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:

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

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

  1. steve davidson:

    Please get my name right. I am not a lion. (You’re the third person today, so the irritation is generalized not focused on you.)

    Please quote me where I said there were no neo-Nazis. You don’t need to prove these people are out there — or dangerous.

    There weren’t a lot of Puppies either and you know how much damage they did and in some cases are still doing. The damage they do does not however require that we inflate their numbers.

  2. @Lenora Rose: “The damage they do does not however require that we inflate their numbers.”

    I totally agree and would go a bit further: Inflating their numbers is a form of damage. They’re scary enough without overestimating them.

  3. @Steve Davidson: May the tragically murdered Ms. Guttenberg’s name be a blessing — but that works better when one gets the name right: Her name was Jaime Guttenberg, who will now, forever more, be age 14.

    Jennifer Guttenberg is the name of her bereaved mother.

  4. JOhn A Arkansawyer: I wouldn’t go that far.

    OTOH, I recognize this same phenomenon from the other side: I can’t even start to tell you the total number of people who try to tell me, against my personal experience, that TERFs or actual no-really-we-HATE-men feminists are the mainstream of the feminists or other sexism oriented social justice movements* and not loudmouthed extremists.

    Thus I tend to watch for my own tendency to inflate the numbers of those in the opposition who actually espouse the worst of the worst views. Not that my opinion of those who support them or give them a pass** is all that high… only that i remind myself there is a difference.

    *this language because I know of a few people who dislike the term feminist because of how it has failed intersectional groups, IE, because it doesn’t go far enough on behalf of the marginalized groups.

    ** THere is a similar group in feminism, alas, who want to include the TERFS and man-haters because we have to support all women – never mind that supporting those particular women excludes trans women and male and non-binary allies.

  5. “cut me off”.”cut me up.”

    Two cultures divided by a common language.

    To me “cut me off” implies a definite blocking action. “The douche in the range rover cut be off from making the turn I wanted” while “cut me up” is a more general thing, especially associated with driving so close to the kerb that I’m forced onto the verge.

    Still mutually comprehensible, unlike the American idea that “I could care less” means a very low interest when it quite plainly expresses an elevated commitment.

  6. NickPheas:

    As someone who (occasionally (and non-ironically)) uses the phrase “I could care less”, the implied extra context is “, but doing so would be more effort than it’s worth”. Effectively meaning that there are subject matters I care less about than subject X, but I care about subject X so little that the effort to care less about subject X is more effort than simply letting things continue as-is.

    And I’ve probably spent five, maybe as much as fifty, times that effort writing this comment, but writing this is at least worthwhile.

  7. The phrase is also regional in the U.S. I would say “I couldn’t care less”.

    Ingvar, thanks, I had never understood that before.

  8. NickPheas: the American idea that “I could care less” means a very low interest when it quite plainly expresses an elevated commitment.

    That’s not an American idiom. It’s a bastardization of the idiom “I couldn’t care less” used by people who aren’t paying attention and don’t think about what they are saying. Please do not ascribe this stupidity to all Americans. 😉

Comments are closed.