547
JK Rowling, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are fuming over Scotland’s hate crime law (www.politico.eu)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
268 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It was no April Fool’s joke.

Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.

Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.

Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I guess you're welcome to that opinion. Just as one would be welcome to the opinion that literally stalking someone should be legal.

Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict, even in places like the USA where "unlimited free speech" is a big motto. It's illegal to slander and libel people, for example. That it's illegal in many cases to verbally harass and abuse as well should be fairly non-contentious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict

    Yes. Another is copywrited material, which I oppose the considered censoring off. I also oppose the censoring of slander.

    But regardless, all of that, and especially this law is censorship

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    When you define a word loosely enough, it can cease to be meaningful. When most people hear "opposition to censorship," they're not going to expect the reference to be advocating for the legalization of public and deliberate slander or open threats of violence and attempts to incite violence.

    Using the phrase in that way may not be technically incorrect, but it is still misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. Again, you are welcome to your view of what constitutes censorship and the belief that it is always, ipso facto, abhorrent, but I don't think that view leaves any room for meaningful discussion about this case, so I don't think I'll be engaging any further. Call it self-censorship if you like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent