Elections Have Consequences

[kevin_standlee]

Something that I think most people have forgotten is that Worldcons happen in the real world and are subject to real-world conditions. Among other things, Worldcons have to obey the laws of the place in which they are held, no matter what their governing documents say.

An overwhelming majority of the members of WSFS who voted on the site of the 2023 Worldcon (at the 2021 Worldcon in DC) selected Chengdu, China as the host of the 2023 Worldcon. That meant that the members of WSFS who expressed an opinion accepted that the convention would be held under Chinese legal conditions. Furthermore, those people (including me) who suggested that there might be election irregularities were overridden, shouted down, fired from their convention positions, and told that they were evil and probably racist for even suggesting such a thing.

When it comes to local law, this could end up applying anywhere. Here's an example I can use because as far as I know, there are no Worldcon bids for Florida at this time. Imagine a Worldcon held in Florida. It would be subject to US and Florida law (and any smaller government subdivision). Given legislation passed by Florida, it would not surprise me if such a hypothetical Florida Worldcon's Hugo Administration Subcommittee would disqualify any work with LGBTQ+ content, any work with an LGBTQ+ author, or any LGBTQ+ individual, because the state has declared them all illegal under things like their "Don't Say Gay or Trans" laws and related legislation.

This does not seem that farfetched to me, and Florida isn't the only place where I could see it happening.

Comments

[kevin_standlee]

Hear, hear! Using privacy laws as a cudgel that prevents anything is like the all-too-common use of "'elf & safety" to essentially declare that everything is too dangerous to be done.

At the rate we've been going, we'll have to stop holding in-person conventions because they're too dangerous and because individuals might have to show their faces in public in violation of "privacy" laws.

[alanfleming]

I get that we all have a desire to do the right thing, and as convention-runners have a responsibility, often legal, to others (and their personal data).

However, what we don't have for data protection - is an accurate and informed assessment of the risks and, most importantly, the actual liability if these risks happen. And that might be a little complicated, given the international membership of conventions.

So we're treating data protection like H&S by analogy of risk - and that really isn't correct.

(which is a long-winded way to say, I agree).

[madfilkentist]

I'm reminded of the time when some people said that asking if you're vaccinated violates "HIPPA" (misspelling obligatory).