Anthony Valterra vs. Tracy Hickman

[The Sigil]

Free speech is saying "I don't like this product." Not shopping in a store that carries it is an attempt at "Censorship via Boycott." These are not the same thing, since the later is a pursuit of pushing your free speech into what I am or am not allowed to do (when such action has absolutely no effect on what you do).

That's a REALLY broad view of censorship - and kind of a silly one, IMO. Individuals are free to make purchasing decisions through whatever means they feel are right - be it price, convenience or morality. I don't expect (for instance) orthodox Jews to be out buying ham - and I don't try to convince people that they're trying exert their power to shut me out of my "right" to buy ham. Please don't trivialize censorship by crying wolf like that.

It's a time-honored principle of a free market economy that the customer has the right to - and is in fact, expected to - make purchasing decisions that tend to pressure sellers to cater to him - that shows up in the choice of where and when and how often he shops. As a consumer, I have every right to expect a seller to cater to my tastes if he wants my continued business. Similarly, you have every right to expect a seller to cater to your tastes.

Ultimately, then, the seller is pressured economically to provide products, services, and/or an environment that satisfies the desires of the customers that will provide him with the greatest amount of sales volume.

That the product in question happens to be a printed product instead of "ham" makes no difference in terms of the economic principles at work. I reject your argument that "boycotting" is somehow akin to "censorship." If the customer base will support a product, it will be carried. If not, it won't. End of discussion. There's no "censorship" involved here, only cold hard economics.

The situation would be different if, say, the boycotters physically prevented potential customers from entering, but that's not the discussion here. The discussion is simply that a person may attempt to persuade a seller to conform to a certain set of standards (which may or may not include "moral" ones) by his or her purchasing decisions, and that is not censorship - it is instead a free market economy at work.

You have the right to free speech. That right should not be interpreted to mean that you have the right to be heard. Similarly, you can publish what you want. You do NOT have the right to have that product carried by a particular seller. The seller makes that choice... and that choice is, in part, dependent upon the choice of his customers.

Censorship comes into play when people try to work outside the "natural selection" process of economics and make laws to impede, outlaw, or otherwise prevent the material from being published or carried in the first instance - in other words, to take away the choice of the publisher or the seller in the first instance. It does NOT come into play in a case like you outlined above. The publisher has the choice to publish. The seller has the choice to carry. The customer has the choice to buy. All of these carry inter-related consequences, though... if the seller chooses to carry and the customer chooses not to buy - or worse, take his business elsewhere, that is not censorship - that simply means that the seller must live with the consequences of his decision. If enough sellers decide that the negative impact on sales is enough to make them choose not to carry a product, the publisher takes a hit. Is he censored? No. He merely has to live with the consequences of publishing a product that people are not willing to carry because the consequences of carrying are too much lost business.

Consider: Does a store carrying this product in any way, shape or form effect the availability of other material that you'd find as being more palpable and child-friendly (in so far as a game that uses comic-book justification for genecide, murder and theft can get, that is)? No, of course not. However, some folks seem to have a haughty opinion about what should be available for use at a gaming table even though your personal freedom allows you to completely ignore it.

It's not even about what they want to see at their gaming table. It's about what they want to see as they walk into their FLGS. If such material makes someone uncomfortable, they have every right to ask their FLGS to remove it or to frequent another FLGS where they ARE more comfortable.

Again, customers have the "right" to exercise economic pressure by "voting with their wallets" on ANY form of business to make it a more comfortable environment for them. That the product happens to be "Intellectual Property" instead of "fruit" or "meat" makes no difference.

But to keep it in an IP perspective, I'll ask you - should AMC, Century Theaters, et al be "forced" to carry small-budget foreign films along with the popular releases? Should they be forced to always run a certain percentage of "family-friendly" material? Movie theaters, like everyone else, carry stuff that they feel is going to make money... by your definition, that's censoring the foreign films and unpopular films! That violates the rights of the makers of those films! I'll contend that people should not boycott stores that carry material that they don't like the instant I hear that you have stopped boycotting movies that you don't happen to like by not attending them.

Seems rather hypocritical that you'd continue to hang-out and support this site but you'd push your views onto your FLGS.

It seems to me that this is the crux of your concern - that other peoples' views are being pushed onto you (through your FLGS). I will ask you to please take one step back and ask you to acknowledge that by carrying such material, your views are being pushed onto other people. As I mentioned elsewhere, I think everyone probably thinks that their own views are "best" and I think they should exert as much persuasive power as they can to convince others to come around to their viewpoint. But at the end of the day, you are in the same view-pushing boat as those you complain against - you're just pushing in the other direction. Your views are neither inferior nor superior to anyone else's - just different.

Just had a funny thought, actually - one group is looking down on another for being "morally bankrupt" because of their views about sex (we're superior as we have sexual morals) and the other group is looking down on the first for being "morally bankrupt" because of their views about sex (wer're superior because we have candor). Such things only work in M.C. Escher paintings... which made for a really fun visual.

Now, most everyone knows where I stand with regards to this book. I think it publishing it is a choice that should not have been made - but I think that the publisher SHOULD have that chance to make that choice. Given the ad copy, I probably won't even look through it, much less buy it - because it not only doesn't interest me, but repels me. That choice not to buy is the only "punishment" I feel I need to inflict on the publisher for his choice. Where does my FLGS fall in this? Well, if I am uncomfortable with how they market/display it, etc. (e.g., if they put it right out front by the front door for passing kids to see), I may ask them to change the display ("would you mind at least movign that out of the sight of passing kids?"). If they do not, I will take my business elsewhere, because I will be uncomfortable in the store. I will *not* boycott a store just because they carry the book. I will boycott them if they seem to be trying to "push it down my throat" with their display - because now they're making me uncomfortable.

Do I like the idea of this book? No. But as long as it is kept "out of the way," it doesn't bother me - do whatever you want. Just like I know what goes on behind closed bedroom doors - but as long as I don't have to see it or hear people tell me all about it, it doesn't bother me - do whatever you want.

I think the following exchange sums it up nicely:

Friend: "So are you offended by lesbians?"

Me: "Yes and no. I have a stepsister who is a lesbian. She is nice, caring, and a great conversationalist. She likes to play cards and barbecue and hike. She happens to be lesbian. I'm not offended.

"I have an acquaintance who, when first meeting you, says, 'HI I'M A LESBIAN AND THAT'S WHO I AM AND YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH THAT!' Her sexuality gets in the way of everything else. I'm offended. In the same way that I'm offended by the guy who says 'HI I'M A HYPERCONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN AND THAT'S WHO I AM AND YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH THAT!'.

In natural interaction with you, I am going to react to what common interests we have. I'll react to what we do together and what situations we see. But I truly, honestly don't care what your ideology is - that has nothing to do with how I perceive you - I judge you for who you are, not what you believe. Heck, I won't even think about it long enough to try to care. But I become forced to care when you keep ramming it down my throat every chance you get - and no matter what it is, you're likely to annoy me... that's right, your ideology won't annoy me, but YOU will annoy me because you can't get past it."

I think the same holds true in all of these discussions here (and I'm as guilty of putting my ideology out there as anyone, so maybe I'm a little hypocritical. Forgive me - I'm still trying to become the person I want to be)... I really don't give a darn what you do in your game or what you buy or what you want... so don't force me to care by ramming your ideology down my throat.

In summary - I don't think it's censorship to "boycott" a store or a product because I think that puts too broad a definition on censorship. You have the right to say what you want, but you don't have the right to make me listen to you. I probably won't look through, much less buy, the BoEF. I don't care what your ideology is until you start trying to force it down my throat. And I won't boycott my FLGS for carrying something I don't agree with unless THEY try to force it down my throat. There, I think I've covered all my bases. Valar has a right to publish this stuff (whether you think it is "great stuff" or "crap"). Bendris has the right to want to buy it. Others have the right not to want to - and the right to not want to be associated with a store that makes it available.

At the end of the day, I think it's a bad idea to do this product, and I don't like the moral direction it portends... but I also wouldn't particularly care if they hadn't made such a big deal of shoving, "this is the book of elf sex" down our collective throats in their press release.

--The Sigil

 

[Dr. Harry]

Free speech is saying "I don't like this product." Not shopping in a store that carries it is an attempt at "Censorship via Boycott." These are not the same thing, since the later is a pursuit of pushing your free speech into what I am or am not allowed to do (when such action has absolutely no effect on what you do).

This seems to be saying that free speech is allowed as long as you don't actually *act* on any of your convictions, in any way.

Primarily, I ask this: If your local bookstore (like Walden's or B. Dalton) has an adult section in their magazine rack (which would include Erotic Fantasy periodicals like Heavy Metal), do you still go there for the latest book release or to browse the Fantasy/Sci-Fi section? If the answer to this is "Yes", than you should seriously consider why it is that you'd espouse the opposite behavior in regards to stores that carry RPG products (which, consequently, include the two book stores I mention above).

Speaking for myself, yes, I will preferentially shop at stores that do not sell offensive material, or make it difficult to access. Material that overlaps a particular interest of mine is subject to a higher level of scutiny.

If this hypothetical store had a fantasy section that played up, say, erotic fantasy - especially using nude photography - I would choose to not shop there, as fantasy is a hobby interest of mine. Astronomy is a professional and hobby interest, and so if the store had a promenent astrology section, I would shop elsewhere. If the store displayed pornography in an area easily accessible, I would choose to shop elsewhere.

I have committed "censorship" (according to your definition, which I feel is over-broad) for the last two reasons, and I see nothing objectable at all in making it a clean sweep.

And here's another question: If you're all so willing to boycott stores for carrying this product, why do you still frequent ENWorld when the GUCK conversion is being done right here, in public, where anyone with a mouse can get to it for free and with absolutely no safety-measures to prevent access by minors? Seems rather hypocritical that you'd continue to hang-out and support this site but you'd push your views onto your FLGS.

If "GUCK" was the first thing I saw when I came here, I probably wouldn't have stayed long. Does the GUCK discussion involve nude or fetish photography? Has GUCK been widely distributed? Something that appears on a newstand identified with RPGs is playing under different rules than something buried in the bowels of the net.

Harry

 

[Tiefling]

That's a REALLY broad view of censorship - and kind of a silly one, IMO. Individuals are free to make purchasing decisions through whatever means they feel are right - be it price, convenience or morality. I don't expect (for instance) orthodox Jews to be out buying ham - and I don't try to convince people that they're trying exert their power to shut me out of my "right" to buy ham. Please don't trivialize censorship by crying wolf like that.

There's a very important and fundamental difference: the orthodox Jew isn't choosing not to buy his kosher food from distributors who also sell non-kosher food. He's just not buying the non-kosher food itself.

 

[The Sigil]

So why is it immoral?

If the pictures on the artist's website are any indication of what will be in the book, it's immoral because it is pornography.

Possible reasons why pornography could be considered immoral:

Pornography is immoral because it chews at the ties that bind a couple together - by encouraging impossible ideals of what sex and/or a partner's body should be like (the latter most prominently in the case of heterosexual men)... even if it's like that today, it will be different 20 years from now.

Pornography is immoral because it encourages the objectification of people.

Pornography is immoral because it provides sexual stimulation with someone other than your lawful spouse.

Whether or not you subscribe to the above reasons, they are valid social and/or religious reasons to consider pornography immoral. Note that pornography is not only pictorial, but can be textual as well.

Therefore, we have:

PREMISE: Pornography is immoral
PREMISE: This book likely will contain pornography.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, this book will likely be immoral.

You may not agree with the premises, but please agree that these are premises that can tenably be held by others.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

There's a very important and fundamental difference: the orthodox Jew isn't choosing not to buy his kosher food from distributors who also sell non-kosher food. He's just not buying the non-kosher food itself. [/B]

Agreed that my example was not the best. Perhaps if I slanted it a bit more by saying that he chooses the "kosher meat market" over the "normal (mix of kosher/non-kosher) meat market?" I'm sure he'd boycott some of the "ham and pork" shops I saw over in Europe.

Hopefully the point got across, though - I don't think we can require people to buy stuff they don't want or go places that make them uncomfortable.

--The Sigil

 

[Tiefling]

If the pictures on the artist's website are any indication of what will be in the book, it's immoral because it is pornography.

...

You may not agree with the premises, but please agree that these are premises that can tenably be held by others.

--The Sigil

Done and done. So I assume you also boycott game stores that carry the edgier White Wolf books?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

This seems to be saying that free speech is allowed as long as you don't actually *act* on any of your convictions, in any way.

This kinda crap is starting to spew all over this thread, which I find interesting at best and laughable at worst. After all, isn't the intention of the boycot saying to same thing? "You can do this in the game but I don't want to see products about it?"

Geeze, I don't know where you folks shop, but every store I buy D&D books at, from B. Dalton to Gamer's Paradise to the local comics store, has some degree of an adult's section. So I guess y'all can pull your boycott and whine to the shop owner. He'll be the one laughing while he counts his money.

 

[Mallus]

Hopefully the point got across, though - I don't think we can require people to buy stuff they don't want or go places that make them uncomfortable.

Can you agree that as long as potentially objectionable/outright risque material isn't prominently displayed that people should, on general principle, focus on their own interests/purchases rather than those of their neighbors?

 

[The Sigil]

Done and done. So I assume you also boycott game stores that carry the edgier White Wolf books?

Carry? No, I don't boycott them. Remember, I only boycott stuff that's trying to "shove the edgy stuff down my throat." There was one comic store that I used to frequent that DID have all their edgy stuff up front by the door and front counter so you had to "run the gauntlet" just to get to the non-edgy stuff. I *do* boycott that store now.

In the FLGSs that I frequent, that sort of stuff is kept in a rack along the wall or in the aisle (or two) with all the other RPG stuff - nothing is calling attention to it (more than any other stuff), so it doesn't bother me.

If they put it out on the front display as I walked through the door, I wouldn't frequent such stores. Instead, they have it tucked unobtrusively away with the other RPG material. Would I prefer it be in a special "adult" section? Maybe... though I'm not sure that doesn't do more harm than good ("the knowledge of sin tempteth to commission"). It sits next to the other WW books, which sit next to the GURPS books, which sit next to the d20/D&D books, which sit next to the Palladium... you get the idea. No extra attention is called to the product, so it falls under the "I don't care as it's not being forced down my throat" umbrella.

Now, do I buy that sort of thing? No. But there's no reason (in my mind) to boycott a store that handles things in this manner. But then, I'm not as virulently opposed to this as others are. I think it's a gosh-awful idea, and I think it portends ill for the direction of d20... but if it's on a rack with the 50 other d20 releases for the month, I really don't care.... just like I didn't care about the latest "book that I have no interest in because it's yet ANOTHER monster/class/race/campaign setting book."

--The Sigil

 

[kenjib]

This kinda crap is starting to spew all over this thread, which I find interesting at best and laughable at worst. After all, isn't the intention of the boycot saying to same thing? "You can do this in the game but I don't want to see products about it?"

Geeze, I don't know where you folks shop, but every store I buy D&D books at, from B. Dalton to Gamer's Paradise to the local comics store, has some degree of an adult's section. So I guess y'all can pull your boycott and whine to the shop owner. He'll be the one laughing while he counts his money.

This post is much better. Keep calling it "boycott" instead of "censorship" and I'm pretty sure this whole line of argument will end completely. It's a semantic detail, sure, but an important one. Censorship is a highly inflammatory word in Western culture and it is often mis-used to slander people, prematurely ending conversation rather than encouraging a free and open debate.

I also suggest that you tone down your rhetoric in order to encourage intelligent discussion. e.x. "This kinda crap is starting to spew all over this thread, which I find interesting at best and laughable at worst." I don't think a statement like that encourages a frank and meaningful discussion.