Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Casting Myself As David?

This comment just came in, and I'm posting here because I'm sure it will disappear otherwise.

I have deliberated for a while on whether or not I should say anything. It's not any of my business, and I imagine anything I say will quickly get flamed, but in the spirit of true free speech, here goes:

I think the reason someone might consider all this a business strategy, rather than an ethical stand, is that it shares all the characteristics of modern political debate. The way that power and fame are being wielded in this situation make me think of you as the YA shock jock equivalent to a Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, or Anne Coulter.

Of course, there is much to say about all of these people as a whole, and as individuals, but one particular trait is that they make a lot of money simplifying issues.

Now, I'm not going to try to define what is and what isn't censorship. I hope we can all agree, however, that the issue is NOT as simple as one side: the anti-censorship heroes, and the other side: scum.

The issue of media content, and the range that falls between all things appropriate and straight-up pornography, is, even by the Supreme Court's assessment, a complicated one.

My point isn't that your material is inappropriate, Mrs. Hopkins. In fact, I don't think it is. But the fact that no one seems to be interested in discussing this tells me volumes. I think anyone truly interested in progress would convene all parties involved (in private) and try to reason whether or not the material in question is so far beyond the pale of community standards, that it simply must not be allowed. It must be labeled hate speech.

I think you'd fair pretty well in that conversation, which would include a close reading, lawyers to defend your position, and whatever else you needed to support your cause. Instead, it seems you've decided to use your notoriety to crush some small town administrator. Why not take a page from Justin Bieber's book and tweet the man's email address to all your fans? The outcome is the same.

It's a bit disingenuous to cast one's self as the David character when you are a bestselling author hurling fan abuse at a boondock bureaucrat. The money and publicity are better, but I think the trade off is that high horse at the very least.

A few quick disclaimers:
First, I won't write again, as I'd hate to call on the same wrath, or perpetuate what seems to be an orchestrated yelling match. Second, I don't know this guy, and I haven't been to Texas in a decade. Third, I'm not Mormon or whatever other simplified term we can use to make quick enemies of perfectly reasonable people.

A just cause does not make a just war.

TO BE CLEAR, and I have said it in interviews. NO ONE CALLED ME TO THE TABLE. I would have welcomed that. Casting myself as "David?" "Money and publicity?" If any of you truly believe I made this be about money, DON'T BUY MY BOOKS.  As I told this person, I have enough money to pay my bills, and taxes that you cannot imagine. Do you really think I NEED to fight this fight? I'm tired, peeps! But I'm still fighting. And to whoever wrote this message... whatever.


Aug. 19th, 2010 07:55 pm (UTC)
Re: About the money
Yeah..... I have some serious issues with that guy's reasoning. This isn't some one who spews hate speech or profanity for profit under the shield of free speech. This is some one who write books on topics that it just so happens people don't want to address. Under that guy's logic any one writing about things like world hunger, the AID's epidemic, child pornography, etc is mining the shock value for profit. So then what? We just don't talk about those things because some one might be making money writing about them?
Aug. 20th, 2010 11:30 pm (UTC)
Re: About the money
Rereading - I find it funny that the guy deliberated for awhile... And still choose wrong :)