Friday, November 08, 2013




The Case for Hate Speech

Ender’s Game comes out November 1. If you live in a cave, you may not be aware that this likely blockbuster is based on a classic 1985 sci-fi novel by Orson Scott Card. The movie version features Harrison Ford, copious digital effects, and a boycott.

Recently, a group of gay activists launched a Web site urging anyone who cares about same-sex marriage or gay equality to stay out of theaters. “By pledging to Skip Ender’s Game,” the group said, “we can send a clear and serious message to Card and those that do business with his brand of anti-gay activism—whatever he’s selling, we’re not buying.”

I have been advocating gay marriage and gay equality for more than 20 years, fighting many of the same stereotypes and slurs that have figured in Orson Scott Card’s nonfiction writing. So I understand why some equality advocates want to make a statement against Card. What I would like them to understand is why I hope they fail. In a roundabout but important way, bigoted ideas and hateful speech play an essential part in advancing minority rights. Even if we have every right to boycott Ender’s Game, gays are better served by answering people like Card than by trying to squelch or punish them.

Source

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Orson Scott Card is a devout Mormon and it shows in all his fiction. Those who are offended by this are obviously free to avoid his works. They will, however, be missing much well written science fiction.

Use the Name, Luke said...

They've certainly managed to make the "agree with us or we will destroy you" attitude of the homosexual activists crystal clear.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like Mr. Card, don't watch his movies.

If you don't like Faux News, then don't watch it.

If you don't like abortion, then don't have one.

If you don't like me, then leave me the fuck alone.

etc. etc etc.

Anonymous said...

Ironic comment from Christian Luke in view of the Christian Church's history of oppression.

Anonymous said...

2:00, you missed out "If you don't like gays, then don't be one", or, "if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay".

Anonymous said...

What gays fail/refuse to understand is the difference between "gay equality", something they're not really interested in, since it's (gay domination) they seek, and "radical gay activism". What they truly want is to be (legislated) into a special class of citizen, one with rights, protections, and privileges above and beyond those enjoyed by the rest of society. The (invention) of so-called "hate crime" laws was an attempt to give them just that.

Most people are for equality, but they (are not) for having someone's idea of equality forced down their throats.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see some reason in the debate.
If you disagree with someone's opinion - voice a better one.
Don't boycott a movie because the writer said something you disagree with. If I did that I'd never see anything.

Anonymous said...

4:53 - First off, you sound like a conspiracy-theorist by stating or implying the huge generalization that all gays/homosexuals the World over (or even if just in the US) have one mind about "domination" or even just about "radical gay activism".
You simply assume they want more than fair equality even before they even get actual equality with the likes of YOU - namely the right to marry the person they love (if it's mutually agreed between two adults, and neither is already married or a close blood relative).
As for "hate crime" laws, that doesn't just apply to gays but to other targeted groups; and one fine day even 4:53 may find him/herself a member of such a targeted group, and then he/she would no doubt be very glad of such a law!!

Anonymous said...

Don't boycott a movie because the writer said something you disagree with.

So my only choice is to go to the movie and support a person with whom I disagree?

I am not buying that at all.

There is a difference between a person boycotting a movie (making their reasons for that boycott known,) and demanding a movie not be shown so others can't see it because you disagree with a person.

In a way, trying to tell people not to boycott something is just as restrictive to freedom of speech and expression as trying to shut down the original speaker.

An individual choice that does not limit the speech or expression of others is not contrary to the idea of freedom.

Use the Name, Luke said...

namely the right to marry the person they love (if it's mutually agreed between two adults, and neither is already married or a close blood relative).

The parenthetical statement disproves the "love" claim.

Anonymous said...

"The parenthetical statement disproves the "love" claim."

Congratulations, Luke. You have just provided more evidence that you are completely full of shit, you bigot.

Anonymous said...

Many marriages thoughout history were not intitially based on love between the couple in question or were even self-selected. Parents or relatives often arranged the marriage for social or economic reasons and used pressure or even threats to effect the marriage, or the couple just found a marriage one of mutual convenience.
This feature of marriage still goes on in most of the world, and it is/was a very lucky couple who found true love after being thrown together by circumstances, which indeed happened in some famous cases.

Use the Name, Luke said...

2:29,

Think about it. What was said was, "Everyone should… (No, not really)." That's a simple contradiction. Too bad you're letting your prejudice override logic.

Anonymous said...

What is Loony Luke talking about?

Anonymous said...

Again this is a typical leftist tact. If a conservative does not like something he simply does not watch it. If a leftists does not like something EVERYONE must not like it and be barred from seeing it!