The once-beloved children’s author is working herself up over Scotland’s new bias law.
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has jumped to defend J.K. Rowling, who is once again using her one wild and precious life to post obsessively about transgender women instead of doing literally anything else with her hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Harry Potter author took to X, formerly Twitter, on April 1 to share her thoughts on Scotland’s new Hate Crime Act, which went into effect the same day. The law criminalizes “stirring up hatred” related to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity, or being intersex, as the BBC reported. “Stirring up hatred” is further defined as communicating or behaving in a way “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive” against a protected group. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine, or both.
In response to the legislation, Rowling posted a long thread naming several prominent trans women in the U.K., including Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, and activist Munroe Bergdorf. Since it was April Fool’s day, Rowling decided to commemorate it by sarcastically affirming the womanhood of all the people she named in her thread. In the same breath that she said that a convicted child predator was “rightly sent to a women’s prison,” she also called out a number of trans women making anodyne comments about inclusion, seemingly implying that trans identity is inherently predatory.
read more: https://www.them.us/story/jk-rowling-rishi-sunak-social-media-trans
Because you don’t like how it’s being implemented or because you just straight up like hatred?
Because it sounds like it can be applied to any political view or person. It is just plain censorship. At the end of the day democracy depends on everyone having a voice, even if you find what they have to say hateful.
I don’t support hate speech but trying to ban it is very problematic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
This man trained his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi salute to some offensive phrases as a joke. Shared it with a few friends on social media.
It was then leaked and the offensive joke that went viral and got 3 million views on YouTube.
Then because of the criminal case for hate speech the EDL (English Defence League) were able to bandwagon on the news cycle and spread some real hate.
So the law meant to prevent hate speech instead platformed a hate group and spread the original joke further to the point where it probably did cause offence. Because if you don’t know the person making the joke, you don’t know what they intend.
All because a Scottish judge was allowed and chose to ignore all context around the actual content.
It is a bad law.
I’m not one of the “can’t say anything these days” crowd, and in general I think there can be limitations on speech that have a positive affect on society.
But the law in Scotland specifically is absolutely trash in stating absolutes about speech when speech is always subjective and always surrounded by context.
That case is bullshit, yes. But still, if you had Rowling’s wealth and influence and wanted to enact policy change, would this be your approach?
If I had her wealth no one would ever see or hear from me again.
Which why social shunning is inconsequential to her.
Not everything I disagree with has to be illegal.
Especially when there are already consequences.
Rowling will face social consequences for her speech. It doesn’t have to be illegal.
Problems with the law usually affect those who do things people or governments don’t like. Not with conforming behaviour.
Clamping down on one freedom to protect another is ultimately harmful.
Usually it’s “to protect the children” which has obviously had a negative effect on the trans community in several countries.
In this case it’s “to protect minorities” and the actual law will punish jokes at the expense of bigots as much as bigotry.
It’s unlikely to be prosecuted but quoting Rowling’s hate speech to draw attention to it in a negative light is just as illegal as saying it in the first place. The law is once again only helping to turn her hate into a news story where she gets cast as the victim rather than the perpetrator.
That case is ridiculous, but that’s what the law was like before this new bill. The new bill makes it even less well defined
There’s a difference between saying what you think and being “threatening or abusive”. Note that nothing JK has done so far actually qualifies.
If she directed her audience to harass the ones she mocked that would be different. At a certain point that shouldn’t be allowed, no?
Won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
It is illegal already, she can’t make comments to her weirdly large base that have the same effect of causing violence or panic or fear thereof.
Hilarious that a chick who made her money off witchcraft and mildly pedophilic children’s stories takes issues with morality of all things.
Hate to ask, but I don’t want to google it, can you elaborate on that last bit?
Think about the plot of the books and get back to me on that one.
An abused boy becomes magical jesus and constantly fights magical hitler while attending magic school… I’m not getting the pedophilic bits unless you think children merely existing equates to pedophilia
If that’s how you read it.
There’s a teacher in the book who can see through clothes at a children’s school and its held in the book by administration as a good thing to have around… Think about that.
Ed: not enough?
A ghost woman who is canonically age 37 lives in the boys restroom of a children’s school and again canonically watches potter and others bathe… Its so well accepted its in the movies and no one thinks twice about it.
Polymorph potion, be anyone or anything of any age… I didn’t really need to explain that.
Luck potion canonically a psuedodate rape drug.
Love potion a literal and unabashed date rape drug.
Damn, you finally produced some examples, should have started with those! Ill admit most of those are sketchy but man do they not play anywhere NEAR a large enough part in any if the books for you to assume any of us are going to be on the same page as you without those examples already present
What you said offends me. You should got to jail for spreading hate speech
You know how people sometimes talk about not interacting in good faith?
I upvoted you, as the other guy was not reading your post, but disagree with the general stance. What is “reasonable” is still somewhat defined by the current political climate, even if it’s not defined by a single person.
The UK government is currently very pro-Israel, and could easily use this to prosecute pro-Palestine/ceasefire protesters (assuming the existing anti-protest laws don’t get them).
It massively limits the rights of minority political opinions.
People can’t be trusted to not be assholes with their freedom.
Then go live in China or Russia
Go live on the block list, where you belong. Fuck Putin and Hitler, by the way.
This is no way to legislate. What is a reasonable person?
It is actually a very specific legal standard. If you like podcasts, one of the early episodes of More Perfect has a good segment on the reasonableness standard. The case is one about police violence and it is fairly emotional, so just keep that in mind for if you want to listen.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/mr-graham-and-reasonable-man