568
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

JK Rowling has challenged Scotland's new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland's first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a "rising tide of hatred".

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GnomeKat 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

We don't have to tolerate the intolerant, they refuse to abide by the mutual contract of tolerance so they don't deserve the protections of a tolerant society.

JKR isn't just doing a little bit of free speech she is a billionaire advocating for hate on a massive platform and donating to hate groups, she has influence and power. She is absolutely advocating for the restriction on trans peoples rights, that is violence. Especially in a time when anti trans hate is on the rise we should be even more skeptical of claims of free speech, right now across the world hate crimes against trans people are going up and our rights are being stripped away.

Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread. Stop defending hate.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Until the intolerance of the intolerant is applied to not tolerate you... You see hate crime laws being used to defend religions from criticism for example.

[-] GnomeKat 2 points 7 months ago

Oh my what ever might that be like, having to deal with intolerance. I never have to deal with that nope. Nope it's definitely not a daily occurrence for pretty much all trans people.

But the transphobes get to advocate for my erasure and that's just free speech.. yep makes sense.. totally fair and balanced

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

What? I think you missed what I was saying. For example they could argue criticism of their religion is itself intolerant and should therefore be illegal.

[-] GnomeKat 1 points 7 months ago

So.. we should just let bigots get their way and let them continue to successfully advocate for the rights of trans people and other minorities to be stripped away because they might also try to do a religious theocracy?

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

That is what freedom of speech is. I really don't like what a lot of people say, and I think a lot of it is harmful

[-] GnomeKat 1 points 7 months ago

Well I think that's a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.

Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people's freedoms, hate speech goes too far, advocating people's right to healthcare to be stripped away is too far, advocating we be classified as sex offenders just by existing is too far.

I don't care what your abstract notion about free speech is, it's just a fanciful notion that has never actually been realized and doesn't work in practice. Meanwhile real people are getting hurt now and you choose to defend the speech of those advocating that violence. It's wrong.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well I think that's a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.

You can do a lot without being authoritarian. The question is if the government can do it with threat of violence, and I don't think that's ok. To point a gun at someone for saying* something I disagree with.

Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people's freedoms,

Agreed, but advocating it, definitely not. If so anyone advocating draft, or imprisonment for a crime I believe unjust, or according to some people- taxation, or banning unpasteurized milk. Would all be to some people advocating infringing on their rights.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread.

No, arguments about free speech recognize that there is no more important right that a free society can have. If a group can dictate that the language that they find distasteful is criminal, then so can any other group.

Without protections for free speech, what happens when an authoritarian like Trump determines that support for trans people is actually misogyny, or that support for POC is racist against white people and then criminalizes that speech? These are arguments they already make.

You're talking about prior restraint which, at least in the US, has always been harshly scrutinized. As it should be. A line needs to be drawn, but promoting violence should be that line, not merely that which is distasteful.

this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
568 points (100.0% liked)

News

23275 readers
3633 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS