# SFWA Expels Member



## J-Sun (Aug 15, 2013)

Beale Expelled from SFWA

I'm not interested in the particular person but do folks think the SFWA should subscribe to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or should they kick members out for failing to get along with other members? Should the by-laws be changed to read "a member qualifies if s/he has sold X number of sales to Y kinds of markets... and is not seen by anyone as racist or mean or impolite"? On the other hand, should the SFWA tolerate any magnitude of rudeness? I dunno - I think for me it just boils down to being less comfortable with paying this guy all this attention and kicking him out than I would be with just ignoring him and letting him stay. It does lead one to question if, in fact, there is a political/presentation litmus test. It's supposed to be about the writing. If a member's qualified, s/he's qualified.

And people should remember that "the same dudes you misuse on your way up, you might meet up on your way down" - if the SFWA board came to be composed of a half dozen of this guy, would you want to have to weigh your words of disagreement for fear of being kicked out by _them_?


----------



## alchemist (Aug 15, 2013)

If I wasn't on my phone, I'd post some links to things Beale has written (our own J-Wo has links on his blog). He's either a very successful troll or the worst kind of racist sexist there is. If I was in the SFWA, I'd much rather ignore him when he's outside my organisation than have to ignore him when he's got the letters SFWA in his bio.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 15, 2013)

Not knowing what the SFWA's rules or bylaws say - either in general, or about the reasons one may be subject to their expulsion process - I find it's difficult to comment.

If what Mr Beale has said clearly contravened the rules/bylaws, then this may be controversial, but more because of who's been expelled. If the rules are vague and so easily bent to a particular (but not specifically SFF writing) purpose, then that would be a problem (for the reason J-Sun gave in their last paragraph).


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Aug 15, 2013)

At the end of the day, they're a membership organisation and there will always be, somewhere in the constitution, the right to review membership in the light of behaviour. Provided everything was followed according to the legalities, then I think it is their right to respond if something happens that they feel will reflect badly on their name. 

Having said that, in terms of governance, SFWA doesn't, in general, impress me. And this centres around governance -- the way we lead, the way we wish our organisation to be represented, the values we wish to uphold -- and it could, I think, be more transparent in its governance, which might reduce the attacks on them. It's hard to assess the truth when each side carries its own agenda. Loudly. 

I had the misfortune yesterday to come across @TheWriteAgenda1 on Twitter, and was astounded at the sort of attacks being made on people who are simply trying to be writers and don't seem to merit any sort of attack. (I'll probably join that club, now.) And it shows the ugly side of the whole argument. I think, in general, it all just makes me very keen to stay away from the SFWA altogether.


----------



## iansales (Aug 15, 2013)

Beale is a racist sexist scumbag for the first water. He has been purveying hate speech for years. It should not have taken ten weeks for the SFWA to boot him out. And saying "we should just ignore him" is white privilege speaking because, you know, it's not the white men he's making the SFWA unsafe for.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 15, 2013)

At least I now know why John Scalzi posted this on his blog, Whatever.




alchemist said:


> ...our own J-Wo has links on his blog.


Guest blogger Randy Midichlorean will not be happy; though Nick Meniscus probably will be. (Note that these two linked blogposts are not necessarily for those of a very nervous disposition.)


----------



## Abernovo (Aug 15, 2013)

I agree with alchemist.

J-Sun, the SFWA is a professional organisation, with guidelines and by-laws, similar (if not the same) to other organisations, such as RICS for Chartered Surveyors in the UK, or Bar associations for lawyers. It's not just a case of whether an organisation should put up with intolerant comments*, but how they reflect on the organisation when used by a member. Bringing the profession (so to speak) into disrepute is how I see it.

*I'd also add that the comments (as reported) were more than intolerant, but quite hateful, covering racism, misogyny and homophobia. Purely my opinion, but I think a great deal of hate speech is incitement to violence and persecution (it's all a question of intent), so should not be given blanket protection under freedom of speech laws. There are already plenty of exceptions.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 15, 2013)

What I'd like to see is SFWA accept more responsibility themselves. 

The past couple of "scandals" involving the SFWA have been where SFWA official services have published controversial material directly.

Is the SFWA unable to control who publishes to its magazine, or who uses it's Twitter feed?


----------



## chopper (Aug 15, 2013)

better that beale is outside the SFWA. he's an appalling example of wrongheadedness.

good riddance.


----------



## J-Sun (Aug 16, 2013)

Interesting comments, all. (All interesting, but I especially agree with springs' and Brian's points about the SFWA's poor governance and image.)

I think some people are misunderstanding my question though. I'm not asking whether you like or approve of the person in question - I would think even those who agreed with him would think he was rude and, in ways, stupid and very few people would agree with him anyway. And I wasn't questioning the _legality_ of the SFWA's action - for Ursa and the curious, the by-laws state:



> Section 10. Expulsion of Member. The officers of the Corporation may, by unanimous vote, expel any member for good and sufficient cause.... A member so expelled shall be reinstated upon petition of two-thirds of the active membership. The Corporation shall have no responsibility to circulate the petition. --By-Laws



Due to the vagueness, it's perfectly legal[1]. But I was questioning the wisdom/morality of their action - whether it _should_ be legal. I don't dispute that the person in question is almost certainly a troll and/or expresses contempt to people of other races and opinions. I just basically support the right of the KKK and the NAACP and Nazis and Jews and everyone else to assemble, march, speak, or do anything that is not harmful to person or property. Contrary to abernovo, I do not like the concept of "hate speech" and, even granting the phrase, I do not accept that hate speech is incitement to violence unless it actually, y'know, incites violence. "I hate that person" is not "here's a thousand bucks to go kill that person" and is certainly not killing that person. Thomas Jefferson, speaking of religious freedom, said



> ..._the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction_; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and, finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.



Substitute "civil government officers" with SFWA officers and "religious liberty" with "liberty of belief of any kind" and note especially "_overt_ acts against peace and good order" and the dynamics apply and violating these precepts makes me uncomfortable.

As erroneous as it seems most everything this guy says is, I did find his quote of Jemisin (as linked to from the main post - I do not read this guy's blog) interesting:



> ...the membership of SFWA also recently voted in a new president. There were two candidates — one of whom... earned ten percent of the vote. SFWA is small; only about 500 people voted in total, so we’re talking less than 50 people. But scale up again. Imagine if ten percent of this country’s population was busy making active efforts to take away not mere privileges, not even dignity, but your most basic rights. Imagine if ten percent of the people you interacted with, on a daily basis, did not regard you as human.
> 
> Just ten percent. But _such_ a ten percent. --Jemisin's Continuum GoH Speech[2] and expelled person's rebuttal



On the one hand, I can understand her fear and dismay but, on the other, this sounds perilously near to advocacy of the tyranny of the majority and the unwillingness to rest until the last spark of dissent is crushed. It reflects the mentality of the inquisitor. No error shall be tolerated anywhere. As defined in the very quote, in this context, regardless of skin color, it is the expelled member who is the persecuted minority and Jemisin and others who are the majority. Kinda ironic.

Anyway - just to make it crystal-clear, since I often get in trouble for this sort of thing, I in no way support the guy in question or condone what he says beyond his simple right to say it and I just think it's yet another disillusionment regarding the SFWA which, when I was a naive kid, sort of symbolized *the* club I'd want to belong to.

-----
[1] But the supposed motivation was Beale's posting rants to a twitter feed and someone quoted how this made him susceptible for removal from the _feed_ and she turned this into a call for expulsion from the entire organization and, likely, herself broke SFWA rules by making private SFWA communications public, the same action for which David Moles would have been expelled, but they invented a new thing for him called "censure". If you suspect that's not what any of this is really about but that Moles, Jemisin, and El-Mohtar are more compatible with the officers sociopolitical views than Beale is, and that the rewards and punishments differ accordingly, you'd probably be right.

[2] Incidentally, if we want to play "who's most sensitive" and I were trying to win, it would be easy to be offended by a great deal of her speech and, were I Australian, it would be difficult not to be. If you put her words into the mouth of Ross Perot addressing a black audience with appropriate reversals and minor modifications (she says "you _as a_ people" rather than "you people" but the intent is more suited to Perot's words than Perot's intent), it doesn't sound very nice.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 16, 2013)

J-Sun said:


> Substitute "civil government officers" with SFWA officers



That's missing the point, though, IMO.

The US government is supposed to belong to the people, therefore represent them at all levels.

Private organisations are exactly that and have a right to determine criteria for membership.

Same in that if someone came into your home and insulted you, you would have a right to eject them - they would not be able to claim the right of Free Speech to remain in your home.

So far as I understand it, anyway.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

I tend to agree with Brian.

My only qualms would be where a supposedly private organisation just happens to be a gateway to something else important, e.g. you need to be a member to carry on your profession because the private** organisation is a professional body, such as the Law Society*** in the UK. In those cases, I would hope the rules would not be so vague as those of the SFWA. I would also hope that unanimity wasn't necessarily a requirement: I wouldn't want, say, a doctor to be able to continue practicing just because he had a friend on the relevant decision making body. (Given the vagueness of Section 10, I would argue that the SFWA needs unanimity amongst its officers.)


** - Private in the sense that it didn't start as a government appointed body, even if it might have evolved into something like such a body.

*** - Note that I may be misrepresenting the Law Society's role and scope: I'm not a lawyer, so know few of  the Inns() and outs of what they do.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

Boneman said:


> Actually, I thought he was defending the right to free speech.



No, he was supporting the right to commit hate speech.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 16, 2013)

iansales said:


> No, he was supporting the right to commit hate speech.



Free Speech is Free Speech regardless of the content. That's the point of Free Speech.

I don't see any hate speech here, but I do see a lot of double-standards about what constitutes 'hate speech'.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

iansales said:


> No, he was supporting the right to commit hate speech


...which is allowed in the US, under the First Amendment.

Not being brought up with that right, I feel uncomfortable about allowing such unfettered speech, though I do feel we've gone too far the other way here in the UK, by _appearing_ to protect people's ideas and thoughts as if they were as immutable as, say, one's genetic makeup**.




** - Please note that genetic immutability cannot be guaranteed in the future.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

I said:


> Free Speech is Free Speech regardless of the content. That's the point of Free Speech.



Free speech is a convenient myth. No one has the right to disrespect anyone else free of consequences. Committing hate speech results in consequences, such as a custodial sentence or being booted out of a professional organisation. Ignoring hate speech will not make it go away, it is tacitly supporting it. Claiming someone has the right commit hate speech because of "free speech" is tacitly condoning it. Hate speech makes spaces unsafe for the people being attacked by the hate speech, and they have just as much right to safe spaces as anyone else.

I will also note that the so-called free speech advocate who originally advanced this argument blocked me last year, and so is not practicing what he preaches...


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> ...which is allowed in the US, under the First Amendment.



Only when it can be defended in court.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

I don't think - and I'm open to be corrected on this - that the First Amendment guarantees that there won't be consequences arising from what one says other than one cannot be prosecuted merely for saying** something.

EDIT:





iansales said:


> Only when it can be defended in court.


What does that mean? I think one is allowed to tell lies outside of a court of law or a legal process (such as the creation of a contract) without fear of prosecution even here in the UK. 



** - I believe the scope of the First Amendment (or its later interpretation by the Supreme Court) is wider than the freedom of the spoken and written word.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> I don't think - and I'm open to be corrected on this - that the First Amendment guarantees that there won't be consequences arising from what one says other than one cannot be prosecuted merely for saying** something.



Except hate speech *does* have consequence. People have committed suicide after being on the receiving end of hate speech. It has been used to incite violence and murder.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 16, 2013)

iansales said:


> Free speech is a convenient myth.



In this country, yes, but in the US it's a constitutional right. It's the same right that says RequiresHate's opinions are as valid as Beale's.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

iansales said:


> Except hate speech *does* have consequence. People have committed suicide after being on the receiving end of hate speech. It has been used to incite violence and murder.


Incitement to violence isn't simply speech, though, is it? It's incitement to violence. I'm sure that's a crime here in the UK (as is behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace).


As to driving someone to suicide, I await the trials of those that have, apparently done this. Other than inciting self-directed violence, I'm not sure - I'm getting to feel that I should have studied law - what law they've broken, even in the UK. I'm even less sure what law they might have broken in the US (even assuming such a law might survive a decision in the Supreme Court).

One could always vilify such people, I suppose, but no doubt a lawyer would appear stating that identifying these vile people in public would be tantamount to inciting violence against them.


----------



## Boneman (Aug 16, 2013)

Margaret Thatcher died this year, and the hate speech that poured out of many people (including, sadly, some members here) was appalling. No custodial sentences were imposed, and nobody was expelled from this organisation, because free speech is vital. Ask a member of the Conservative Government about what constituted hate speech, and you'll get a different answer to what a Labout Government member would say, if you relate it to Mrs Thatcher. Ask requireshate how she'd implement your idea that whatever constitutes hate speech  should result in custodial sentencesand half the population will be incarcerated overnight - because they're white and middle class. But guess what? She entitled to say these things because she has free speech!! And she's a self-confessed racist, of the worst kind. Just like Beale. 

Where do you draw the line? Who decides what is hate speech and what isn't? *Nobody* on this forum is qualified to do that. 

And although a day late and a dollar short, shouldn't we actually applaud the SFWA for its action, rather than attacking them? J-Sun stated he is questioning the wisdom/morality of their action, not the legality of it. 



> by J-Sun
> Anyway - just to make it crystal-clear, since I often get in trouble for this sort of thing, I in no way support the guy in question or condone what he says beyond his simple right to say it


 
I in no way support requireshate or condone what she says beyond her simple right to say it. 

Without Free Speech, neither Beales nor requireshate (nor, according to one opinion here, J-Sun) would be entitled to voice their opinions, and censorship would be the order of the day, tp prevent them speaking. Fortunately, Free Speech is enshrined as the most basic freedom we have, and whether we like what another person says or not, we cannot live without it, except in a totalitarian or fascist regime that controls everything we say and do. Why would anyone advocate that?


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

I said:


> In this country, yes, but in the US it's a constitutional right. It's the same right that says RequiresHate's opinions are as valid as Beale's.



The right to bear arms is also a constitutional right, and we all know how well that's working out...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 16, 2013)

iansales said:


> The right to bear arms is also a constitutional right, and we all know how well that's working out...



Yep, but I figure we let the Americans take care of their own constitution.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

Boneman said:


> Margaret Thatcher died this year, and the hate speech that poured out of many people (including, sadly, some members here) was appalling. No custodial sentences were imposed, and nobody was expelled from this organisation, because free speech is vital.



Saying that Margaret Thatcher was a hateful bitch who did much to destroy this country is not hate speech. Saying black people are "half-naked savages incapable of inventing civilisation" (or whatever Beale's actual phrase was) is hate speech. You can't direct hate speech against an individual, only against a group of people by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, or sexual orientation.

What the Daily Mail prints and claims to be journalism is often hate speech. Earlier this year, a transsexual teacher committed suicide after being monstered by the Daily Mail. You could argue monstering is not hate speech because it's directed against a single person - the transsexual teacher in this case - but the argument printed by the paper could equally apply to all transsexuals. But then newspapers can afford much better lawyers than the victims of their attacks...

All too often these days the only time you hear the phrase "free speech" is to defend hate speech. Which tells you all you need to know about the concept. And, funnily enough, the free speech defence is usually proffered by those who are not targets of the hate speech...


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

I said:


> Yep, but I figure we let the Americans take care of their own constitution.



And I will condemn anyone who defends Beale's right to say what he did. I will also pour scorn on anyone who thinks that ignoring him was the "moral" thing to do.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

Boneman said:


> Why would anyone advocate that?


I don't know why they do it - I expect they'll be a variety of reasons, some bad, some good - but I suspect they would support it only when they think people just like them would be taking the decisions.

Which, amazingly, gets us back to the original starting point of the thread. Unless it's a successful totalitarian state - successful in the sense that it has brainwashed its whole population - a country will have many points of view and opinions within in it, coming from all sorts of original starting points; a private body can, in its definition of itself, host a much narrower set of points of view, and expel (or refuse to admit) those whose views fall outside the deinition.

The (fictional) RequiresHate fan club is perfectly entitled to only accept as members people who, at the time they join, say they worship at the feet of RequiresHate's bigotry. And it's perfectly free to expel members who deviate even a smidgin from that worship. No-one would be surprised.

The surprise with the SFWA decision is divided between those who wonder why it took so long and those who believe the SFWA should stick only to the rules about writer elligibility, that the members have been published by a "recognised" publisher (or whatever the rules actually say). Most people are not surprised (mostly because they have no idea what the SFWA is).


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Aug 16, 2013)

See, to me calling someone a k**b on Twitter when it wouldn't be allowed within the confines of the well moderated forum the conversation began on isn't a nice thing to say/do. But I respect the poster's right to do so. 

There are two arguments here - whether we uphold free speech even if it's racist, hateful stuff or, what the otiginal question asked - was it right for the SFWA to expel someone doing the same who was connected to their organisation. 

For the first, in principle I uphold the right, but there should be safeguards in place to protect people from trolling, from attacks, and the law is sadly not stepping up to this. 

For the second, provided they abide by the constitution, there is nothing to stop this action.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

iansales said:


> Saying that Margaret Thatcher was a hateful bitch who did much to destroy this country is not hate speech.


Really? I know lots of people say it, but that doesn't mean they're not spouting hate speech.

But, more importantly, that phrase is using a word, bitch, that is only ever applied (when being used seriously) to women or girls. You really should be ashamed of yourself in supporting such misogynist language.

Simply appalling!


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

springs said:


> See, to me calling someone a k**b on Twitter when it wouldn't be allowed within the confines of the well moderated forum the conversation began on isn't a nice thing to say/do. But I respect the poster's right to do so.



Why not? My point on Twitter was general, and aimed generally. It wasn't a specific response to this thread. It doesn't mean I don't believe what I tweeted. All this bending over backwards to defend Beale's right to say what he did is tacitly defending the right to commit hate speech. And that's all well and good when you're not its target, when you're not the one whose life is a living hell because someone is talking hateful crap with impunity.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> Really? I know lots of people say it, but that doesn't mean they're not spouting hate speech.
> 
> But, more importantly, that phrase is using a word, bitch, that is only ever applied (when being used seriously) to women or girls. You really should be ashamed of yourself in supporting such misogynist language.
> 
> Simply appalling!



Thatcher was vilified for her actions and accomplishments, not her race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or colour. She is also an individual, not a group of persons. Hence, not hate speech.

I used the language used by those who vilified Thatcher on her death. But nice try at derailing there.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

It isn't derailling. It isn't even pointing out that you don't hold what you say to your own standards (for others), although it does that as a side effect. It really is misogynist and it really is appalling, and you support it being said. I'm truly disappointed.


What has someone posted recently? 





iansales said:


> No, he was supporting the right to commit hate speech.


If you're going to say that using mysogynistic words to denigrate a woman isn't hate speech, I'd like to know why not.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

First, it was reportage. I myself didn't call that Thatcher that. I used a term used by others to point out that vilifying Thatcher is not hate speech. And yes, you are derailing.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

First of all, it isn't up to you, or me, to decide whether I'm derailing this thread. (I happen to believe I'm not, but then I would. You, rather conveniently, believe I am; but I can see why you would, although I probably wouldn't do so if in your circumstances.)

I didn't say vilifying Mrs Thatcher was hate speech. I said calling her a bitch while vilifying her was hate speech. (You said it wasn't:


iansales said:


> Saying that Margaret Thatcher was a hateful bitch who did much to destroy this country is not hate speech.


.) That's because it is (it's misogynistic), just as calling people of another race dogs while vilifying them is racist. (There are those who would say simply using the word outside the context of vilification or disparagement, is misogynistic; I'm not one of those people.) The only possible defence would be if only women have called Mrs Thatcher a bitch while vilifying her. I read the CiF pages on the Grauniad; I've seen men call her a bitch there.

I really am surprised, and saddened, that you, of all people, with your excellent record of supporting women writers in SFF, cannot see this.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 16, 2013)

We accept moderation here on the Chrons, we accept that saying certain things is unacceptable. The mods have, in the past, banned certain Chrons members for what they've said to others and, as far as I can remember, there wasn't a single dissenting post.

I'm prepared to be persuaded but right now I can't see any difference.


----------



## iansales (Aug 16, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> I didn't say vilifying Mrs Thatcher was hate speech. I said calling her a bitch while vilifying her was hate speech.



Applying the epithet to all women would be hate speech, because it's an offensive term used against a group which refers specifically to that's group's gender. It thus falls within the definition of the statute. Using it to refer to a single woman is a misogynistic insult, not hate speech. That doesn't make it any nicer, but it does mean it's not germane to the discussion here.

If I say that Beale claimed all black people are savages in the course of an discussion, that doesn't mean I am committing hate speech. It means I am reporting hate speech. 

There is no magic derailing fairy to point out where it happens. You have successfully dragged this thread off point. That's derailing.


----------



## The Judge (Aug 16, 2013)

It takes two to tango -- and to derail, perhaps.  For myself I'd like to see any further posts dealing with the original topic, not serving as self-justification for previous posts.

So, please, back to the issue in hand and SFWA's expulsion of one member.  As a matter of interest, does anyone know if this has happened before?


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

Sorry to let this go so far, TJ, but I would like to finish by saying that not all of us believe that hate speech is limited to speech directed at a whole group; it also applies to the unpleasant highlighting of an individual's membership of a group when it has nothing to do with the rest of the invective (such as adding, say, "black" to a jibe about a person's politics).

I know Ian and I don't, and won't, agree on this, so I'll leave it as that, a genuine difference of opinion between us. But we probably do agree on what type of person Beale is, to get back to the thread topic.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Aug 16, 2013)

There does seem some confusion just how "free" free speech is according to the American Constitution. There are definitely limits to the right to free speech. Yelling "FIRE!!!" (falsely) in a crowded theater; that is not covered under free speech. 

Speech that leads to imminent destructive behavior (inciting a riot) is not allowed. Slander is not permitted under free speech. Speech whose sole purpose is to cause violence (hate speech which results in a person suffering bodily harm) is not permitted. 

There are others, but hopefully that gets the idea across. Organizations in the U.S. such as SFWA typically use the limits in the Constitution as the basis for their own limits on unacceptable behavior. They typically expand on those limits to attempt to limit any type of disruptive or abusive behavior, hate speech, and so on.

An organization has this ability because they are protecting the integrity of said organization. They almost always have in their bylaws the limits at which behavior is unacceptable, and also give themselves the right to expel a member whose behavior is seen to harm the integrity of the organization.

Which is what I understand happened with the situation under discussion here.


----------



## J-Sun (Aug 17, 2013)

I said:


> The US government is supposed to belong to the people, therefore represent them at all levels.
> 
> Private organisations are exactly that and have a right to determine criteria for membership.





mosaix said:


> We accept moderation here on the Chrons, we accept that saying certain things is unacceptable. The mods have, in the past, banned certain Chrons members for what they've said to others...I'm prepared to be persuaded but right now I can't see any difference.





Gordian Knot said:


> Organizations in the U.S. such as SFWA typically use the limits in the Constitution as the basis for their own limits on unacceptable behavior. They typically expand on those limits to attempt to limit any type of disruptive or abusive behavior, hate speech, and so on.



I would say here that there are three issues involved: a government (in the US) that is supposed to be by, of, and for the people; an organization, like the SFWA; and Brian's board. The Chrons is not an organization and, while I'd hope he'd exercise some liberality, Brian can indeed do whatever he wants within the limits of the laws. On the other hand, a government should be (at least from an American perspective) bound to represent the interests of the people and their liberty. Between this, we've got organizations where, as Gordian Knot says, the point of departure is generally a smaller model of the polity at large. Except that the SFWA is supposed to be composed of the most creative and forward thinking people on earth whose stock in trade is to play with dangerous visions using a medium of unrestricted speech. So it especially bothers me that the organization as a whole is promulgating censorship and ostracism for unpopular ideas. So, yes, rather than the society at large creating binding laws or the private property of a single individual, the SFWA membership decides on its by-laws, officers, and actions and are perfectly within their laws and US laws to do what they did. And, yes, I wouldn't want to listen to the person in question or have him be part of my organization, either. But I would be compelled to allow him by my own feeling about the necessity to make mistakes of opinion and to air them. It bothers me that the SFWA feels differently.

It is very interesting to see this spirited debate - free speech in action! 



The Judge said:


> So, please, back to the issue in hand and SFWA's expulsion of one member.  As a matter of interest, does anyone know if this has happened before?



Stanislaw Lem was given an honorary membership as an esteemed but technically ineligible member. He then sharply criticized American (English language?) SF and qualified for membership (not sure about the order), so his honorary membership was cancelled and he refused to join as a regular member. It is likely that this was done as retribution for his comments but it might conceivably have been "just because". Either way, he was not, to my understanding, actually expelled. He could have paid the normal dues and been a normal member.

So yes and no. If there's another example - and there could well be - I don't know about it.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 17, 2013)

J-Sun said:


> The Chrons is not an organization and, while I'd hope he'd exercise some liberality, Brian can indeed do whatever he wants within the limits of the laws.



But there's the general principle. You say Brian can do what he wants but by being a member here you accept that - or do you? 

You further say:



> Except that the SFWA is supposed to be composed of the most creative and  forward thinking people on earth whose stock in trade is to play with  dangerous visions using a medium of unrestricted speech.



I'd argue that the writing members of the Chrons would want to pretty much fall into that description as well. And yet why do we find that the Chrons web site is haven in a sea of chaos? Precisely because it is modded effectively and unpleasant characters are banned.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 17, 2013)

It seems to me that the SWFA doesn't have any responsibilities other than to its founding principles and rules (and by-laws). As there is no owner of the SFWA, the rôle Brian plays here is taken by the board.

The SWFA is not a half-way house between an official public body and a private organisation. It is the latter, just as the Chrons is.


----------



## J-Sun (Aug 17, 2013)

mosaix said:


> But there's the general principle. You say Brian can do what he wants but by being a member here you accept that - or do you?



Yes and no. In fact (if I have the facts correctly), it is Brian's board and he can do whatever he wants and I accept that. And I, personally, have seen no evidence of intolerant moderation or banning. And I am willing to work to achieve some harmony - I once said something and a mod contacted me and very politely said I shouldn't say that and I accepted that and haven't, however difficult it makes some things. But if I felt anyone was unfairly treated - especially if it were myself - I'd leave the board.



> I'd argue that the writing members of the Chrons would want to pretty much fall into that description as well. And yet why do we find that the Chrons web site is haven in a sea of chaos? Precisely because it is modded effectively and unpleasant characters are banned.



Well, "give me liberty or give me death", really. I do not favor having my rights taken away so I can be "safe". It is true that the Chrons is a wonderful place, which is to say Brian has a very nice home and very nice guests but basically, there is nowhere free on the web to post unless you personally own such a site. And then it's a question of technology - on the net, there's Usenet, which is unmoderated and awash in trolls and spam and general idiots but with slrn (my news reader) and my 28 megabyte killfile, usenet is a fine place too and the moderation is in my own hands. But usenet servers and readers have no particular "state" (persistent data) and usenet has other limitations.



Ursa major said:


> It seems to me that the SWFA doesn't have any responsibilities other than to its founding principles and rules (and by-laws). As there is no owner of the SFWA, the rôle Brian plays here is taken by the board.
> 
> The SWFA is not a half-way house between an official public body and a private organisation. It is the latter, just as the Chrons is.



I basically agree with the first part but the Chrons is not an organization at all. It's Brian's. The SFWA is an organization and does not act by fiat as Brian can (but thankfully doesn't seem to) but represents its members in its actions according to its by-laws. Rather than saying, "Yes, some of our members can behave like stupid jerks just like people in the world at large but our primary purpose is to represent the interests of authors of all kinds against publishers and other people with interests which diverge from their own, including apparently stupid jerk authors" it says "We are an organization that will ban you if you don't meet our sociopolitical and etiquette guidelines." So they should not be "The Science Fiction (and Fantasy) Writers of America" but the "Right-Thinking and Speaking Science Fiction (and Fantasy) Writers of America". (Leaving aside that it's just "America" because it's incorporated there and whether "Horror" should be included and so on.)

This entire post has gone a bit off-topic, though.

My point is that, were I a member of the SFWA, I would feel that its actions reflected on me and I would circulate the petition to reinstate the guy as mentioned in Section 10 and, when that inevitably failed, I'd resign from the organization and continue to speak ill of them after that. I would not say, "Hey Board, even though Damon Knight helped create this thing in 1965 and the board is composed of elected officers and represents all its members, you can do whatever you want and it doesn't reflect on me because its yours and I have no vote" and I also wouldn't say, "What you did is unconstitutional and illegal" because it's not. That's my only point regarding this sub-topic. Ironically, it's akin to Jemisin's point about the silent people who stand by and watch. I'm saying that every member of the SFWA opens themselves to the imputation that they are signing off on this to one degree or another if they don't protest. And, indeed, most of them actually are loudly and clearly signing off and, despite several people getting where I'm coming from and maybe not entirely disagreeing with me, it seems the majority agree with the SFWA - not, as I say, about whether the guy in question is rude and wrong, but about whether expulsion should be the price of that.

So I guess that's that. I feel like I've said my piece (though apparently not clearly), but everybody who wishes is, of course, free to continue the discussion and I'll read with interest.

(And sorry to be talking past you and using you as an example, Brian.)


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 18, 2013)

First of all, is the actual ruling, with the evidence attached, now in the public domain? I didn't think it was.

All the SFWA currently says on its website is what I read a few days ago:


> The Board, after careful consideration of the existing Massachusetts By-Laws, our approved operations and procedures, and with the advice of our legal counsel and past presidents, has decided to expel a member of SFWA from the organization.
> 
> This has not been an easy decision. It was very important from the outset that the Board should follow a careful process of examining the evidence, reviewing our internal rules and guidance, and weighing the damage done to the organization regardless of how we chose to proceed. We hope that all members of SFWA understand that this decision has not been made without careful and thorough examination of the situation.
> 
> ...


You and I have no idea why the SFWA board ruled, unanimously, the way it did (just as you have no idea why we expel** members from here).

Now it may turn out that both of us might disagree with what the SFWA board did about Beale (depending on what he did or didn't do). But we don't know anything (well, I don't; you may) about this, so I, at least, can't say either way.

However, based on this black-hole-like supply of information, you would, if you were a SFWA member


> ...circulate the petition to reinstate the guy as mentioned in Section 10 and, when that inevitably failed, I'd resign from the organization....


Might I ask why? Is the information out there? Or are you influenced by the type of person who's reportedly pleased by his expulsion (based on why _they think_ Beale's been expelled)?


** - Obviously, there's no qualification needed to join here, whereas it's quite hard to qualify for SFWA membership; given this, it's easy to see why we expel far more members than the SFWA does (or needs to), because the vast majority of members we ban wouldn't have a hope of joining the SWFA.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 18, 2013)

J-Sun said:


> Yes and no. In fact (if I have the facts correctly), it is Brian's board and he can do whatever he wants and I accept that. And I, personally, have seen no evidence of intolerant moderation or banning. And I am willing to work to achieve some harmony - I once said something and a mod contacted me and very politely said I shouldn't say that and I accepted that and haven't, however difficult it makes some things. But if I felt anyone was unfairly treated - especially if it were myself - I'd leave the board.



But 'fair and unfair, tolerant and intolerant' are subjective. The point I'm making is that you accept moderation of this site. You accept that someone can, in effect, curtail someone else's freedom of speech by banning them. So you agree with the general principal that freedom of speech isn't the be-all and end-all and that sometimes what people say is just plain unacceptable.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Aug 18, 2013)

J-Sun said "_We (the SFWA) are an organization that will ban you if you don't meet our sociopolitical and etiquette guidelines." So they should not be "The Science Fiction (and Fantasy) Writers of America" but the "Right-Thinking and Speaking Science Fiction (and Fantasy) Writers of America_."

My take on this is a bit different. It has always been my belief that when one has a right to do something, along with that right comes a responsibility not to abuse that right. As an example of what I mean, hate speech is hate speech. It is not a simple matter of a difference of opinion, or a point of view that is not popularly accepted.

How something is said is just as important as what is being said. There is a difference between comments that are not popular and those that serve no purpose but to denigrate.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 18, 2013)

But wasn't the reason not that he makes repulsive sexist and racist remarks -- he'd been doing that for a long time with impunity -- but that he used SFWA as a platform to do so, thereby bringing disrepute on the organization?

Censorship and freedom of the press and freedom of speech aren't what they used to be, now that the internet provides such vast opportunities for people to disseminate their ideas at no charge and with few if any consequences to themselves.  If one place shuts them down, they can go to others, or start their own site.  Beale has his own site which is notorious enough to attract a lot of attention.  It's not like he's being _silenced_ because SFWA has decided not to be associated with his ideas.



> Except that the SFWA is supposed to be composed of the most creative and forward thinking people on earth whose stock in trade is to play with dangerous visions using a medium of unrestricted speech.



I don't believe that SFWA makes this claim? (At least not when I was a member they didn't.)  This is your idealized vision of what they should be. They are more like a writer's union, and they do the most good when they concentrate on being just that, and leave the writers themselves free to play with dangerous visions (or not) in their fiction.


----------

