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.

  • aidan@lemmy.world
    2·
    8 months ago

    That is what freedom of speech is. I really don’t like what a lot of people say, and I think a lot of it is harmful

    • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFulfulde
      11·
      8 months ago

      Well I think that’s a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.

      Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people’s freedoms, hate speech goes too far, advocating people’s right to healthcare to be stripped away is too far, advocating we be classified as sex offenders just by existing is too far.

      I don’t care what your abstract notion about free speech is, it’s just a fanciful notion that has never actually been realized and doesn’t work in practice. Meanwhile real people are getting hurt now and you choose to defend the speech of those advocating that violence. It’s wrong.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        2·
        8 months ago

        Well I think that’s a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.

        You can do a lot without being authoritarian. The question is if the government can do it with threat of violence, and I don’t think that’s ok. To point a gun at someone for saying* something I disagree with.

        Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people’s freedoms,

        Agreed, but advocating it, definitely not. If so anyone advocating draft, or imprisonment for a crime I believe unjust, or according to some people- taxation, or banning unpasteurized milk. Would all be to some people advocating infringing on their rights.