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.

  • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca
    698·
    9 months ago

    It’s more complicated than that. Like saying there is a fire in a theatre when there is none, saying transgender are undercover perverts and a danger to society when it’s not supported by evidence will get people killed. Freedom of speech is great and all but when your lie and put people in danger there should be consequences.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        513·
        9 months ago

        Sick people are inspired to violence by all kind of thing, are we going to outlaw Catcher in the Rye?

            • saintshenanigans@programming.dev
              71·
              9 months ago

              Yeah there are, but you’ll never be able to stop people from spreading literature, legal or not, so things like catcher and the rye, mice and men, mockingbird, with all of their controversies are great to have in schools to help our children grow into adults who can identify this stuff for what it actually is and not some deranged gospel.

              But then there’s also a ton of other arguments to be made about mental health and all that, when it comes to violent psychos we shouldn’t get in the habit of settling with a scapegoat

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                15·
                9 months ago

                Maybe you are misunderstanding me, I’m not arguing for censorship of books but against censorship op speech.

                • saintshenanigans@programming.dev
                  7·
                  9 months ago

                  You originally asked if we were going to suggest banning CATR, my point is mostly these books are great examples to help people identify this language and why it should not be used. If you went into a crowded theater and started shouting there’s a shooter, you’d be arrested for inciting panic. Its not censorship when the point is stopping speech from causing physical harm. Same way your right to travel isn’t infringed by requiring a license to drive

                  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                    15·
                    9 months ago

                    My right to travel is not infringed because I can walk.

                    Hateful people will be inspired by books and by speech to be hateful and to hurt others. Not sure why you draw the line at books, since also speech can be used as a lesson.

                    I would also there is fundamental differences between causing an immediate panick and voicing a hateful opinion. The later was times and times misused to silence governmental criticis. Sure - this time it might turn out different, since good guys are in power, but I highly doubt it.

                • iLoveFishing@lemmy.today
                  111·
                  9 months ago

                  You are the only voice of reason in this thread. Free speech is important and laws like this will be abused and used to punish political opponents.

                  • saintshenanigans@programming.dev
                    61·
                    9 months ago

                    Its not abuse when the political opponent is a bigot using hate and violence to build a platform. For the millionth time, you are free to run out there, make an ass of yourself, and use all the slurs you want.

                    What you are NOT free to do, and what this entire conversation is about, is organizing and inciting people to commit a hate crime.

                    Its pretty interesting that these things were fine when we’re talking about the civil rights movement, but as soon as there’s a trans or gay person around, your rights are under attack for trying to kill somebody.

    • Demdaru@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Okay, it’s nth time I see the undercover pervs/rapists about trans folk. The hell happened?

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      49·
      9 months ago

      So who is deciding what opinions are puting people in danger. US government for example thinks that whistleblowers Manning and journalist like Assange are puting people in danger.