![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, via Facebook, comes this link: An Ethical Guide To Consuming Content Created By Awful People Like Orson Scott Card. For those not in the know (hi, Mom!) Orson Scott Card (hereinafter "OSC") is a noted homophobe and quite outspoken about it. (For the record, I am not, and am of the "live and let live" school of thought.)
At any rate, the article is full of useful suggestions, but I note it to reject the entire premise. Artists are not saints, and we shouldn't expect them to be. I don't know the political and moral views of the guy who does work on my house, and why should I? I'm paying him to fix my shower, not provide moral or political guidance. Ditto, well, just about everybody with whom I do business.
Now, if the business in question were doing evil in the course of business, I think a different argument could be made. If, for example, my handyman wasn't paying his workers, or hiring illegal immigrants, then yes, I would have a problem with him. In that case, my money is actively supporting his bad acts. But unless he injects his personal views on me as part of work, then I see no reason to inject mine on him.
I guess I'm in agreement with Summit Entertainment, which is arguing that “We’re adapting a work, not a person." I'm also okay with Summit's decision to not use OSC to personally promote the work. Again, that's a business decision, and something that's their personal right.
At any rate, the article is full of useful suggestions, but I note it to reject the entire premise. Artists are not saints, and we shouldn't expect them to be. I don't know the political and moral views of the guy who does work on my house, and why should I? I'm paying him to fix my shower, not provide moral or political guidance. Ditto, well, just about everybody with whom I do business.
Now, if the business in question were doing evil in the course of business, I think a different argument could be made. If, for example, my handyman wasn't paying his workers, or hiring illegal immigrants, then yes, I would have a problem with him. In that case, my money is actively supporting his bad acts. But unless he injects his personal views on me as part of work, then I see no reason to inject mine on him.
I guess I'm in agreement with Summit Entertainment, which is arguing that “We’re adapting a work, not a person." I'm also okay with Summit's decision to not use OSC to personally promote the work. Again, that's a business decision, and something that's their personal right.
