"In offering further thoughts on the recent ’emergency stop’ placed on her overall DC career, Red Hood Vol. 2 writer Gretchen Felker-Martin has criticized how the publisher was exceptionally fast to not just cancel, but fully recall the only published issue of her Red Hood Vol. 2, but did not offer a similar response to a number of other ‘uncouth’ creators."
‘Red Hood’ Writer Criticizes DC’s Firing Standards: “You Can Still Get Neil Gaiman’s Work Through Them”
https://boundingintocomics.com/comic-books/red-hood-dc-neil-gaiman/
27 Comments
hactar42@lemmy.ml · 53 pts · 332d
The US would be in a much better place if more people stuck to their guns like her.
the_q@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 332d
hactar42@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 332d
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 331d
With a positive attitude we can turn problems into solutions :)
ultranaut@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 332d
That's a good point, it is some fucked up priorities for a publisher to not support free speech but to support rape. Gaiman is a vile and disgusting rapist who brutalized at least one vulnerable teenager and multiple adult women. If you would rather associate with someone like that and help make them richer there's something fucked up with morals.
Sgarcnl@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 332d
I suppose however that Gaiman probably had more earning potential? He has some notable works, but I do agree the publisher should have taken the high road.
ultranaut@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 331d
I don't think earning potential provides sufficient justification for associating with someone who rapes people. Their priorities are all fucked up.
BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 331d
Yes but you are a normal decent person, not a money obsessed sociopath like the upper management of a multi billion corporation
Hugin@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 331d
Not a justification but an explanation.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 330d
For a corporation? Of course it does.
finitebanjo@piefed.world · 35 pts · 332d
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 332d
"It was a different time." Wait, no. We still have pedophiles and it's terrible.
finitebanjo@piefed.world · -5 pts · 332d
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 332d
A colloquialism used to justify bad things. I was agreeing with you and adding to the conversation.
redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 332d
Ah the Streisand effect.
Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 330d
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 331d
Freedom of speech isnt freedom of consequence
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 331d
We have the freedom of speech to say the consequences are stupid and unreasonable.
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 331d
True and even one to support her work. Sweet liberty
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 330d
I mean... they did take her work off the shelves. They did just make it harder to support her work.
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 330d
30 sec of google search https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250794666/cuckoo/
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 330d
Different publisher from the one being criticized? Is this irrelevant or am I missing something?
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 330d
The point is to support the author or the publisher ?
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 331d
That’s exactly what it is, actually.
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
Private company have a right regarding public statement by their employee.
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 331d
She might have been contracted rather than an employee, and may have already completed her contract. But either way it's fuzzy. She could have grounds to dispute it, because:
She wasn't acting as a representative of the company or it's views.
She was using her independent social media account.
Her sometimes incendiary, political social media presence was a known entity and apparently discussed, and might even be considered part of her brand, unless her contract outlined what she could and couldn't say for x amount of time after completing her contract.
The book was already printed and shipped, their recall could be considered retaliation for her political views, since they don't apply the same rules across the board, and the recall would hurt her worse than them.
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 331d
Mostly agree with your point except it was still a public account. About 4 I haven't seen any instance that would proove they dont apply the rule accords the board. Also she s a contractor and as so she signed a contract with clause and thoses clause allow them to finish the contract.
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 330d
Much of the article, and the headline of the article, are about the rules on public image not being unilaterally applied.
I can't parse your last sentence.
bigmamoth@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 330d
The contract she signed has clauses that she must respect and can justify its cancellation. This is very classic.
About the fact that the rule isn't apply fairly accros the board I tend to agree but the other case aren't that similar tbh
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 330d
Yes, you just described how a contract works. It's pretty clear you didn't read the whole point because that's the same thing I said but in worse terms.
I'm done with this thread, but you have a good one.