The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men in a series of social media posts.

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.

  • seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    135·
    3 months ago

    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
      76·
      3 months 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.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          22·
          3 months 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.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          22·
          3 months ago

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

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              11·
              3 months 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.

              • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca
                2·
                3 months ago

                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
                  11·
                  3 months 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.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        23·
        3 months 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
          11·
          3 months 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·
            3 months 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?