?! This is a sport I could totally get into!

And if they don't hire Card, where on Earth will they find anyone qualified to bang out a Superman story? Shakespeare is dead, Joyce is dead, so who does that leave who can produce art on the level Superman readers have come to expect? They had to pick this guy, bigot or no.
I'm just mind-boggled that people who consider themselves "hip" and "with it" are posting not just here but on plenty of other nerdy sites, waggling their finger at anyone shocked by the move and telling others that they shouldn't or somehow don't have the right to speak out against the hatemongers of today establishing themselves in fandom.
@22 - It's just silly that people are acting like nothing like this has ever happened before. And yes, people are upset about this because it's of the moment. They no longer care about Ezra Pound being an anti-Semite because he's dead now. They're still angry about Chris Brown, but not about Ozzy Osbourne, who once knocked out the teeth of the women he's still married to. This will blow over, just like everything else does.
I would wag my finger at anyone "shocked" by this, because what the hell is shocking about it?

Card's views are disgusting, but if the shock of a publishing house giving money to a name writer is bringing on apoplexy, I'm not sure how you make it through your day.
@21 Exactly. Unless it was some completely talentless hack - Uwe Boll, don't you dare think you can write comics - most Superman fans would shrug it off as a bad writer.

But, there are a lot of geeks out there who regret ever having enjoyed Ender's Game based on OSC's anti-gay screeds (read after Ender's Game). And a lot of gays were severely offended, and rightly so, by his bigoted writings. If you haven't read them, you should. They'll put this thing into perspective.

Maybe we can get Neil Gaiman? He'd pervert the formula enough to make it interesting.
@23: Way to be too cool to be bothered by bigotry, I guess.
@24: "the shock of a publishing house giving money to a name writer is bringing on apoplexy, I'm not sure how you make it through your day."

It's not at all this. It's that Superman is known for being, while bland, anti-hate and anti-villainous. They're bringing in someone intolerant and politically active in removing human rights.

That's why it's a "big" thing.
@15: They are under no obligation to bond with him over Superman, especially if he is going to be using that icon to spread his hateful bigotry. That was my point.
@23: It's silly that some people are acting like just because this has happened before that it should keep happening. You're not on the right side of history with this, Amanda.

Does anyone think that back in the 60s, DC would have hired a writer who says the same thing about blacks and interracial marriage, and who threatened the state who endorsed their civil rights?

This is the sort of behavior that would not even have been tolerated 50 years ago.
@29: It's strange but not surprising to see people decrying privilege in so many other comments when they defend it so vociferously when entrenched in their favorite pop culture icons.

"It's just the way things are, deal with it!"
@30 I hadn't read the extended version of The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. That intro and epilogue was hilarious.

"Hey! I wasn't arguing in support of laws against homosexuals, I was just writing in support of the laws that were already on the books...against homosexuals. You see? It's all good. Right?"

Also, "Early in the essay against gays, I predicted that others would see it as homophobia, and I was right!"

Holy shit that guy is nuts.
@29 -- I'm on the wrong side of history? I'm pro-gay rights. I do think it's silly how selective people are in their outrage. As pointed out above, plenty of artists are hateful bigots, yet their art continues to be recognized. I think pulling books off shelves is a slippery slope. As an individual consumer, I won't buy OSC books. If I was a bookstore owner, I'd feel very conflicted pulling authors off shelves based on their political ideologies, bigoted or not.
Every one has the right to bitch and moan, please do so. A business has the right to employ any one they wish. Nazi, Gay hater, Mormon, Jewish settler taking others land, Flaming Queen, Big bull Dyke, ANYONE. And that person can say what ever they want in any form they want in the business setting. It might not be good for business but that is not under discussion here. DC comics has the right to hire a bigot. Just like The Stranger has the right to hire a journalist if one ever applies for a job there. Don't buy the DC Comics if you don't like the writer. It's not really that complex. And do feel free to bitch and moan, you have the right.
@33 I'd have absolutely no problem not putting his books on my shelves. I'd also put a note where his books should be explaining why we dont carry his books, but reminding that his books are available at the local library, or that they are available for special order with a side of guilt.

I'd be tempted to do the same for Heinlein.
@33: "I think pulling books off shelves is a slippery slope"

That's a terrible straw position. Nobody's fucking saying to "censor" him, they're saying that DC comics shouldn't employ racists, homophobes, and any other hateful people to represent their prized characters.
I swear to goodness, when Voltaire stated that he'd defend to the death someone's ~right~ to say what they wished, he wasn't endorsing every single horrid, regressive, unenlightened position and its commercial success.

OSC deserves the right to speak without being arrested. OSC does not deserve the right to prosper and channel his continued earnings into oppressing gays worldwide.
@37 not to be a complete nerd here but Voltaire never said those words and neither did any of his characters. Its a myth - or rather a misquote from a biography written hundreds of years later which claimed that one of his characters in a book said something like that. He never said it.

As for the rest - I never got when "Freedom of Speech" became "The freedom for me to say what I want and for you to HAVE to listen to what I say, not be angry about it, disagree with it or do anything than lie down on your back and take it"... So I agree with you...
Just wanted to be a total nerd there with the Voltaire thing... sry

Oh and the odd thing is that Paul must hang out in really weird comic book communities because here the worst is "meh its their choice which books they want to stock". Thats about it.
@38: Fair, fair. My point is that her "I'm on the wrong side of history? I'm pro-gay rights. I do think it's silly how selective people are in their outrage." is pathetic because she endorses the beliefs of people who are terrible today because people were (barely) tolerated decades ago. Her perceived lack of "consistency" is irrelevant, and certainly not reason to endorse someone's bigotry today.

I only have so much ability to contact media publishers today, I make whatever attempts to change for the better that I can.

Whatever small effort we can give is still better than heckling the good-meaning persons from the sidelines.
"I do think it's silly how selective people are in their outrage. As pointed out above, plenty of artists are hateful bigots, yet their art continues to be recognized."

Once again, since you seem determined to gloss over it, this isn't about him being a bigot. This is about him being an activist. This isn't about his opinions, this is about his actions.
OSC is a despicable human being, and I say that as a former fan. I read Ender's Game when it was first published, and loved it at the time. I even used to enthusiastically recommend his books to anyone I knew. No more.

I'm not trying to be the thought police. I don't require everyone to be 100% supportive of teh ghay. Bigots exist. I'll get over it. But OSC isn't merely a bigot. He's a bigot who has used his celebrity and credibility as an award-winning author to actively restrict my rights. Not just my right to get married, but even my right to exist.

I accept that he has every right to say the hateful things he says. But that right does not require that I agree with him or that I give him a free pass. He has the right to say that I should not exist. I have the right to call him out as a hateful bigot who should not be supported by the publisher of one of the most famous comic characters ever made.

Fuck OSC, and fuck DC for hiring him.
I do think it's silly how selective people are in their outrage

That's just stupid. Every bit of outrage is selective. It'd be like someone telling you you're silly to be outraged at a drunk driver who just ran over your grandma and your kid, because lots of grandmas and kids have died in the last few weeks from drone strikes.
Comic books come and go. Dead gay kids are forever.
Never got into Card. Been Kindling a good one from Anderson:

When I asked her what her dad did, she said, “He’s a college professor. He teaches the dead languages.” “People study that?” She shrugged. “I guess.” “Okay. So what are the dead languages?” “They’re languages that were once important but that nobody uses anymore. They haven’t been used for a long time, except by historians.” “Like what languages?” “You know, FORTRAN. BASIC.” “What does one sound like?”…

Would you feel the same way if Card had called for the reimposition of slavery?

Its fascinating to me that people will cut bigots slack if they state that gay men should be killed. You would become nauseous if you heard them on the floor of Congress voting to repeal women's suffrage, but you're alright with them suggesting that I should be murdered.

Its a pity we haven't met in real life. I would very much like to remember your face. I could know who you are. I would remember you forever as the lady that doesn't value my life in the slightest. And if ever a time came about that you needed my help for anything, I would remind you of it.
The problem here is the inherent conflict between free speech and capitalism. We live in a society where speech is promoted based on its profitability. Purveyors of speech (publishers, websites, TV channels, movie studios) don't care about the morality of speech. They only suppress speech when there's a backlash that could cause bad publicity and negatively impact profitability.

It's like Rush Limbaugh. He says hateful things. When people disagree with him and complain to his affiliates and try to get him off the air, should he have to lose money because of his opinions? Should he lose his platform? Imagine the situation was reversed and Rush Limbaugh went on tirades that you all agreed with, but powerful special interest groups who could make waves wanted to silence him and cause him to lose money.

There's no easy answer here and that's because free speech and capitalism have a fucked relationship and hypocrisy is absolutely inevitable.
Grown adults that read superhero comic books are behaving hatefully and immaturely? I'm shocked.

I have those problems with old music too..something might be "so great" but then has an awkward reference. For example, how does a homosexual react to Aerosmith's "Dude Look Like A Lady". Or even "The Crying Game"? At one point they were probably breakthrough for even mentioning the subject, but now seem obsolete for not fully embracing it.

And are we at a point where if a person does not find his or her same sex attractive that they are then violating a current culturally accepted norm, at least in a blue urban area? Certainly as majority attitudes shift, the "respectful non participant" becomes a persona non grata or at best, a party pooper, for some.
@45 - I'm not advocating for you to be murdered, or voicing support for anyone who's trying to murder you. That's a very extreme interpretation of my post about the slippery slope of pulling books off of shelves. I used the example of Ezra Pound being very vocally anti-Semetic, and while @39 claims that he was "barely tolerated" during his day, he was not only tolerated, but celebrated. His books continue to be printed and sold and he continues to be recognized and taught in schools everywhere as an important figure of Modernism. Ditto with T.S. Eliot. Would I advocate pulling their books off of shelves? No. Do I "endorse" their anti-Semetic views, as @39 claims? No. Do I "endorse" OSC's anti-gay views? No. I stated above that I would never buy any OSC books because I'm pro-gay rights. I think his views are abhorrent. Not sure how you interpreted that as a call for you to be murdered, or a claim that your life has no value.
I'm kind of leaning towards Amanda on this one.

First of all, I'm a straight guy, I'm not into sci-fi, fantasy, or comics, and I had never heard of Ender's Game or OSC until this whole thing was first posted on Slog a couple days ago. I'm also a proud, lifelong liberal who supports equal rights and equal treatment under the law.

However, I'm averse to mob justice, which is what this feels like, and preventing people from making a living because we disagree, violently, with what they stand for. By writing a comic, OSC is not running to be a public servant - a community leader, a teacher, etc., someone in position to translate his/her bigotry into social laws or social norms. Amanda does have a point when she mentions that a lot of art has been created by folks with a nasty personal side, from Chris Brown to Wagner. Are we now supposed to run a background check on people before we decide whether or not they should have the *right* to have someone pay them to create something? When did America become a totalitarian state where artists have to pass a political/social/personal purity test before they are allowed to develop and make a living from their talents? (This IS totally about his opinions.)

We do have a sort of market democracy. If you don't want to buy the book, for whatever reason, then don't buy the friggin' book. I don't think this'll be a comic where Superman spouses or acts out homophobic attitudes.

And if Superman does, then you know what? This is America. You are allowed to publish homophobic, or Nazi, or whatever comics, per the First Amendment, so long as you're complying with copyright laws. Again, don't buy the stupid book. If OSC's Superman turns out being the opposite of super, OSC and Marvel will incur a major backlash and that'll be the end of OSC's Superman career.

If OSC's Superman is actually innocuous and his homophobic self makes good money, then maybe you'd just be upset that someone who hates you is doing well in life, because living well is the best revenge. If that's the case, I'd urge you to stop being bitter and jealous and focus on effecting change on your end, and on developing your own opportunities, instead of making sure that every person you hate, who hates you, is living in the poor house.

But whether or not comic book stores carry OSC's Superman, they're private businesses trying to cater to their patrons and make their bottom line, so it's their call. You know who censors ideas? Right wingers and totalitarian despots. It's like when I went to Sunday school and we had to keep up with what singers and bands and actors we weren't supposed to like, based on their political or religious opinions. Please. I'm done with that.
@47 Butthole Surfers! I got that!

I said that you had no problem with Orson Card stating that i should be murdered. he has, and you think that's okay. You think its okay that he is saying I should be killed.

If you don't think that's okay, put him out of a job.

If you do, then I will gladly remind you that you think its okay for people to openly call for my murder the next time you need help from me.

I would never dream of hurting another person, or of wishing them harm. But if you happen to require assistance from me, I will gladly remind you that this person upon you are now reliant for help is someone who will never forget that you advocate letting OSC have a platform for wishing me death.

Imagine that for a second.
The free market of ideas and free market capitalism compliment one another. I think Card's a despicable piece of shit= I don't buy his comic book. You think Card's a hero or you don't care what his politics are you just want the comic book= You buy his comic book. Four stores run by people who think Card's a despicable piece of shit= four stores that don't carry his book. Anybody in America who wants the book= anybody in America can buy the book anywhere else but those four stores. Anybody calling those four stores' principled refusal to carry Card's book a sign of the Fourth Reich= People on that Fox News bullshit who need not be paid any further attention to. That is all.

We get it, you're poorly informed and don't care to actually read up on the person in question, and think we're being too "harsh" on an avowed hatemonger. Congrats on how "above it" you are, and I hope you continue never thinking too hard about anything because judging someone for their horrible beliefs is definitely worse than continuing a campaign of hatred throughout the nation.
@52: It's really bizarre how some persons would rather be contrarian than do the right thing, and yet still claim that they "love the gays". It's like the people who think it's worse to be "intolerant of intolerance" than actually speak out against hate, it's a bizarre phenomenon.
Bizarre, feh. A few drinks down and I'm running on.
@54 - I first read his Hypocrites of Homosexuality essay years ago as a college student, and I've read his more recent piece about overthrowing the government. Still haven't found the part where he states that gay people should be murdered.

Found this in the HH essay: "No act of violence is ever appropriate to protect Christianity from those who would rob it of its meaning. None of us are without sin -- the casting of stones is not our duty or our privilege".

@52 -- If there's a link to him stating that gay people should be murdered, you should post that.
@50 You bring up Wagner, and that's a good point.

Stephen Fry did a movie I very much want to see called Wagner and Me, where he comes to terms with his love of Wagner's work vs his hatred of Wagner's morals.

“I’m afraid Hitler and Nazism have stained Wagner,” he says dolefully. “For some people that stain ruins the whole work; for others, it is just something you have to face up to.”

Just like some of the other mentioned assholes, everybody deals with shitty people who may make decent art. I mean, look at the struggle everybody has with Roman Polanski. He was a child rapist, a drug addict and everything else (and even had a that's no excuse insanity reason of his pregnant wife being murdered by the Manson family for most of it), but he can make amazing movies.

But, what's even worse is that this isn't just about boycotting OSC making another book. I see no reason to demand that the upcoming Ender's Game movie not be released. I'll not be seeing it and will be telling everybody I know that they shouldn't be giving money to that asshole (Torrent it, if you are curious). I also don't see many, or any, protests when OSC writes another novel...well, except for the uproar about the shit pile he left on Shakespeare's Hamlet by re imagining it with gay characters who had all been molested as children.

This is about Orson Scott Card becoming part of the institution that is Superman. Writing something canonical, and tainting a whole character with his own history. And, even if he doesn't put homophobic screeds into the text, he'll still be part of Superman's DNA. Just as every author and incarnation of Batman is in his (from Bob Kane to Adam West to Tim Burton to that asshole Frank Miller*).

*And even Frank Miller's politics have been called into question, especially lately after his attacks on Occupy included bits of racism scattered throughout. See this post as an example for the type of re-readings that happen when decent artists are revealed to be assholes. Also, I did not see the final movie in the Dark Knight trilogy because Miller stepped over a line for me.
@57: As per the links I posted

"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."

He has promised to violently overthrow any government that provides human rights to gays.
He also wants them arrested at every possible opportunity.

"This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. 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. The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."
Anyway, let me quote this for the dense:

"[Superman is] a re-telling of a Jewish immigrant narrative, of assimilation into an American system that allows newcomers, outsiders and minorities to support and defend that system as full citizens.

Orson Scott Card, who campaigns to subtract rights from a certain class of citizen, is not the best person to write that narrative again."
@60 -- Right, that's the section of the essay he recanted. He later wrote, "now that the law has changed ... I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing ..."

And in the more recent piece about overthrowing the government, he rhetorically asks how long it will be before "married people" say the following to the government: (insert quote from @59)

He does encourage acting to destroy the government, but never mentions violence as a means to do that, and he actually condemns violence as anti-Christian in other places, like the part of the HH essay I posted above.

Still waiting on his alleged statement that gay people should be murdered, the one that @52 has accused me of tacitly endorsing.
@62 That recantation was bullshit, and you know it.

"Hey! I wasn't arguing in support of laws against homosexuals, I was just writing in support of the laws that were already on the books...against homosexuals. You see? It's all good. Right?"
I read one of Mr. Card's antigay screeds quite some years ago. He made it clear that he felt it was appropriate for the government to pass and enforce strong laws against homosexual acts.

This was back when the governments of many states had such laws on the books. The laws didn't stop people with an interest in homosexual acts from engaging therein, of course. But they did give governments a handy tool for harassment.

Mr. Card felt this was a fine and good thing. Presumably he still believes this, though I'm sure he tries to sound soft and reasonable.

I disagree rather strenuously with him on this point, and I tend to have a very low opinion of people like him who thinks regulating my sex-n-love life is their business.

And since he'd happily throw me in jail for living my life and minding my own beeswax, you'll perhaps understand if I don't concern myself much about how or whether he makes a living.
@62: "he recanted."

I assumed you were stupid and had no clue what you were talking about. Pardon me, you're actively attempting to justify this shit through lies.

Liars aren't worth anybody's time.
Recantation? You mean he luvs the gayz now?

Oh, I see. He didn't like how he painted himself into a corner with all that stuff about how the "polity" needs to be able to marginalize the homos.

What a squirmy, slimy little man he is.
I mean he's allowed to have the opinion that gays are subhuman creatures, but we're not allowed to express any negative opinions about his character for doing so. Welcome to the banality of evil.
My favorite part of the recantation:"I didn't mean for you to see it, so you shouldn't be offended."

I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts.
@62 -- Oh, the recantation is complete bullshit, but pretending that it doesn't exist is dishonest. If we're going to take some parts of his writing about gays seriously and be outraged by it, we can't pretend that other parts of it were never written. Claiming that he's called for the murder of gay people when there's nothing to support that is also dishonest. And accusing other people of tacitly endorsing a statement that he never actually made is dishonest.
@66 Yes, he luvs the gayz now. It's just the old love the gays, hate the gayness bullshit; you know, hate the sin, love the sinner.
@58 That's fine. Like I said, comics are out of my sphere, so even though it would seem to me that a sequel to anything doesn't have to be accepted as "canonical," it may be that it does matter more when it comes to comics. (It matters less, apparently, when it comes to Showgirls and The Fast and the Furious.) And you're certainly free to have your loud opinions and vote with your feet. Hell, after reading what people in this thread have mentioned about OSC, I don't have any curiosity about Ender's Game, as this does kind of ruin things.

However, I stand by my point that the freedom of speech extends to this guy as much as it does to us, and that he should be permitted to (try to) make a living - handsomely, if he's so successful - from his talents. I wouldn't want to give him my money, though, MHO. But this goes into that argument of whom are we willing to tolerate, and why, which has been covered elsewhere (such as Wagner & Me, I take it).
@71 This is not a first amendment issue, as the government is not trying to curtail Card's freedom of expression or his livelihood. And if freedom of speech does extend to everyone, then people have every right to try to get DC to drop Card.
Freedom of speech has its limits. In Rwanda, the genocide there was egged on by a radio announcer that read off people's names and addresses so they could be slaughtered. He also read reports of where the targets of the killings were hiding.

If you go on YouTube, you can still find footage of Eduad Limonov standing outside Srebrenica firing an automatic weapon into the city from a nearby hill. He made it as a promotional video to encourage Bosnian Serbs to massacre everybody in the town. A little while later, they did just that.

In most states, declaring "I will kill you" is enough to bring a charge of verbal assault. The reason why is because you might actually do it. Or because you are trying to terrorize the target of your threat. Nobody should have to live in fear of their lives being taken from them.

And I shouldn't have to live in fear of my life being taken from me. There comes a time when you have to grab the microphone out of the hands of those who would stoke a genocide.
@71: "he should be permitted to (try to) make a living - handsomely"

Again, you idiots are intentionally minimizing where the money is going, considering that his NOM board membership has been mentioned several times in this thread.
"The idea that a person's personal opinions should be grounds for dismissal or blacklisting is, frankly, chilling. Is the idea here that it's ok to blacklist people we disagree with, but that we get up in arms when people we agree with get blacklisted? I assume the same people complaining about Card's hiring would be freaking out (rightly so) if a conservative group threatened DC with a boycott for hiring a gay writer.

An artist's work must exist separate from the artist. While the artist's beliefs and history can inform a critical analysis of the work, their personal beliefs about politics or philosophy or religion should not be the main consideration when consuming the work. It would be exhausting, and stupid, to comb through every artist's personal history to make sure their beliefs and their behavior match up to your personal criteria. The quality of the work is what matters; you're certainly not asking about the elevator inspector's views on Israel before you go to your floor. "…
@75 Do you mean like what conservatives did with JCPenny? You know when they hired Ellen to be spokeswoman, and the conservatives freaked the fuck out and boycotted JCPenny?

Think of it like that. Orson Scott Card is now the spokesman of Superman.
Again, nobody is calling for an overall banishment of Orson Scott Card. It's not like the asshole hasn't been writing books, and this is his only way to make a living. He's been publishing his own original books under Simon & Schuster for decades. What we don't want is him to be a part of Superman.

And, it's not like this topic hasn't been reversed.

X-Men (Marvel, not DC) had a gay wedding last year that was also boycotted. Christian Post blog link. So, there's that going for it too. Support Marvel!
@75: "I assume the same people complaining about Card's hiring would be freaking out (rightly so) if a conservative group threatened DC with a boycott for hiring a gay writer. "

That shit happens all the time, so no.

And why the hell should we care every time a neo-nazi boycotts a black or jewish author? This whole treating racists and gay-haters and people who don't tolerate racists as the same is pretty loaded towards douchebaggery. Fuck off for even suggesting we're equals.
@77: They're really desperate to equivocate hatemongers with decent people, aren't they? It'd be nice if they spent the same time they spend condemning gays and active allies and put it to better use than promoting hate.

It'd also be nice if they knew what "free speech" was, and it's certainly not the Santorums' and the Cards' privilege to make a comfortable living oppressing others sans-criticism.
I am frustrated that I even need to argue this issue. Is there any other group in America that has to justify its right to live?

Why is the right to live even up for discussion? Jefferson thought it so self-evident he listed it as one of the three rights in the Declaration of Independence.

Orson Scott Card does not believe that I have a right to consume oxygen. He disagrees with the Declaration of Independence, at least when it comes to gay people. He thinks it better that I be killed.

And here we are, in a forum where people are willing to defend him. This man is the antithesis of the very principles laid out in the document that started the country where you reside, and you think he should purvey those sentiments to America's youth through the comic book medium.

Over the years, I have become accustomed to accusations of being UnAmerican. I am a proud Leftist. I opposed the Iraq War before it began I aided and abetted Occupy Seattle and Occupy Tacoma. I am an atheist. a vegetarian, and a gay man. And in spite of my supposed UnAmerican-ness, I'm also a veteran and a returned Peace Corps Volunteer. I vote in every election, even for the minor local races and judicial elections.

For this reason I find it disgusting to see you suggest that independent, non-government private shop owners refusing to carry a comic book violates the First Amendment. If you'd ever bothered to read the fucking thing, you'd discover that it prohibits Congress from passing laws, not comic book shop owners from refusing to carry a title. Further, if you think this is a violation of the Amendment, you'd do better to sue or call a cop-the Constitution is law, not religion. It is not merely some principle that if abrogated is something you criticizer people for. It carries the weight of the law, and law enforcement is charged with ensuring it is carried out. Do not whine to me about how you feel the First has been offended-go call a fucking cop. The cops will laugh at you as it will be as clear to them as it is to me that you've never even read the thing.

It offends me more, because I have a right to live. That right precedes the Republic. It is something that OSC wants to deprive me of. And you feel that that's okay.

Fuck you. I am an American. And I will assert my right to live in spite of you. And in spite of OSC, DC and every other hack writer who thinks otherwise.
@75 That's the point I'm trying to make!

@79 It IS a right, here in America, to express yourself and make a living from it, handsomely, if you're so able to. This isn't the Stalinist Soviet Union, or Hitler's Third Right. It IS a freedom-of-speech issue because you're saying that OSC shouldn't be able to publish homophobic works or run homophobic organizations and those are forms of self-expression. Are you signing up to be leader of the thought police? Everything has to be liberal and inclusive, as determined by you, before it goes out? As easily as you restrict the expression of others, because you disagree with them, others can restrict your speech, your opinions, your perspectives.

Again, critics are absolutely free to criticize and give DC Comics hell. What I'm objecting to is this idea that only liberal progressives, or whatever we want to call ourselves, should have free reign of the marketplace of ideas. I'm objecting to thought censorship, which is inherently unamerican.

ALSO OSC running NOM or talking about having anti-gay laws or writing gays-as-pedophiles Hamlet revisions is not the same as him reading names and addresses of gay families so roving mobs can kill them, or standing on a hill firing a rifle as a signal for ethnic cleansing, or flat-out yelling "I'm going to kill you!" That's inciting violence and, as such, is considered assault. This is the whole yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre thing, a way of enlisting some unequal and unrelated hypothetical example as a support for restricting freedom of speech. I can expect that from totalitarian regimes, but the fact that it's coming from supposedly freedom-and-equality-loving liberals is a chilling reminder why *all of us* need to have our constitutional rights in writing and actively defended.
"It IS a right, here in America, to express yourself and make a living from it, handsomely, if you're so able to."

You have a pretty fucked up understanding of the American Dream if you believe everyone should be entitled to make a healthy living from hate.
"it IS a freedom-of-speech issue"

It really makes me sad how few people have actually read the US Constitution.
@80 -- He actively opposes gay marriage. That's not the same as him advocating for your murder, or saying he wants you killed.

If your position is that anyone who actively opposes gay marriage should be fired from their job, you have every right to express that. A lot of people are going to disagree with you, and not all of them are secretly anti-gay or secretly want gays murdered. Here's Dale Lazarov, a gay comic writer, who disagrees with you:

"I've known Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe since the early 90s. I refuse to buy or read his work. But asking that he be denied work because he is a raging homophobe is taking it too far. Asking for workplace discrimination for any reason is counterproductive for those who want to end discrimination on their own behalf."
@81 The first amendment does not say "you're free to make a living from your speech without criticism." The first amendment does not prevent people from getting hired and fired based on personal expression. If that was the case, Aflac couldn't have fired Gilbert Gottfried over a shitty joke. Or, lets look at the Don Imus racist basketball comments controversy, where he got canned by both MSNBC and CBS Radio. And, he apologized! Then he got rehired by Citadel Media.

I mean, this really has nothing to do with first amendment rights. You can say it does, but this is business. Neither MSNBC, not CBS Radio nor Aflac wanted to be associated with the toxic mess.

FWIW, I disagreed with the Aflac one because it was an obviously shitty joke, and not evidence of a history of bigotry. And, Imus...I didn't care. He is a shitty person with a crappy radio show, and if others want to make money from his shittyness, whatever.
They once brought in Harlan Ellison to write Batman, they brought in Samuel Delaney to write Wonder Woman ... that's who they got to write Superman?
@57: The irony in all this is the fact that you used that quote in order to feverishly defend somebody who was -wait for it- casting stones upon other people. Here's your sign.
@81: Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of your speech. OSC is facing the consequences of his speech. Why do you hate freedom?
I think Amanda is a Mars Hill brand Christian.
@84 Lazarov is operating under the usual worldview of a fringe artist. He doesn't want to be denied a job because of his chic gay porno comics, because he is, while not starving, not exactly rich and famous.

Thus, this is preserving his own future and the future of other fringe artists to do what they want and not be punished with starvation for it. It's like the celebrities who came to the defense of Imus' racist remarks. And, I'd not advocate for the firing of anybody who is loudly anti-gay, racist, in my company, I'd strongly advocate for the firing of any spokesman of my company or IP who is racist or bigoted.
@84: Nobody is saying he should be fired from his job. They are saying that book stores are well within their rights to be picky about the types of merchandise they carry. Why are OSC's freedoms somehow above everybody else's?
@91 Actually, I am saying OSC should be fired as spokesman/writer of Superman.
@84 -- I said the same thing in my first post, that bookstores are perfectly within their rights to refuse to carry his books. I also that said that pulling books off shelves can be a slippery slope.

And I haven't feverishly defended him. I quoted OSC condemning violence in response to @52 claiming that OSC has called for the murder of gays. Again, if someone can actually substantiate that claim, please post a link.
Homosexual long time sci-fi author David Gerrold has offered to write Superman.
I like the idea. I loved his Trek Tribble episode.…
I'm shocked that anybody thinks Orson Scott Card is anything but a dull unimaginative adolescent hack. I suppose some nerdy thirteen year olds may get excited by Enders Game. But I'd assume that would wear off once you got laid and/or read something by an actual good writer.
@93: "I also that said that pulling books off shelves can be a slippery slope. "

I hope it becomes a slippery slope so that hatemongers are shamed out of polite society, for good. It won't. sadly. Fuck their feelings. Fuck their/your overwhelming sense of entitlement.
Orson Scott Card has every right to have and express his opinions. DC Comics has every right to employ him. They would also have the right to not hire him based on his anti-gay views. A company can decide who will represent them to the public. People don't have to purchase DC Comics, and can even protest DC's decision. Maybe they'll persuade DC to change their minds. Comic book stores can choose to sell what they want. DC and the stores will either suffer the consequences, or reap the benefits of their decisions. I don't read comics, but I wouldn't buy Card's work. It's not my place to control what other people write or read.
Folllowing up on 96, "pulling books off shelves" nobody, here or elsewhere actually suggested they be pulled off shelves. The story is about business owners who opt out of those titles, something you intentionally leave out.

You would force business owners to carry titles from bigots? That would directly violate their practice of free speech, congratulations. No "slippery slope" necessary.
Being raised by conservatives from Kansas, Superman probably would think that marriage is between one man and one woman but, also because he was raised by conservatives from Kansas, he wouldn't bother to ask about people's sexual habits before saving them.

What this issue keeps reminding me of is that, thirty years ago, having anti-homophobic views was the controversial position that could get a guy fired.
@99 Meeting real life gays while working in Metropolis (aka Toronto) might change Superman's mind.