219
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The "Harry Potter" author slammed a newly enacted hate-crime law in Scotland in a series of posts on X  in which she referred to transgender women as men.

J.K. Rowling shared a social media thread on Monday, the day a new Scottish hate-crime law took effect, that misgendered several transgender women and appeared to imply trans women have a penchant for sexual predation. On Tuesday, Scottish police announced they would not be investigating the “Harry Potter” author’s remarks as a crime, as some of Rowling’s critics had called for.

“We have received complaints in relation to the social media post,” a spokesperson for Police Scotland said in a statement. “The comments are not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken.”

Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Act criminalizes “stirring up hatred” against people based on their race, religion, disability, sexuality or gender identity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

While I want to agree with the sentiment behind what you said I find it really hard to get behind government legally telling people what they can and can't say. I personally feel like it's every skinhead assole's right to say racist awful shit. I also feel like if you're going to exercise that right with reckless abandon, you're gonna get fucked up by some people who don't take kindly. As detrimental as their regressive views may be, I believe we simply cannot have legal punishments for saying something the government doesn't agree with. It's a very slippery slope.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I personally feel like it’s every skinhead assole’s right to say racist awful shit. I also feel like if you’re going to exercise that right with reckless abandon, you’re gonna get fucked up by some people who don’t take kindly.

Is that what happened in 1930s Germany or the 1950s U.S. South?

Racism is an implicit call to violence. Suggesting that it can also be solved by violence is not borne out by history.

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago

Racism isn't an implicit call to violence. Violence is one of the ways it can manifest if it's deranged enough, but most racism is just sorta quiet and often unconscious.

It's not a good idea for the government tell you what you're allowed to say - that change has to come naturally from the bottom up, not artificially from the top down

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

that change has to come naturally from the bottom up, not artificially from the top down

Cool, when is that change going to happen? Because from what I've seen, there's still a vast amount of racism in this world.

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

Why do you trust powerful governments so much?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You didn't answer my question.

You said change has to come naturally from the bottom up in order to stop bigoted attacks. Bigotry has been around for a very long time.

So... when is that natural change going to happen? Are we talking centuries?

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

You're asking me to predict the future, maybe it doesn't happen. Maybe 1 lifetime? Maybe 2?

Who knows, but all we can do in the meantime is continue to actually talk with people caught in the storm.

If the government tries to force speech, what do you think that will do? Do you think everyone will say "oh ok", and just quietly live out their lives at home in resentment or in prison for this never to return?

It's a bandaid to a problem where we're just supposed to trust that governments will always use this power correctly

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

So rather than prosecuting people for fomenting violence with racist hate speech right now, everyone should just wait a couple of generations for it to sort itself out unlike it has for thousands of years.

That seems both likely and reasonable and such a concept could definitely could only come from someone who has been the victim of severe racist attacks.

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

You're forgetting that we have technology that connects most of the world now, even across languages. This definitely changes things.

But it sounds like you'd prefer to live under a government like the CCP. That way you don't have to worry anymore because they'll take care of everything for you

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

It certainly does change things.

It's enabled bigots all over the world to get in touch with each other and become even more vicious and violent because they can coordinate.

But I'm sure if we pray hard enough to Jesus, no black person or queer person or Jewish person or any other minority will ever be threatened again.

Because it's either that or Soviet Russia. There's nothing in between.

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago

It's also enabled everyone to see cultures and ways of life they would never be able to before. People can share their differences and traditions more openly too. Knowing more about cultures, practices and different people is what opens doors to not being racist

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Knowing more about cultures, practices and different people is what opens doors to not being racist

Can you actually demonstrate this to be the case so far?

Because this sure doesn't seem to agree with you- https://div46amplifier.com/2022/12/14/online-racism-has-the-internet-caused-more-harm-than-good/

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

Not a lot of real world analysis (that's not a priori) that I could find specifically on race, but here's one regarding this issue but with prejudice against transgender:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad9713

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

That's about face-to-face conversations. So what does that have to do with your claim that the internet reduces racism?

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

This is so pedantic it hurts. I don't know how to dumb this down any further. You win, racism will never end and let's just put everyone in jail. Enjoy!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I made neither claim. Why are you lying about what I said?

You claimed the internet reduces racism and your so-called evidence didn't involve the internet. That's not my fault.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You can ignore progess all you want, that doesn’t erase it’s existence.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm tired of having to do this work and it never ending. Get a law passed and start enforcing. People are being harmed and it shouldn't be this much work to defend them. Perhaps absolute free speech regulated by individuals was scalable when not every deplorable pos had a worldwide megaphone.

[-] OsaErisXero@kbin.run -1 points 7 months ago

So you're saying we should form a mob and fuck her up then, that's your preferred solution to this problem?

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
219 points (91.0% liked)

News

23409 readers
4028 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS