552
submitted 2 years 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

The line was drawn by Western governments that all agreed gender identity is a protected group of people. Stop trying to pick apart policies that protect people at the cost of bigots' freeze peach. Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.

And my point, governments have a history of using such laws in the end to get rid of critics. Sure this time it will be completely different. I would love to share your optimism, but you will have to allow me to remain skeptical.

Interesting that no one makes this point outside of the trans debate over whether or not they deserve equal rights against hate rhetoric.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

I make that point in general, that I don't trust governments with regulating speech. By the way I'm all in for private platforms regulating speech, would not hang around here otherwise.

There is no slippery slope if the law protects the weak from the strong.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

And I don't trust governments with defining and enforcing those lines, when it comes to speech.

So you would let people yell Fire in a theatre?

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

I don't think it's a case of a law protecting weak from the strong. Since that was what I replied to.

But it's a fair question where I draw the line. It's somewhere with direct and indirect consequences, which is hard to define. I absolutely agree that her speech might have very tangible real consequences to real people from a group she is targeting. But than again it's due to actions of other people "inspired" by her words. While when shouting fire, you create panic just with your own words. Than again one can definitely incite violent actions through media. But that it is even more complicated since it becomes about intent and interpretation.

So you do think governments should enforce speech laws. I just want you to stop using this as an argument by itself.

If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.

Don't be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.

There is plenty of discussion to have about "the line" but we need to move away from free speech absolutists like Musk that once they get power they use it for censorship.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

So you do think governments should enforce speech laws.

I think it's a more complex question that people make it out to be. I would say any speech regulation by the government is something we should be wary about.

If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.

I don't get your argument here.

Don’t be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.

Sure, when people who disagree with you are weak minded, it's easy to be always right.

[-] iLoveFishing@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Please spare the rest of the world with your preaching about the abuse of freezepeach laws. America's is so much more abused than any other western country, its a joke.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

What do I have to do with USA? USA would be a rather good example why government should not have the power to censor speech.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Its usually only Americans who are that totalitarian in their presence of protecting freezepeach, thinking we don't all know what they really want to protect.

What speech exactly is it that would be stopped from saying here, that you feel a need to say?

this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
552 points (94.7% liked)

News

35714 readers
843 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS