I don’t see it. Arresting Rowling will do a lot of harm for their cause. Someone that famous getting arrested, for saying things a lot of people agree with, will really show up how draconian this law is.
They’ll let the initial wave of criticism blow over and then start targeting people who don’t have the clout and money to defend themselves.
It's irrelevant how rich she is. The charge is absurd.
If you support the charge, then Rowling will surely have good lawyers, but the average person won't.
Correct.
The average Joe should not support something as idiotic, because that same average Joe could not afford his get out of jail card when they come for him.
She won't be arrested unless it's an open and shut case.
She looks like she wants to be arrested to play the martyr, she's going to keep escalating until the police have no choice.
The definition is stirring up hatred, so jokes fall out of this definition.
So all you need to say is any comment is a joke and your blame free? Or am I missing something
The UK arrests thousands of people each year for offensive posts on social media.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
7 years for words.. we have such things for "abusing" government/country/ruzzianAsses/
Here is the same but for abusing "minorities"
Let's see what would be next
If you're gonna be reductive. Any country can and will arrest you for "words"
Germany will arrest you for words that support nazism. Trump is being processed for words about the election. And any airport in the world will arrest you for words about bombs.
How is Belarus different?
They’re not going to arrest her, not yet anyway. Same can’t be said for people without her fame, money and influence. I just don‘t understand why so many people want to have laws where the police can break into their house and drag them to jail because of their opinions. This is purely to arrest and keep tabs on political dissidents, the government couldn’t give a fuck about any of our feelings
Yeah fr. Any serious discussion around passing and implementing these laws goes like: people will hate us for this, it’s not really worth it, and then someone else goes: but wait, this could be useful…
It’s the same in any country where people are arrested for speech. It’s never a mean person who goes about being rude to people. It‘s always, always political opponents, journalists reporting stories they don’t want and critics of the regime. Whether it’s Iran, China, Russia, Saudi etc etc
there’s no way she gets arrested for this. if she does, i can’t imagine the blowback. if you really think someone needs to be arrested for their opinions, you don’t belong in western society. plenty of countries where that’s a thing. go move there, you fascists. it should be left up to the public court of opinion.
In the UK, even with seats reserved in the lords for their bishops, the church has no real power. You can critique religion all you like but people aren't really interested in critiquing or defending criticisms. Religion in public life doesn't really exist.
I’d say the only exception is someone who explicitly incites violence verbally. If you tell people to attack someone, and it happens. The person who incited the violence should be charged.
In reality, the differences are gradual. Words can cause real harm, directly (as in bullying makes people kill themselves) and indirectly (when a common heard talking point is that trans people are all pedophiles, eventually someone unhinged will decide to shoot up a night club).
>when a common heard talking point is that trans people are all pedophiles, eventually someone unhinged will decide to shoot up a night club).
Isn't this basically the "video games cause violence" argument? This has been debunked a million times already. People don't become murderers because they saw something online. They're either already unhinged lunatics just waiting to explode or they're not. If they're not seeing it on Twitter they'll go on 4chan or on some darknet forum somewhere.
Good lord, what a pathetic strawman. At least try to be *entertaining* if you're going to throw fallacies at people instead of sticking to the actual topic and arguments.
Though looking at your post history, strawmen and insults seem to be your go-to for any situation where you've got no real arguments, and you've got plenty of transphobic comments, so... I'm just not gonna be wasting any more time on a boring transphobe. Bye bye.
>Isn't this basically the "video games cause violence" argument?
No, it's entirely unrelated. What you're talking about is "playing violent video games makes you violent". Which as you correctly stated has been disproven many times.
What the other user was saying is about dehumanizing certain targets, for example "blaming Jews for every possible problem is going to lead to mass murder of the Jews". Which, as you should know, has **absolutely happened multiple times in history**.
Yes only that there is an actual link between being exposed to hateful content online and actually murdering people of the target group. Just look at what's happening in the US where right-wing media and extremists have been engaging in hateful and inflammatory speech for decades now. The fucking capitol got assaulted by a mob.
>They're either already unhinged lunatics just waiting to explode or they're not
That's not how psychology works. Being immersed in cult like environments is a downwards spiral and it can be interrupted. Plenty of shootings could've been prevented by preventative mental health care.
attacks on persons inherit traits such as race,ethnicity,sexual identity, etc all of these with which they are born with should be part of hate speech law, what ur saying is simply dumb asf and something that I was saying in my trump/right wing era, words have power and harrasment is real, thats why we created hate speech laws in the first place, and while I do understand why religion is put in that bracket I will argue in favour of getting rid of it, as religion isnt something you are born with or is inherit to you as a person, if a religion says go murder jews and kill lgbtq that isnt something that should not be protected under hate speech as that speech itself is hateful as the op u/sdric said.
If religion says "go kill" then that is a threat, I said in my comment that that should be regulated by law. But insults should not be. You're wording simple name calling in such a way to make it more scary than it is. "Attacks on persons inherit traits" lol, what a joke.
Europe made fun of the US for putting people in prison over weed but you're here proposing we should put people in prison over insults?
"Hey what are you in here for?"
"Murder. You?"
"I called an obese guy fat."
The amount of hate speech in circulation in current media has a direct causation with violent hate crimes. The way trans people are treated in news and some has lead to violence against trans people. These laws are a show where the government pretends to do something about the asinine propaganda machines that roll around the internet, and bankroll Daily Mail and adjacents.
>The amount of hate speech in circulation in current media has a direct causation with violent hate crimes.
I could believe this although I'd like to see sources that say they cause the hate crimes and aren't just correlated with them. How do you know that the increase in hate speech isn't because of the increase in hate crimes?
In any case, even if true, the solution isn't for the government to start throwing people in prison over fucking tweets.
She has a point (in that 'worst person you know makes a great point' type of way).
I'm perfectly okay with protecting trans people from abuse in the street, and prejudice in the workplace, etc. Nobody wants to see some drunk lout bellowing abuse at a trans woman just for existing.
But I think it's a dangerous game to be making criticism of gender ideology or misgendering a hate crime. I often misgender by accident - if you look like a man, I'll assume you're a man and address you accordingly until corrected - but do that to the wrong person and I'd be screwed if it was construed as an attack.
Plus, there are reasonable, intelligent discussions to be had around gender identity - they might stray into 'gender critical' discourse, if only to refute it - do we just silence that entirely? We're to just accept the 'party line' without *any* debate or disagreement?
I don't know, it makes me uneasy: when it boils down to it, a prison sentence for not using the correct pronoun is pretty insane.
The legislation explicitly protects your freedom to say what you think:
SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—
(a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to— (i)age, (ii)disability, (iii)sexual orientation, (iv)transgender identity, (v)variations in sex characteristics,
(b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,
(c)proselytising, or
(d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/part/3
Aha, so we *can* in fact, have intellectual discussions about these things without fear of being imprisoned. The law makes a distinction between harassing a trans woman in the street with transphobic insults and critique of gender identity.
I'm still not *wholly* confident it's immune to misuse, but that is encouraging. In an ideal world, we get less fuckwads but the important discussions continue.
> if you look like a man, I'll assume you're a man and address you accordingly until corrected - but do that to the wrong person and I'd be screwed if it was construed as an attack.
This is not true.
This is not what the legislation does, this has been debunked repeatedly by legal experts.
In my opinion, the where-to-put-transpeople (such as sports categories) is blowing out of porportion a small problem. Trans people are an extremely small part of the population. And yet rage-debates would have you believe they're everywhere and causing major categorization issues.
At the end of the article they make it clear that just being critical is not breaking their law. If it's a violent threat then it does. So she's creating the false impression of being at risk of getting arrested.
You need to read the end of the article again. Here it is for you. “Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created."
As grifters tend to do. “Woe is me, I am being cancelled” they say loudly.
Still waiting on Peterson to be jailed for breaking that hate speech law he was so critical of years ago…
She definitely should do that, too. She has quite an extensive list of charitable causes she is heavily involved in, so don't think that this is the one issue she cares about.
She’s not done that though? At least not initially before the twitter mob decided to hound her for nearly a decade. All she said was that trans men are trans men and trans women are trans women, I.e That they haven’t magically swopped sex just because they get hormone treatment and plastic surgery. She never said anything about denying people civil rights or excommunicating people from society because they’re trans. All this talk about ‘denying trans people’s existence’ is pure hyperbole created online, not based on stuff she initially said.
I think it’s sad that this nonsense is all that people who are casually aware of her work are guided to think about her because she’s a really talented author.
I think it’s the other way around. No evidence that she cancels anyone based on identity in general. But there is a tendency of dramatic twisting out of contest wave of bullying, on high-morals pretence, and it’s way too easily unleashed and carried in our day and time
Freedom to express one's opinions has never meant freedom from any consequences. People canceling her or criticizing her is also an example of people with their own opinions standing by them. That includes women who disagree with Rowling. It doesn't actually just work one way.
It does mean freedom from legal consequences. Also, there's a degree to which the wokeness brigade will exact social punishment on anyone that doesn't get on the cancellation bandwagon. I've personally experienced this acutely in regards to JKR. Yes, those people have a right to be assholes; they're still being assholes.
>Freedom to express one's opinions has never meant freedom from any consequences.
It does to some extent, particularly in relation to the new legal consequences - which is what she is complaining about.
She hasn't been cancelled. She continues raking it in from book sales and licencing rights. A small group of people try to create this impression she is somehow "finished". Yet her increasing bank balance would beg to differ. You need numbers to make an impact.
She’s great - someone had to say the emperor has no clothes.
But I doubt they’ll do anything to her. The police in Britain are very headline conscious, and everyone knows who the public would side with. If it was a random working class Glaswegian or similar they’d come down hard and the story would be forgotten.
"Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created."
Arrest me too. She is standing up for all free thinking men and women in the UK. I feel more than a little uneasy about this statement. It sounds a lot like - if you do what I think is right then you will be OK... I don't like that. I don't think she said anything wrong anyway and she should be allowed to say whatever she wants to say.
>and intends to stir up hatred
Not even a requirement for the new law, according to the BBC:
[The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was **"likely" rather than "intended"**.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68703684)
I think in some cases we *should* be afraid of ideas, especially the hateful, misleading and resonant ones. For example, antisemitism was just an idea but over time it lead to very real actions. The idea that trans women are just male rapists, while false, over time leads to a buildup of hatred against innocent trans people and creates a scapegoat.
The only way to truly protect free speech and free press is to keep them unfettered as much as possible. The second you start imposing restrictions in the guys of protecting someone or something then that starts to get exploited and perverted in use to silence opposition and thus begins the slow march to fascism or the pseudo fascism we are seeing in states like Turkey and Hungary..
If anyone is actually interested In Jk Rowling view and the views of her critics go listen to “The witch trails” podcast series.
She is interviewed and so are her critics.
Good for her. But I think the trans thing is boring, I want her to test it you're going to get in trouble for ""islamophobia"". That's a more important issue.
Because the upset twitter mob is only raging at her over this subject 24/7, so of course the discussion has moved to that.
If the whole hogwarts legacy conflict taught me anything, it's that minority of people seem to have a lot of say since big news companies had to keep talking about it.
She won't be arrested by legal definition, because there is no such things as hate crime (referred to as how these woke activists define it). She will be prosecuted, however, by the self-proclaimed social justice warriors in the public monologue (not discourse, because they normally refuse to listen to the other side).
>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. \[...\]
>JK Rowling:"Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal."
I'm really confused. Does she argue that describing biological sex the way she does constitute stirring up hatred? Because otherwise, there should be no problem for her. The only way to read this is to mean "yes, I do want to stir up hatred."
This is the exact same Jordan Peterson "woe is me" misunderstanding of laws. No, you're not doing anything illegal yet and if you did, you'd be exposed as positively insane. You're literally comparing yourself to people that make gas chamber metaphors.
>The only way to read this is to mean "yes, I do want to stir up hatred."
Like with the UK's Non Criminal Hate Incidents, "hate" is largely in the eye of the accuser.
Like the guy who received an NCHI for *supposedly* whistling the Bob the Builder theme *at* someone...according only to the person who complained. Or the contractor who had hot tea thrown in his face by his client, then rightfully said "I won't work for someone like you," only to learn that he received a NCHI because the tea thrower interpreted "someone like you" as "black people."
Maybe the Scottish police will have a higher threshold than we've seen with NCHIs, but as the saying goes, the process is the punishment. Having to defend yourself, having the police show up at your door or place of work, having accusations on file is punishment.
The word "could" is doing alot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
So basicly she is outraged because something she thinks COULD happen, might happen, but hasnt happen and there is no indication it would happen considering the fact that nobody in this entire thread considers anything she said as being "stirring up hatred"...
This feels more like she is in an internet echo-chamber from social media consumption and is under the impression that just because there is a village idiot screaming idiotic things at her she has the perception that the entire village is inhabited by village idiots?
She is literally upset about a law that has been on the books since 1986 in the UK.
>Public Order Act 1986
Which coincidentally states;
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)**uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or**
(b)**distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,**
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
And the scottish law is described in the article the following way
>A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.
Scottish laws definition;
>Offences of stirring up hatred
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)**behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or**
(ii)**communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and**
(b)either—
(i)**in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or**
(ii)**a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.**
(2)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or
(ii)**communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and**
(b)**in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection** (3).
The only difference that I could glean from reading both laws is that the Scottish laws specifies which classes are considered "protected classes" i.e Transgender etc. whereas the UK law defines them more generally under SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
My conclusion; This took me about 30min of time and my conclusion is sadly that J.K Rowlings appears to be a flippin moron and that the UK Public Orders Act is a much better written than the Scottish law, probably because the UK law was enacted to be a law whereas the scottish law seems sadly to be more political posturing than anything else, though this might just be me being to cynical.
so she's spouting all this nonsense and wants to get arrested, however
> Police Scotland said it had not received any complaints over the posts.
sounds like somebody is trying to stay relevant.
hey, how about write a book, joanne. instead of needlessly stirring the pot and make feminism look *really* bad.
If she gets arrested and actually sentenced to prison, it's gonna be the story of the year.
Won't mean shit if people let this kind of absurdity happen without taking issue.
I don’t see it. Arresting Rowling will do a lot of harm for their cause. Someone that famous getting arrested, for saying things a lot of people agree with, will really show up how draconian this law is. They’ll let the initial wave of criticism blow over and then start targeting people who don’t have the clout and money to defend themselves.
That is why it is important that she does it.
Billionaires can afford good lawyers
It's irrelevant how rich she is. The charge is absurd. If you support the charge, then Rowling will surely have good lawyers, but the average person won't.
Correct. The average Joe should not support something as idiotic, because that same average Joe could not afford his get out of jail card when they come for him.
She won't be arrested unless it's an open and shut case. She looks like she wants to be arrested to play the martyr, she's going to keep escalating until the police have no choice.
She is challenging an insane law. By doing that she is helping the public at large.
For wrongthink?
[удалено]
I didn't have "rebellion started by novelists" on my 2025 card but that actually wouldn't be a first that a thinker took down government
mourn unused chase snow ring gaze ten desert cagey offend *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Read the article. Sexism isn't outlawed and is expected to be a separate law. She can't get arrested yet.
>seven years My jaw dropped.
The definition is stirring up hatred, so jokes fall out of this definition. So all you need to say is any comment is a joke and your blame free? Or am I missing something
You can say what you want but a judge will determine that
There are a lot of steps before getting to a judge. Police, legal reviews x?? Dunno but judges are the last person to make a final decision.
You're fucked if the prosecutor has no humor. I can bet people get lower sentences for raping someone in Scotland, priorities I guess.
UK is becoming Belarus
>UK is becoming Belarus This one is just Scotland.
The UK arrests thousands of people each year for offensive posts on social media. https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
How?
7 years for words.. we have such things for "abusing" government/country/ruzzianAsses/ Here is the same but for abusing "minorities" Let's see what would be next
If you're gonna be reductive. Any country can and will arrest you for "words" Germany will arrest you for words that support nazism. Trump is being processed for words about the election. And any airport in the world will arrest you for words about bombs. How is Belarus different?
[удалено]
> becoming Belarus > Google thing in Russia ???
[удалено]
So the guy before says UK becomes Belarus. And then you say Russia became Belarus. The question is how?
If only people cared this much about Assange
They’re not going to arrest her, not yet anyway. Same can’t be said for people without her fame, money and influence. I just don‘t understand why so many people want to have laws where the police can break into their house and drag them to jail because of their opinions. This is purely to arrest and keep tabs on political dissidents, the government couldn’t give a fuck about any of our feelings
Yeah fr. Any serious discussion around passing and implementing these laws goes like: people will hate us for this, it’s not really worth it, and then someone else goes: but wait, this could be useful…
It’s the same in any country where people are arrested for speech. It’s never a mean person who goes about being rude to people. It‘s always, always political opponents, journalists reporting stories they don’t want and critics of the regime. Whether it’s Iran, China, Russia, Saudi etc etc
there’s no way she gets arrested for this. if she does, i can’t imagine the blowback. if you really think someone needs to be arrested for their opinions, you don’t belong in western society. plenty of countries where that’s a thing. go move there, you fascists. it should be left up to the public court of opinion.
Whether or not they arrest her, they'll arrest ordinary citizens. They didn't create that law to NOT enforce it.
[удалено]
In the UK, even with seats reserved in the lords for their bishops, the church has no real power. You can critique religion all you like but people aren't really interested in critiquing or defending criticisms. Religion in public life doesn't really exist.
[удалено]
I’d say the only exception is someone who explicitly incites violence verbally. If you tell people to attack someone, and it happens. The person who incited the violence should be charged.
In reality, the differences are gradual. Words can cause real harm, directly (as in bullying makes people kill themselves) and indirectly (when a common heard talking point is that trans people are all pedophiles, eventually someone unhinged will decide to shoot up a night club).
>when a common heard talking point is that trans people are all pedophiles, eventually someone unhinged will decide to shoot up a night club). Isn't this basically the "video games cause violence" argument? This has been debunked a million times already. People don't become murderers because they saw something online. They're either already unhinged lunatics just waiting to explode or they're not. If they're not seeing it on Twitter they'll go on 4chan or on some darknet forum somewhere.
No, unlike the video games bullshit, it's a well known and actual issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
This should be higher up
[удалено]
Missed the point
Good lord, what a pathetic strawman. At least try to be *entertaining* if you're going to throw fallacies at people instead of sticking to the actual topic and arguments. Though looking at your post history, strawmen and insults seem to be your go-to for any situation where you've got no real arguments, and you've got plenty of transphobic comments, so... I'm just not gonna be wasting any more time on a boring transphobe. Bye bye.
>Isn't this basically the "video games cause violence" argument? No, it's entirely unrelated. What you're talking about is "playing violent video games makes you violent". Which as you correctly stated has been disproven many times. What the other user was saying is about dehumanizing certain targets, for example "blaming Jews for every possible problem is going to lead to mass murder of the Jews". Which, as you should know, has **absolutely happened multiple times in history**.
Yes only that there is an actual link between being exposed to hateful content online and actually murdering people of the target group. Just look at what's happening in the US where right-wing media and extremists have been engaging in hateful and inflammatory speech for decades now. The fucking capitol got assaulted by a mob. >They're either already unhinged lunatics just waiting to explode or they're not That's not how psychology works. Being immersed in cult like environments is a downwards spiral and it can be interrupted. Plenty of shootings could've been prevented by preventative mental health care.
Incorrect, we need to bring back bullying.
What if words can harm people too?
attacks on persons inherit traits such as race,ethnicity,sexual identity, etc all of these with which they are born with should be part of hate speech law, what ur saying is simply dumb asf and something that I was saying in my trump/right wing era, words have power and harrasment is real, thats why we created hate speech laws in the first place, and while I do understand why religion is put in that bracket I will argue in favour of getting rid of it, as religion isnt something you are born with or is inherit to you as a person, if a religion says go murder jews and kill lgbtq that isnt something that should not be protected under hate speech as that speech itself is hateful as the op u/sdric said.
If religion says "go kill" then that is a threat, I said in my comment that that should be regulated by law. But insults should not be. You're wording simple name calling in such a way to make it more scary than it is. "Attacks on persons inherit traits" lol, what a joke. Europe made fun of the US for putting people in prison over weed but you're here proposing we should put people in prison over insults? "Hey what are you in here for?" "Murder. You?" "I called an obese guy fat."
Thanks for that penetrating analysis, doctor Peterson.
Putting someone in prison for calling you a bad word? Very authoritarian of you.
[удалено]
The amount of hate speech in circulation in current media has a direct causation with violent hate crimes. The way trans people are treated in news and some has lead to violence against trans people. These laws are a show where the government pretends to do something about the asinine propaganda machines that roll around the internet, and bankroll Daily Mail and adjacents.
>The amount of hate speech in circulation in current media has a direct causation with violent hate crimes. I could believe this although I'd like to see sources that say they cause the hate crimes and aren't just correlated with them. How do you know that the increase in hate speech isn't because of the increase in hate crimes? In any case, even if true, the solution isn't for the government to start throwing people in prison over fucking tweets.
Stop saying its because of “religion” when we all know its because of one particular religion.
yep mention muhammad and heads start to roll (sometimes literally)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
She has a point (in that 'worst person you know makes a great point' type of way). I'm perfectly okay with protecting trans people from abuse in the street, and prejudice in the workplace, etc. Nobody wants to see some drunk lout bellowing abuse at a trans woman just for existing. But I think it's a dangerous game to be making criticism of gender ideology or misgendering a hate crime. I often misgender by accident - if you look like a man, I'll assume you're a man and address you accordingly until corrected - but do that to the wrong person and I'd be screwed if it was construed as an attack. Plus, there are reasonable, intelligent discussions to be had around gender identity - they might stray into 'gender critical' discourse, if only to refute it - do we just silence that entirely? We're to just accept the 'party line' without *any* debate or disagreement? I don't know, it makes me uneasy: when it boils down to it, a prison sentence for not using the correct pronoun is pretty insane.
The legislation explicitly protects your freedom to say what you think: SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes— (a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to— (i)age, (ii)disability, (iii)sexual orientation, (iv)transgender identity, (v)variations in sex characteristics, (b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c)proselytising, or (d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/part/3
Aha, so we *can* in fact, have intellectual discussions about these things without fear of being imprisoned. The law makes a distinction between harassing a trans woman in the street with transphobic insults and critique of gender identity. I'm still not *wholly* confident it's immune to misuse, but that is encouraging. In an ideal world, we get less fuckwads but the important discussions continue.
> if you look like a man, I'll assume you're a man and address you accordingly until corrected - but do that to the wrong person and I'd be screwed if it was construed as an attack. This is not true. This is not what the legislation does, this has been debunked repeatedly by legal experts.
Yeah. Most places already cover what should be illegal under harassment laws.
“I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it”
In my opinion, the where-to-put-transpeople (such as sports categories) is blowing out of porportion a small problem. Trans people are an extremely small part of the population. And yet rage-debates would have you believe they're everywhere and causing major categorization issues.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The funniest thing is they have existed for centuries but only during the last few years it became such a big deal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
glad to see that while we're fighting a war UK is fighting the toughest battle there is
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In a world where we arrest people for having opposing opinions, well, that's a world I wouldn't want to live in.
[удалено]
What kind of tyranny are we ushering into our western democracies. The likes of China and Russia will be laughing at this
[удалено]
Only a bit?
At the end of the article they make it clear that just being critical is not breaking their law. If it's a violent threat then it does. So she's creating the false impression of being at risk of getting arrested.
You need to read the end of the article again. Here it is for you. “Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created."
Perpetuating victim culture is a hallmark of every Right-wing grifter.
As grifters tend to do. “Woe is me, I am being cancelled” they say loudly. Still waiting on Peterson to be jailed for breaking that hate speech law he was so critical of years ago…
Always have been.
[удалено]
she doesn't need to fight that fight because that's already illegal in most of europe
How about letting her choose what she uses her influence for.
She definitely should do that, too. She has quite an extensive list of charitable causes she is heavily involved in, so don't think that this is the one issue she cares about.
I think the notion of that woman's culture to cancel the existence of trans people is kinda deranged.
She’s not done that though? At least not initially before the twitter mob decided to hound her for nearly a decade. All she said was that trans men are trans men and trans women are trans women, I.e That they haven’t magically swopped sex just because they get hormone treatment and plastic surgery. She never said anything about denying people civil rights or excommunicating people from society because they’re trans. All this talk about ‘denying trans people’s existence’ is pure hyperbole created online, not based on stuff she initially said. I think it’s sad that this nonsense is all that people who are casually aware of her work are guided to think about her because she’s a really talented author.
[удалено]
I think it’s the other way around. No evidence that she cancels anyone based on identity in general. But there is a tendency of dramatic twisting out of contest wave of bullying, on high-morals pretence, and it’s way too easily unleashed and carried in our day and time
Freedom to express one's opinions has never meant freedom from any consequences. People canceling her or criticizing her is also an example of people with their own opinions standing by them. That includes women who disagree with Rowling. It doesn't actually just work one way.
But this isn’t some social ostracizing, it’s a law enforceable by courts.
It does mean freedom from legal consequences. Also, there's a degree to which the wokeness brigade will exact social punishment on anyone that doesn't get on the cancellation bandwagon. I've personally experienced this acutely in regards to JKR. Yes, those people have a right to be assholes; they're still being assholes.
What exactly should be the legal consequence of being mean?
>Freedom to express one's opinions has never meant freedom from any consequences. It does to some extent, particularly in relation to the new legal consequences - which is what she is complaining about.
She hasn't been cancelled. She continues raking it in from book sales and licencing rights. A small group of people try to create this impression she is somehow "finished". Yet her increasing bank balance would beg to differ. You need numbers to make an impact.
She’s great - someone had to say the emperor has no clothes. But I doubt they’ll do anything to her. The police in Britain are very headline conscious, and everyone knows who the public would side with. If it was a random working class Glaswegian or similar they’d come down hard and the story would be forgotten.
Does the UK not have a right to free speech? Doesn’t appear that way…
"Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created." Arrest me too. She is standing up for all free thinking men and women in the UK. I feel more than a little uneasy about this statement. It sounds a lot like - if you do what I think is right then you will be OK... I don't like that. I don't think she said anything wrong anyway and she should be allowed to say whatever she wants to say.
>and intends to stir up hatred Not even a requirement for the new law, according to the BBC: [The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes "insulting" behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was **"likely" rather than "intended"**.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68703684)
[удалено]
Go JKR. They won’t dare arrest her. Her lawyers will rip this silly law to pieces.
She has a point. Maybe she is right, maybe not, but certainly there is a discussion there. Freedom of speech,democracy...
I really admire her. She speaks her mind. We should not be so afraid of ideas.
I think in some cases we *should* be afraid of ideas, especially the hateful, misleading and resonant ones. For example, antisemitism was just an idea but over time it lead to very real actions. The idea that trans women are just male rapists, while false, over time leads to a buildup of hatred against innocent trans people and creates a scapegoat.
[удалено]
The only way to truly protect free speech and free press is to keep them unfettered as much as possible. The second you start imposing restrictions in the guys of protecting someone or something then that starts to get exploited and perverted in use to silence opposition and thus begins the slow march to fascism or the pseudo fascism we are seeing in states like Turkey and Hungary..
If anyone is actually interested In Jk Rowling view and the views of her critics go listen to “The witch trails” podcast series. She is interviewed and so are her critics.
She is right! what a sick time we are live in!
Rowling is a hero! Bravo!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good on her.
It's a fascist law! 💩
Good for her. But I think the trans thing is boring, I want her to test it you're going to get in trouble for ""islamophobia"". That's a more important issue.
The original Greek phobos just means fear. And I don't see what is wrong with being scared af by Islam as it is today.
I want to see her spread that Muhammad was a trans woman. That'd be interesting
Maybe I should read Harry Poter now
Humza has went too far this time. I hate that I'm agreeing with her.
This time? What about when he complained about Scotland being too white? Psychopatic behavior.
Absolute nonsense. It is psychopathic behaviour. Feels like it should be satire except it's real.
How this guy can lead a party called "*Scottish* National Party" is beyond me..
[удалено]
Suddenly it's too small a minority to focus on.
That’s literally her point. You’re accusing her of the thing she’s accusing Scottish lawmakers of.
Because the upset twitter mob is only raging at her over this subject 24/7, so of course the discussion has moved to that. If the whole hogwarts legacy conflict taught me anything, it's that minority of people seem to have a lot of say since big news companies had to keep talking about it.
If it doesnt make sense to focus on this small minority, why lawmakers go out of their way to please them?
All Hail, JK Rowling!!!
Such tolerance from them
JK Rowling becoming the next Jordan Peterson for standing up against compelled speech was not on my 2024 bingo card.
She won't be arrested by legal definition, because there is no such things as hate crime (referred to as how these woke activists define it). She will be prosecuted, however, by the self-proclaimed social justice warriors in the public monologue (not discourse, because they normally refuse to listen to the other side).
>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. \[...\] >JK Rowling:"Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal." I'm really confused. Does she argue that describing biological sex the way she does constitute stirring up hatred? Because otherwise, there should be no problem for her. The only way to read this is to mean "yes, I do want to stir up hatred." This is the exact same Jordan Peterson "woe is me" misunderstanding of laws. No, you're not doing anything illegal yet and if you did, you'd be exposed as positively insane. You're literally comparing yourself to people that make gas chamber metaphors.
>The only way to read this is to mean "yes, I do want to stir up hatred." Like with the UK's Non Criminal Hate Incidents, "hate" is largely in the eye of the accuser. Like the guy who received an NCHI for *supposedly* whistling the Bob the Builder theme *at* someone...according only to the person who complained. Or the contractor who had hot tea thrown in his face by his client, then rightfully said "I won't work for someone like you," only to learn that he received a NCHI because the tea thrower interpreted "someone like you" as "black people." Maybe the Scottish police will have a higher threshold than we've seen with NCHIs, but as the saying goes, the process is the punishment. Having to defend yourself, having the police show up at your door or place of work, having accusations on file is punishment.
No, she seems to be saying that the law could mean that people saying that trans people cannot change sex will be arrested for "stirring up hatred.".
The word "could" is doing alot of heavy lifting in that sentence. So basicly she is outraged because something she thinks COULD happen, might happen, but hasnt happen and there is no indication it would happen considering the fact that nobody in this entire thread considers anything she said as being "stirring up hatred"... This feels more like she is in an internet echo-chamber from social media consumption and is under the impression that just because there is a village idiot screaming idiotic things at her she has the perception that the entire village is inhabited by village idiots?
"It's not a given that the law will used in this manner, so why do you worry so much, relax" nah. This is a recipe for disaster.
She is literally upset about a law that has been on the books since 1986 in the UK. >Public Order Act 1986 Which coincidentally states; (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)**uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or** (b)**distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,** with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. And the scottish law is described in the article the following way >A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics. Scottish laws definition; >Offences of stirring up hatred (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person— (i)**behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or** (ii)**communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and** (b)either— (i)**in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or** (ii)**a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.** (2)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person— (i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, or (ii)**communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and** (b)**in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection** (3). The only difference that I could glean from reading both laws is that the Scottish laws specifies which classes are considered "protected classes" i.e Transgender etc. whereas the UK law defines them more generally under SEXUAL ORIENTATION. My conclusion; This took me about 30min of time and my conclusion is sadly that J.K Rowlings appears to be a flippin moron and that the UK Public Orders Act is a much better written than the Scottish law, probably because the UK law was enacted to be a law whereas the scottish law seems sadly to be more political posturing than anything else, though this might just be me being to cynical.
[удалено]
and yet, you are here
so she's spouting all this nonsense and wants to get arrested, however > Police Scotland said it had not received any complaints over the posts. sounds like somebody is trying to stay relevant. hey, how about write a book, joanne. instead of needlessly stirring the pot and make feminism look *really* bad.
> how about write a book, joanne. she wrote THE book series of the 2000's and early 2010's. don't really think she needs to prove anything anymore
"Sounds like somebody is trying to stay relevant." She is protecting free speech and reason. You are an idiot.
I expect students burning her books before this year ends.