People like you are far more dangerous, in our times, than Orson Scott Card could ever be.
Oh right, it's the other way around. In America, a "vote" with a wallet means as much as a vote with a ballot.
Let's just go with the notion that Card is expressing his opinion on the matter. He has a right to this opinion, whether you agree with it or even if you consider it right or wrong.
But anytime someone is allowed to shut down an opposing viewpoint it will eventually lead to problems. Once someone has the ability to shut down one opposing viewpoint they disagree with, then they will have the power to shut down any viewpoint they disagree with. Possibly even shutting down a viewpoint they think is of the opposition when it's likely it's not, such as a misunderstanding or being inarticulate.
The difference being, a person actually has to commit actions against another human being to for a reaction need to take place. If someone says he doesn't like gays, fine, let the guy state his outdated rant and get on with your day. The moment the guy actually discriminates or commits an illegal act, then do something.
As for consequences, this movie is an excellent example. If you boycott the movie because of your disagreement with Card, then you are hurting far more people then you will ever hurt Card. Another example, the Chik-Fil-A boycott a while back. That hurt local businesses run by local owners who employ local people far more than the dude at the top that still got paid no matter how much chicken you refused to eat.
If anyone has the generic "you seem to defend what I don't like so I dislike you" reaction to this post, you are practically proving my point.
Deciding not to pay for a product is somehow dangerous? Expressing my opinion to other people and asking them to do the same is dangerous?
If Card is allowed to say hateful things, then I'm allowed to tell people about it and recommend that they not give him money. It is not logically possible for you to accept the former without also accepting the latter.
As for "somehow dangerous", please read the post again. Here, I'll quote from the very first sentence for you; "in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous".
Yes indeed, you are allowed to express your opinion and recommend that people avoid providing him with money if they disagree with what he has to say. But that's the consequences part; read the post again. The consequences being that with your boycott in an attempt to punish the target of your disagreement you are more likely hurting people who have nothing to do with the thing you are disagreeing with. Those are the consequences. If you feel fine with that, then power to you and by all means speak up. Just keep in mind that their might be hundreds of people with families to support that may be somewhat upset with your choice.
In the end I'm not even suggesting that Card should be saying the things he does. I disagree with him with my total being. But I am aware of how these things work, just read history. If you provide someone with the power to curtail speech that you do not like, that gives them the power to curtail all speech. It's why I disagree with hate speech laws. Who defines hate speech? Today hate speech may be defined as stating negative things about minorities, tomorrow it could be defined as saying anything negative against government or your local police department.
Sometimes when you make your short-term choices, you have to consider the long-term consequences.
But to answer your question, if he is attempting to prevent you from speaking out then, yes, it applies.
You seem lost, I'm not speaking of preventing you from stating your opinion. I'm speaking about your desire to prevent him from stating his.
Please explain to me how I said anything that disagrees with your last statement.
If it didn't, then why did you reply to my comment in the first place?
Card's book and the movie have nothing to do with his bigoted views, and should stand or fall on their own. In fact, the book (and possibly the movie), with its strong moral stance that resonates with teenagers, is likely to spread far more good by encouraging its readers to think about bullying, suffering of others, etc. than Card could possibly do harm, even if he wanted to, with its proceeds.
Historically, just about every famous writer has been bigoted about something; all of us are probably bigoted in some ways in which future generations will judge us. If the sanctimonious boycott calls leveled against Card succeeded in the past, we'd be left without many wonderful masterpieces that enrich our lives and deepen our understanding.