Jon Del Arroz Threatens to Sue Worldcon 76

Jon Del Arroz, who last month was banned from attending this year’s Worldcon in San Jose, has created a GoFundMe titled “Make WorldCon Great Again” which explains:

… In January 2018, WorldCon, the premier science fiction writers convention, openly discriminated against libertarians and conservatives in the field by banning Jon Del Arroz, a popular Hispanic science fiction writer, in an unprecedented move because he is outspoken political figure. Their claim was that Del Arroz “intended to violate their code of conduct.”

Del Arroz is asking donors for $10,000 to fund a lawsuit in retaliation:

Pursuing his rights on his behalf and for others who may be discriminated against on similar grounds will be expensive. Filing the lawsuit will cost around $1,000 and if there are depositions, motions, or experts, it could cost more than $10,000. It’s a lot of money to be able to exercise rights to speak without fear of illegal retaliation and discrimination and to associate with other members of the science fiction community and writing peers, but it needs to be done so others in the future can speak safely.

Please help Jon Del Arroz in his fight for civil rights for libertarian-conservatives everywhere in these troubling times. As a thanks, everyone who donates will receive a free novella e-book as a thank you.

Curiously, although the GoFundMe was created a week ago, as of this moment it still has yet to receive its first donation.

In January, Worldcon 76 advised its staff to have no further discussion on Jon Del Arroz because attorneys were getting involved.

Now Del Arroz has started publicizing his lawsuit threat by contacting writers, even (or perhaps especially) those that have criticized his past record of harassment. A. Merc Rustad received a copy and posted this reaction:

208 thoughts on “Jon Del Arroz Threatens to Sue Worldcon 76

  1. I think the funniest line to date in this latest idiotic episode is JdA’s suggestion that Anne Leckie—a New York Times bestselling writer with a Clarke, a Nebula, and a Hugo Award—is “jealous” of him as a writer.

    Is he saying that? Bless his heart. I have him blocked–I have readers waiting for my next book, so I don’t have time for his nonsense.

    I will say, for any aspiring writers out there, it may seem as though spending all your time being a trashfire on the internet is good for publicity, but actually writing takes up way more time and energy than you think, and while I can’t guarantee NYT Bestseller status and big fat royalty checks and a shelf full of awards if you spend your time working hard on your writing, I can pretty much guarantee you won’t get those if instead of working on your writing you spend all your time making sure everyone notices what an ass you are.

  2. In the mid-1990s, Arisia banned a serial harasser. The judge laughed him out of court. It did have the effect of Arisia being one of the first SF conventions to have a Code of Conduct. The first amendment applies to the government, not private entities.

  3. If he wants to whine to a judge, “But they won’t let me play with them” he can do it on his own dime.

  4. Ooh. His ‘writing peers’. I wonder who he thinks are his equals in the craft.

    Vizzini voice: “Have you heard of Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov? Morons, all of them!”

  5. These crowd sourcing websites need an “Un Fund Me” option. Donate $10.00 to an Un Fund Me and they debit that amount from what’s been raised by the campaign.

  6. One goal in his twisty, cesspit mind might have been to eventually be able to claim that File 770 actually helped him raise funds.

    We know how this stuff works, but maybe his followers will get a kick out of what he’ll try to imply.

    However, I’m almost tempted to suggest we support the suit: the filing and subsequent discovery documents getting into the public record could very well put the kibosh on the whole enterprise. Any time he opened his mouth, all we’d have to do is post some of his statement from depositions.

    (Think he realizes that the otherside gets to ask questions during such things?)

  7. Wait, he’s ‘the leading Hispanic voice in sci-fi’ and a popular writer, however WorldCon has also torpedoed his career and caused him to be blacklisted. Man, only the right can simultaneously demand they are both the true wounded victim and be the best, most popular writer in the field.

  8. Hmm. He’d almost certainly reach his target if he got a feature on a certain alt-right creep’s blog. You know, the one which milked its readers for thousands on the thin promise of poorly drawn political cartoons. The one associated with the t-shirt he’s wearing. The one run by the guy whose lunch table he’s been desperately trying to sit at for over a year.

    Maybe that’ll work out for him.

  9. If we could just be assured that the raised funds would actually go to the lawyer and legal fees as opposed to JDA’s own pocket, I’d almost donate to the GoFundMe myself. It would be worth it for the entertainment value alone.

  10. @Contrarius though I hope you’d donate an equal amount to Worldcon76’s lawyer. Though this seems the kind of thing to run past Popehat.

  11. I’m interested in ‘writer’s convention’. I’ve noticed this misapprehension a couple of times before: Correia’s response to his first Worldcon included puzzlement that there weren’t panels on how to promote one’s work, and more recently one Puppy-affiliated person (I think perhaps a Castalia author?) was surprised that the convention didn’t organise opportunities for self-promotion. Of course, in the great wide world ‘convention’ often means a trade event, so if you come to Worldcon with this expectation you will be rather confused by what you actually find.

  12. @NickPheas —

    If we could be assured that JDA would actually pursue his suit, then a donation to his GoFundMe would be a donation to Worldcon’s lawyer. Because when you lose a civil suit in this country, you pay for the winning side’s lawyers.

    Nonetheless, that’s a good idea. Sort of a donation-matching plan like during public broadcasting fundraisers. 😉

  13. @Lisa Hertel

    People often forget that the First Amendment has two clauses. Freedom of Assembly ipso facto means that people are also free to distance themselves from people they don’t want to be associated with.

  14. Yeah, Worldcon isn’t for the writers, it’s for the fans. I’m rather puzzled that so many puppies don’t seem to understand that. Have none of them been to a Worldcon? Or, really, almost *any* not-for-profit SF convention?

  15. @RedWombat: “There are literally THOUSANDS of other hobbies this dude could pick. Knitting, for example. Pottery. Shrinks-dinks. And at the end of that, he’d have a hat or a mug or a piece of small plastic, any one of which would be superior to this.” Come on, you know he’d end up threatening to sue Ravelry or its equivalent rather than making things.

    @Cassy B: What’s odd is that, yes, some of that have. In particular, Jon has. It’s just that their own actual experience seems not to impinge on a set of ideas about how it must be.

  16. He’s also been tweeting at Dublin to get their position on banning him since he wants to start making plans and wants to know in advance if they will ban him as well. Of course, that now also implies a threat that if they ban him, he’ll be suing Dublin also.

  17. Lee Whiteside says He’s also been tweeting at Dublin to get their position on banning him since he wants to start making plans and wants to know in advance if they will ban him as well. Of course, that now also implies a threat that if they ban him, he’ll be suing Dublin also.

    His legal and associated bills are going to be very, very high if he does, as proving dafamation in our courts or overseas is difficult and expensive. Given that he’d likely need folks to testify in a Dublin suit, that’s another expensive.

    Peter Beagle v. his Rat Bastard of a former manager has been I’m told a very expensive undertaking. I’ve no doubt his flight intofantasywhen be very costly as well provided the Judge didn’t simply throw it out with prejudice.

  18. @Cassy –

    Yeah, Worldcon isn’t for the writers, it’s for the fans. I’m rather puzzled that so many puppies don’t seem to understand that. Have none of them been to a Worldcon? Or, really, almost *any* not-for-profit SF convention?

    For a lot of them, the answer seems to be no. They may be fans of greater or (mostly) lesser extent, but they seem to be more composed of aspiring culture-warriors. That’s part of why we’ve heard of so few of them before they started ranting.

    Of course, that last is probably also *why* a lot of them started ranting.

  19. @Andrew

    I filed a complaint with GoFundMe Support stating obvious lies and errors in his campaign.

    I’m not sure they care about things like that, except in cases of obvious fraud. While we may have opinions on that, we can’t prove he isn’t entirely sincere.

    Dumb as a post, maybe, but he *might* be sincere.

  20. @contrarius If we could be assured that JDA would actually pursue his suit, then a donation to his GoFundMe would be a donation to Worldcon’s lawyer. Because when you lose a civil suit in this country, you pay for the winning side’s lawyers.

    Not always.

  21. In related news, Milo Yiannopoulos has dropped his suit against Simon & Schuster — with prejudice.

    @Bill —

    Good link, thanks. You’re right, of course — the losing side does NOT always have to pay. OTOH, I still think there’s a good chance he would in this case.

    Interesting and relevant statements from the page you linked:

    Many states have specific laws that require the losing side to pay the winning side’s legal fees in certain situations. For instance, some states have laws requiring the losing side to pay attorneys’ fees in lawsuits involving government entities or antidiscrimination laws. [….] Another common state law allows for attorneys’ fees to be paid by the losing side if an attorney for the losing side filed a lawsuit knowing there was no reason, or “grounds,” for the lawsuit. For example, California has statutes providing the loser should pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees in cases that proved to be a waste of court resources (such as bringing an unwarranted appeals or filing a case in the wrong venue). [….] Judges can use an equitable remedy to require the losing side to pay attorneys’ fees if they believe it would be unfair not to do so…. This type of equitable remedy — granting attorneys’ fees to the winning side — is often used when the losing side brought a lawsuit that was frivolous, in bad faith, or to oppress the defendant, and the defendant wins.

  22. Funny thing is, I probably would have read JDA’s books in time, they sound like they hit some themes I enjoy. But not now. I try to keep my opinions of the authors themselves apart from my opinions of their work, but I find it near impossible to do that when the author shows they are abusive to people. I loathe bullies. Perhaps he’s gained a few readers who don’t care what he writes as long as he’s ‘sticking it to the man,’ but surely he’s lost even more who might have enjoyed his work but don’t want to support a bully and serial harasser. Showing civility and respect matter to me, and I think it’s pretty clear they don’t to him.

  23. @Ryan Jones

    Funny thing is, I probably would have read JDA’s books in time, they sound like they hit some themes I enjoy

    For me, that’s been pretty much the key outcome of the Puppy campaigns and the authors sucked into Beale’s orbit. Correia was the only one of the authors involved I’d really heard of, and while I bounced off ‘Monster Hunter International’, there was no reason that I wouldn’t try one of his other series at the time. But the rest of them, my only knowledge about them is being jerks in various ways on various platforms, ensuring that I’m not about to gamble my money on their books.

    Part of living in an echo chamber online is that they utterly convinced themselves that they were the mass market. It was their writing that everyone wanted and somehow there were gatekeepers and critics who were keeping them from being recognized properly. And when they vomited out their bile and threw their tantrums, they actively turned off potential readers who really hadn’t heard of their work. In turn, they learned painfully (whether they plan to admit it or not) that the echo chamber was not the mass market, and now for many of them, their only hope is to glean enough of the niche alt-right market to survive.

    Personally, I think that trying to succeed via the outrage market is doomed to failure. People eventually move on and unless you’re really nimble, buying your books to show libtards is easily replaceable by the next shiny thing that comes along in the culture wars.

  24. I’m not very familiar with betting or betting terminology, but I’d be willing to bet a month’s appertainment of beverages that del Arroz never files a lawsuit. Anyone else in? Any amateur bookies interested in setting the odds?

  25. You haven’t really thought through how much I can drink when someone else is buying.

  26. @Mart:

    The first amendment has: no establishment of religion; freedom of speech, and of the press (which are connected), and the right to peaceably assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances. So four or five clauses (depending on whether you lump freedom of speech and of the press together); maybe three if you shoehorn “petition for the redress of grievances” into assembly (protests on the Common, etc) and speech (calling or writing to my representatives). <;/irrelevant pedantry>

  27. @Laura Resnick – I was thinking of the imaginary drinks we appertain here on file 770. I would be happy to buy a round for the file 770 crew at Worldcon this year if if there is a meetup and I attend the con (a likely scenario).

  28. @ kathodus: Those drinks are imaginary? The top half of my half-empty bottle of scotch says otherwise.

  29. Mister Dallard:
    I’d venture to surmise that the contents of that top half are, indeed, imaginary, apart from incidental vapors that don’t make much of a drink.

    (Nonetheless, your point that appertained drinks are not imaginary is valid. I think the point missed above is that they are as real as we want them to be, but they don’t come out of OGH’s cabinet or cellar.)

  30. Mister Dalliards: Those drinks are imaginary? The top half of my half-empty bottle of scotch says otherwise.

    I just laugh and laugh every time someone says “imaginary drinks”, as I decant another bottle in the cellar of the winery Mr. Glyer bought me. The 2017 vintage of Vine 770 is an especially good one. 😀

  31. Targetting the e-mail to people who’ve criticized him in the past – so basically, he’s harrassing them? ::eyeroll::

    @rcade: I’m somewhat in agreement re. not giving the guy free publicity for his latest, er, publicity stunt, in this case specifically (“I’ll sue” being famous last words used by everyone). But (shrug) @Mike Glyer’s given us a place to roll our eyes about this silliness, so I guess it’s a win! 😉

    @Ann Leckie & @Mark (kitteh): I am very interested in the words “Ann Leckie” and “new book” in the same comment and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    @Lee Whiteside: Oh good grief. Well, if Dublin’s smart, they’ll just ignore him.

    @Cat Eldridge: I was wondering about some kind of summary dismissal. Not that JDA will actually sue, methinks, but if he does.

  32. As I type this, JDA’s GoFundMe is currently at $515.

    GoFundMe says:

    Any of these actions are considered misuse of GoFundMe:
     
    •   The campaign organizer doesn’t deliver funds to the intended beneficiary
    •   The campaign description is intentionally misleading to donors
    •   The campaign organizer or beneficiary is charged with a crime related to misrepresentations made in their campaign

    (Bolding mine)
    Hm.

  33. Just saw JdA’s tweets to Dublin. Apparently he thinks that people can be bigoted against jerks? I wouldn’t have thought that was a protected class under the law.

    Still not convinced that he’s violating Gofundme’s terms, unless it can be proved that he’s just planning on keeping the money and not filing. His donors must know that he’s engaging in culture war nonsense- there can’t be anyone naive enough to think he was really dis-invited for being Hispanic.

  34. Maximillian on February 21, 2018 at 9:58 am said:

    His claim for why Worldcon banned him is pretty much a lie. So is his description of Worldcon, and his status as a writer. (I’d never heard of him before the whole Puppy thing. He’s still pretty much invisible on shelves. I’d describe him as Big Ego with Small Audience.)

  35. Just saw JdA’s tweets to Dublin. Apparently he thinks that people can be bigoted against jerks? I wouldn’t have thought that was a protected class under the law.

    Someone jumped in my twitter mentions arguing that he shouldn’t be banned for being a jerk, that that wasn’t grounds for doing so. So yeah…

  36. I read through the lawyer’s threat letter a few minutes ago. As I so often see with these right-wingers, they just can’t quite grasp the concept of what a public accommodation really is.

    From FindLaw: “Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations are not considered public accommodations. Also, ‘private clubs’ — clubs that require memberships — or where members must pay dues are not considered public accommodations.”

    From Wikipedia: “Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law as well as religious organizations.”

    From the Cleveland State Law Review, paper titled “Exclusion and Expulsion from Non-Profit Organizations – The Civil Rights Aspect”: “In the absence of statute, a truly private, voluntary association, not affected with an over-riding ‘public interest,’ may limit its membership on any ground it chooses…”

    I wish they could just get it through their pointy little heads: Worldcon IS NOT A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. Worldcon very clearly sells MEMBERSHIPS to a PRIVATE group.

    And then, of course, as others have already noted — “jerk” and “idiot” and “known serial harasser” are not protected classes under any federal or state laws. So even if Worldcon WAS a public accommodation, JDA would STILL not have a leg to stand on.

    Sheesh.

  37. @PJ and someone else who said something similar-

    I’m not saying you’re wrong about JdA. I’m not saying his statements are believable even. I’m saying that I suspect they are just barely plausible enough that a big company wouldn’t risk calling him a liar and cancelling the campaign, especially when it’s already a campaign to raise money for frivolous litigation.

  38. Maximillian: I’m not saying you’re wrong about JdA. I’m not saying his statements are believable even. I’m saying that I suspect they are just barely plausible enough that a big company wouldn’t risk calling him a liar and cancelling the campaign, especially when it’s already a campaign to raise money for frivolous litigation.

    There’s nothing on that page that GoFundMe would consider fraudulent or a grounds for cancelling his campaign. You might be able to persuade them that the photo shows a white supremacist signal (yes, yes, it started out as a troll hoax 2.5 years ago, but it’s genuinely used as a white supremacist signal now) — but even so, they’d probably just make him remove the photo.

    I mean, people can spend time tilting at that windmill if they want, but it’s not going to get them any results.

  39. @Contrarious
    “Public accommodation” vs “private club”

    It’s probably not so cut-and-dried. WSFS is an unincorporated literary society. Although you become a member of WSFS by membership of current Worldcon, they are separate things. Worldcon 76 is an event put on by SFSFC, a “nonprofit public benefit corporation“. It is a separate activity from Worldcon 75 and Worldcon 77. Thus, it does not meet periodically. Clubs (in every discussion of them that I can find) meet periodically.

    A bon fide Private Membership club (as opposed to a public accommodation) has to meet certain requirements (link to EEOC definition, which seems to be standard):

    – The organization is a club in the ordinary sense of the word;
    – The organization is private; and
    – There are meaningful conditions of limited membership.

    WSFS is probably a club. Worldon 76 may well not be, particularly given that 3rd bullet. Membership is not limited — anyone who pays the membership fees can be a member.

    None of this is to say that Worldcon 76 wouldn’t win if JDA did sue them (and it certainly isn’t to say that they shouldn’t win); just that questions like these are more complicated than they first may seem.

    JDA’s initial membership in W76 may form a contract between himself and SFSFC, and W76’s ability to boot him may be governed by the California Commercial Code and the requirements of “good faith” on SFSFC’s part, rather than W76 convention management’s judgement that he shouldn’t be a part of the convention.

    The only way to know for sure is either for one side to back down, or for them to let a judge sort it out.

  40. Whether or not some potential action were dismissed outright, it still costs money for lawyers and motions and hearings to get it dismissed. If the plaintiff were ordered to pay attorneys’ fees and court costs when the suit was dismissed (which is not at all a sure thing) it would still take time and money to try to get that money out of the plaintiff, who might not have even have it.

    Let’s just say you can get whacked by a frivolous law suit that makes your life miserable for a long time even if it is very, very frivolous. How much the hammer comes down on the frivolous plaintiff depends on the jurisdiction. But you can’t depend on that happening and be all, woo woo, we got sued by a jerk! Can’t wait to get those attorneys’ fees back! Having to defend a lawsuit is a pain no matter how you slice it.

  41. @Bill —

    “Although you become a member of WSFS by membership of current Worldcon, they are separate things. Worldcon 76 is an event put on by SFSFC, a “nonprofit public benefit corporation“.”

    I am not buying memberships to SFSFC — I am buying memberships to Worldcon. If Walmart (a public accommodation) hosts a membership drive for the Boy Scouts, that does not make the Boy Scouts a public accommodation. (Not a perfect analogy, but the first that occurred to me.)

    And it’s important to remember that SFSFC is a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Its articles of incorporation clearly state “This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, and literary purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.” None of those are the roles of a public accommodation.

    “Clubs (in every discussion of them that I can find) meet periodically.”

    Worldcon also meets periodically — every year, with yearly dues.

    But also compare with public broadcasting — they sell memberships as well, and they don’t meet periodically.

    “– There are meaningful conditions of limited membership.

    WSFS is probably a club. Worldon 76 may well not be, particularly given that 3rd bullet. Membership is not limited — anyone who pays the membership fees can be a member.”

    So can anyone who pays the membership fees to be a member of my old Orchid Society Club — or my local SF club, if there were one. That doesn’t make them anything other than what they are. That last condition is misleading — and as noted on one site I checked, “The EEOC also provides multiple criteria for assessing whether a club is “private” but, unhelpfully notes that none of these criteria is “determinative.””

    In fact, I suspect that the membership fee is itself a “meaningful condition of limited membership”. You are not a member unless you pay the dues.

    “JDA’s initial membership in W76 may form a contract between himself and SFSFC”

    Again — his membership does not buy him membership to SFSFC, but to Worldcon. But even if you consider his contract/membership to be directly with SFSFC, they have a clear corporate policy that each event will have “A list of actions the committee may and/or will take to separate a person who has engaged in harassment from his or her victim”. If you consider this policy to cover all dues-paying members, then that umbrella includes everyone who has bought memberships, over the course of the entire year — not just people actually at the con. In which case, JDA’s ongoing online harassment of multiple Worldcon attending and supporting members falls clearly under their anti-harassment policies.

    Additionally, Worldcon 76’s code of conduct clearly states: “We reserve the right to revoke a membership at our discretion at any time.” That covers more than just people actually at the con.

    “governed by the California Commercial Code”

    SFSFC is not engaged in commerce. It is a 501(c)3 nonprofit.

    “The only way to know for sure is either for one side to back down, or for them to let a judge sort it out.”

    I’ve already bought my popcorn.

    @BigelowT —

    You’ll get no argument on any of that from me. Being sued by a jerk is a PITA, no matter how you slice it.

  42. Just saw JdA’s tweets to Dublin. Apparently he thinks that people can be bigoted against jerks? I wouldn’t have thought that was a protected class under the law.

    I guess he wants to break his own record of getting himself banned 8 months before the event by getting himself banned from a WorldCon more than a year before the event.

Comments are closed.