I think there's differences between criticising a powerful organisation and a social movement of a marginalised group. But that aside, the way I read it, the issue isn't that the story might imply "they or their members ever act from anything other than the highest motivations". It's that it might imply they ONLY act from something other than the highest motivations. The OP said the group wouldn't be portrayed in a positive light at all, so it's not going to be a nuanced portrayal.
Because the world is split into two factions regarding this: - People looking to be offended. - People so scared of offending people that they treat everyone not a member of their "group" as emotionally fragile eggs.
There need to be a few outliers of massively offensive stuff out there to attract all the attention of the professionally offended. If there weren't they'd hop down to the next worst thing and so on, until no one could criticize anything. Think of it like how some R rated moves that are pushing the envelope will throw in some outrageous scenes, so they can leverage those scenes out and keep the ones they really wanted, scenes that might have been removed otherwise.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough but actually I meant the opposite. I agree with you. I'm not about focusing on the organization or whatever movement, but on the human condition.
While I totally agree with this, it does seem like OP intends to paint the movement as entirely bad or misguided at the absolute best. Any offensiveness could be greatly mitigated by what doing what you suggest (probably leaving only the perpetually offended sorts), but I'm not sure OP is willing to do that.
That is so true! In fact, with the advent of social media, I don't think you can go a whole day without offending someone.
What a burden self censorship can be. Better to pour it out first as it comes to you and then see how it looks.
That's what I'm starting to learn. Life's too short to treat everyone around you like emotionally fragile eggshells. Live, I say! Just don't be an overt dick, y'know? Moderation.
An organization can sue for libel. A fictional work can result in a suit for libel. It seems fairly clear that the writer's intent is to tear down this real organization, using fiction that contains false events, claiming that they're "inspired by" real events--which means claiming that some truth is involved. You're not going to get me to approve of that. Telling defamatory lies is telling defamatory lies. If he just wants the story, he can create a fictional organization to commit these fictional acts. If he wants to criticize the real organization, he can do some research and write some nonfiction that tells the truth. Defaming a real organization and then hiding behind, "But it's fiction!" is not an acceptable compromise.
How can you defame the MI6 with 007 films when he always comes out on top? (or have I missed something there?)
I disagree that ANY AND ALL effort to avoid offending a marginalized group is 'censorship'. Sometimes it is simple social responsibility. But I agree that a writer cannot be 100% controlled by 'what people will think'. The writer has to have some sort of reasonable compass between playing into racism and censorship. The writer really should be able to figure that out. An important thing to remember is that racism is bad, and should not be condoned or perpetuated by authors who pretend it is 'just an opinion or preference', rather than what it is.
And that is why Grisham et al got away with writing fiction about the KKK because some of the shit the klan did in real life was (aledgedly) worse than anything in the books , so they probably couldnt really sue and say "hey you are saying we are bunch of racists who set up burning crucifixes and lynch black guys , how very dare you" Same thing here (though i'm not saying that BLM are comparable to the Klan) if you say in a fiction book that some BLM sympathisers are in your opinion black racists and sometimes start riots then you'll be fine because the truth is an absolute defence to libel .. however if you say that the BLM themselves are racists and deliberately start riots then you are on very dodgy ground and probably deserve to get your arse sued off - especially when you look at their actual principles as stated here http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/ The only exception to this is if you have an unsympathetic character expressing prejudiced views, that'll probably be okay so long as you are clear that you don't endorse those views and for preference bad shit happens to the characvter concerned ( as in Grishams The Chamber, or John Connelly's "The white road" ) Grishams racist gets gassed , Connely's is taken down by a black hitman and his white partner)
As @big soft moose says, you would have to make sure that the racism element only came from the character and had nothing to do with the BLM group. Interesting subject.
I'd say its defamatory to MI6 to suggest that they'd have anything to do with a turkey like 'quantum of solace' or that they'd hire someone as wooden as daniel craigs bond - ive seen more convincing acting from my wardrobe
10am Surbiton. Woman's Hour is relayed through a kitchen wireless. Bob washes a plate at his sink. Deep in thought, Bob inhales, shakes out hands, and exclaims to Perseus upon the lino, well actually he says 'What a good boy you are, Perseus,' and then he says, 'Now, I shall climb the steps of a plane, fly to New York, assassinate this VP of the BLM movement. Yes, and where are my tablets?' he says. Chapter 2 Bob catches the wrong plane, and lands in Dublin. He finds Bono and Sting are together again, signing autographs at the Dublin flea market, and yes, both gentlemen framed in his rifle's sights. 'Yes, yes,' the peoples of the world finally united... 'Do it, Bob!' they all cry from behind laptops. ... Okay, so targets a little geriatric these days, research shall bring me home.
Getting back to the OP: Why do you want to write this book? What's the arc for your main character? As it stands now, your story is D.O.A. (Dead On Arrival) because you're already tackling a very sensitive issue from the eyes of someone whose anti-BLM, and not only that, you're not even going to show how BLM might actually not be all that bad? Secondly, why is he pissed, and not his friend? His friend seems to have suffered the most (what with his business being destroyed and his child killed), yet he seems...well, we've no idea what he thinks. To be honest, I'm more interested in the friend instead of the main lead, who seems to have found the perfect excuse to justify his hatred and bigotry. This is what it looks like to me: HIS FRIEND: "I am angry at these people because I've suffered in their hands. This book will examine my attempt at reconciliation and forgiveness." THE LEAD: "I hate this movement, everything about this movement. Wait, what's that? My friend had his life destroyed by this movement? PERFECT! I hate them even more! Grrr!!!" BLM Group In The Book: "Woah, wait! Hold on, don't we have a say in this!? That's the entire point of this movement, so we could actually have a say in things!! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US!? WHYYYY!?!" Putting aside the controversy and the shitstorm you will likely face with this book, your lead does not have an arc from what I can see. His friend? Oh, yes, I can see a very good character arc for him.
You're an idiot. I'm tired of your pseudo-rebellious nonsense being poured all over otherwise good threads.
Ahhh. I feel better. My self-censorship was truly an oppressive force upon me, but now that I have freed myself I may frolic at will, with no concern about offending anyone (they're just being too sensitive!). This is surely a better world to live in. No need to waste time worrying about the feelings of others, even if they are people who've been traditionally oppressed and enslaved and murdered with impunity. Screw them if they can't take a joke. Community standards? Fuck 'em! I says what I wants! What's that? I sound like a small child having a tantrum? No, you sound like a small child having a tantrum. Stop trying to control me! I'm free. FREE, I tell you!
Smell the free air once more, Bayview. Smell and cherish it. :> Wait, are you being sarcastic? I'm too literally minded to tell. The middle paragraph tells me you're being sarcastic.
This is not proper, or rigorous talk. If a person from an isolated perspective minds to put their ideas to paper - then they should, and face the wrath, OR maybe their point of view enlightens us all. @BV you can be very metropolitan sometimes, illiberal.
