Some more on the Origins saga.

First, it seems that a number of big name authors are unimpressed with the disinvitation trend. David Weber (who pretty much singlehandedly revitalized/reinvented the Military Space Opera genre with his Honor Harrington books) had a long FB post expressing support for Larry Correia and disgust as Origins. Some hightlights:

First, let me say that I think “disinviting” anyone from anything is a bad idea. It’s usually the result of caving in to someone’s lynch mob mentality, usually couched in the properly hysterical massacre of innocent photons on Facebook and the Twitterverse. And that lynch mob mentality results from total closure of the mental synapses. God forbid that anything like a challenging idea might creep in and unbalance the perfection of their Visualization of the Cosmic All.™ I don’t care whether the people pushing for disinviting are from the left or the right — as far as I’m concerned, they are all from Pluto . . . and I wish they’d go back there. Unless you can demonstrate to me that someone actually has — as opposed to has allegedly — physically assaulted someone, preyed upon a minor, or advocated violence, and unless this information became available to the public record only after the invitation was issued, then there is no legitimate or moral basis for revoking an invitation. Leaving aside simple considerations of common courtesy and moral decency, I always thought — in my innocent youth, at any rate — that science fiction was supposed to be about the exchange of ideas. That we were supposed “to go where no one has gone before and explore new worlds and new civilizations.” And I was under the impression that it’s usually by contacting contrarian ideas that our own understanding grows. That in being open to learning — gasp! Someone give me oxygen! — from new or competing ideas we strengthen our own understanding. In defending our own ideas in a robust debate we both deepen our own understanding of those ideas and test them for flaws.

Apparently, in this brave new age of ours, I was mistaken.

Second, about the cons that do practice this particular perversion. I won’t be going to them in the future, and I don’t care whether it was because they disinvited a friend of mine or someone I despise. Mind you, I’m human enough to feel a deeper satisfaction at striking off the name of a con that disinvites somebody I like, but that’s really secondary. Cons have a responsibility to decide before they invite someone whether or not that guest is such a moral leper that they don’t want him or her (let’s be egalitarian here) on the premises. This isn’t a decision they’re supposed to make after they’ve invited someone, and if they don’t know enough about the guest to make it before they issue the invitation, then they haven’t done their own due diligence. Once they’ve invited a guest and announced it to the world, they have a moral obligation to stand by that invitation. I remember when Archon disinvited Tim Bolgeo. I’d just been to the con as a recent guest of honor and they treated me very well and I’d had a very good time. But I’ve known Timmy since 1991 and I knew there was exactly zero truth to the allegations leveled against him. So when they caved, disinvited him because of what I knew were lies, I made the decision — which I communicated to the convention at the time — that I would not be returning until they issued a formal apology to him or there was an entirely new con committee. That’s been my policy ever since, which causes me considerable pain in the case of ConCarolinas, for a lot of reasons.

Third, about people who feel “unsafe” or “threatened” by announced guests.

Don’t go.

It’s really simple. An infallible defense against any sort of threat you might experience in that reprehensible individual’s presence. And if you feel especially triggered, contact the convention and explain to them that you won’t be coming because of a specific guest they’ve invited. That’s always your prerogative. What is not the prerogative of a putatively adult human being is to throw a temper tantrum and demand that the offending guest be removed. Unless you can demonstrate and document a case — and Internet accounts of what a friend of a friend of another friend of an acquaintance had to say about someone is not, God help us, documentation — in which that guest has personally threatened or harmed someone (and emotional distress because they disagree with you doesn’t count), then you have no justification at all in demanding that the con make them go away so that you can have a stress-free three-day weekend.

In the comments to that post there were chime ins from other well known authors such as Jim Butcher and Eric Flint

The concept of GoHs insisting on non-refundable reimbursements before they accept an invitation makes very clear where the commercial power lies in the relationship between cons and GoHs. Essentially, as DW says somewhere in his post and Jim Butcher says in a comment I didn’t cap as well as Larry and John Ringo have said at various times, a big name author doesn’t go to a con to gain new readers, he goes there to meet his existing fans and motivate them. The presence of the GoH therefore incentivizes his fans to show up at the con and spend money at it both on the pass and at the tables of the various vendors. If the Origins organizers don’t get this then I’m fairly sure they are going to get it in a months time after the event is over.

Talking of negative publicity for Origins, two gamer youtube channels covered the fracas and neither is particularly sympathetic to Origins

 

Finally to go back to the authors and the SJWs. As has been mentioned previously people are looking at possible court cases.

Suing people for defamation or bogus emotional distress kinds of claim has long been a tactic of the left and one suspects that the SJWs haven’t thought that they might be victim of it. Indeed libel, slander and defamation are notoriously difficult to prove when one is any sort of public figure (and bestselling authors are indeed public figures) and proving hurt/emotional distress is likewise problematic. Hence perhaps the gadflies thought they were immune. However there are wrinkles (I am not a lawyer so I may get some of the details wrong) and those wrinkles do provide a chance for action. For example actual loss of earnings if one can put a figure on it is actionable. Repeating a known slander/libel that you know to be false is another one as long as there is evidence to show that you were a) aware beforehand that X was untrue and 2) went ahead anyway and said/wrote it (screencaps/archives with timestamps can be very helpful here). There may be others too. Plus the “unsafe” thing can fly both ways and protective orders that are normally used for stalkers can also be used for other situations too. Not to mention that, as Bob Mueller has made clear to Flynn, Carter Page & co, sometimes “the (legal) process is the punishment”. It would totally suck if the same SJW were to be sued in different courts (different states…) by different groups of people at the same time. It’s not just the costs of legal representation, there’s the time required to find a lawyer, the time required to be deposed and so on.

Al in all the strategy of making the SJWs and those who give into them hurt is developing. And the magic words “GamerGate” and “4Chan” have barely been mentioned. Yet.