There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

J.K. Rowling will not be arrested for comments about transgender women, police say

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.

mp3 ,
@mp3@lemmy.ca avatar

A law is a strong as its enforcement. Without enforcement, it’s just political posturing.

Fisk400 ,

What makes laws strong is precedent and this law doesn’t have any. Her case is too flimsy and we don’t want her to set precedent since she has infinite lawyers to defend her. Its better to get more solid cases first and then go after her when there is solid precedent.

stevedidwhat_infosec ,

Bingo. Just wanted to thank you for saying this

fuego ,

It’s better not to persecute people just because you disagree with them.

It’s sad how you people are literally pushing for a world where someone can get arrested for not calling a trans woman a woman.

You’re going to make way more enemies than friends with that rhetoric, trust me.

Fisk400 ,

Hello baby account that was created in order to comment on this thread but is also asking me to trust you.

The bill does not say that people will be arrested for “Not calling trans women women”. it’s the fucking Jordan Peterson thing again. You need to make clear threats towards the group and calling for the group to be abused to the same standard required by individual harassment charges.

fuego ,

So what’s the problem? She’s not making clear threats to the group or calling for them to be abused, but people in this thread still think she should be arrested.

Fisk400 ,

Why do you think I want to defend the opinions of people that isn’t me? Go reply to their comments instead you weird little goblin.

fuego ,

Why are you insulting me? Lol.

If you don’t agree with them, then why are you commenting?

ZeroTHM ,

You are correct, but laws like this do not need to be enforced. This is draconian.

Zachariah ,
@Zachariah@lemmy.world avatar

She should really check on the other laws to see if they’ll be enforced, too.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

But will she continue bitching about it like Jordan Peterson still does about the law in Canada that he didn’t get arrested for supposedly violating?

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

100%

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

So many bigots suffer from perpetual victimhood.

lobut ,

Misinterpreted the law and went on a campaign about how he’d protest it and go on some sort of hunger strike like a martyr. Everyone that platformed him during that time owes everyone an apology.

TVgog56789 ,

She did send Harry Potter into the ladies toilet though 🤔

She also said she created Harry because she wanted to be a boy.

If She is not against transgender men. Then she may want everyone to be a boy.

medium.com/…/harry-potter-transgender-hero-83094e…

“I was supposed to be a boy,” she notes in A Year in the Life, a 2007 documentary

EmpathicVagrant ,

Oh my goodness, that’s a tragic tale that explains so much. Back story really does make a difference in perspective, but she’s still a massive anal fissure of a person for alienating others and perpetuating the suffering she was passed.

captainlezbian ,

Yeah if the most dramatic interpretation of all that is true, and I’m not saying it is, it’s not an excuse. A lot of the worst things done at anti gay conversion groups are done by people who objectively experience significant same gender attraction. That doesn’t absolve the straight people who taught them to hate themselves but their self hate manifests as torturing those who don’t hate themselves. It’s still evil to torture them no matter why you do it.

fuego ,

It’s sad watching you people twist your brains into knots to avoid realizing that some people don’t agree with you.

NikkiDimes ,

This has nothing to do with not agreeing with people.

LwL ,

Oh, it’s the trans version of being gay is a choice i guess…

Would explain a lot, because to most transppl the thought of someone wanting to be what they were assigned at birth makes no sense whatsoever. But regardless it’s not hard to accept that others might feel like you do but in reverse. Shows one hell of a lack of empathy to then conclude that must mean anyone claiming they do want to must have ulterior motives.

Maybe that at least means there’s hope for her to realize what kind of bs she’s spouting, but she’s probably a lost cause.

GregorGizeh ,

While i agree with the sentiment i am concerned by this idea of policing how other people talk to each other. It seems completely insane that a government should be able to legally punish people for talking disrespectfully with each other. That is the essence of freedom of speech. People are able to express themselves freely without fear of the state punishing it.

Infynis ,
@Infynis@midwest.social avatar

Denying somes’s personhood is more than speech. It’s dangerous, and can cause actual harm, especially for someone with such a huge platform, with special influence over children

A_Toasty_Strudel ,
@A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.world avatar

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.

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

Why do you trust powerful governments so much?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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- div46amplifier.com/…/online-racism-has-the-intern…

Shake747 ,

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:

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

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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

Shake747 ,

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 ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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

OsaErisXero ,

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

GregorGizeh ,

While this specific case may even be somewhat justified, where does it end? What constitutes an insult so grievous that the government should punish you for it?

Misgendering, alright. Attacking someone’s honor? Probably. Putting together an angry, slur-filled rant? Perhaps. Insulting someone’s parents? Hmm.

And so forth. This is an incredibly slippery slope, one that virtually all democracies currently existing have avoided to go down because it inevitably leads to oppression.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

This “slippery slope” of yours has not been a problem in the many countries that have adopted it.

Not even in Brazil under Bolsonaro.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Hate_speech_laws_by_country

GregorGizeh ,

I am German. We have restrictions on free speech in place, primarily around Nazism and Israel.

Our government is literally curbing anything critical of israel with those restrictions at this very moment.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Sounds like a reason to make the law better, not throw it out.

GregorGizeh ,

I don’t think that’s the lesson here. More that even the most well intentioned restrictions can and will be abused by the government once they have that power. If our far right gets into the government I cant imagine what kind of dystopian crap they will try to do with it.

I am similarly very sceptical of the constant debate for more surveillance and online control in the name of ”protecting the children”. Another very worthy, and very emotionally charged cause where most people will instinctively agree before even thinking about the consequences.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Again- that did not happen when Bolsonaro took power in Brazil.

So maybe the problem is your laws, not hate speech laws in general.

You’re acting like Germany is the only country in the world that has these laws.

GregorGizeh ,

And you are acting as if because there is one struggling democracy somewhere on the world who has yet to abuse it, all other incidents and examples throughout history for the inevitable abuse of such power are not valid.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You’ve given me one single example of abuse. The one in your country.

Again, that sounds like a problem with your country’s laws in specific.

GregorGizeh ,

Do you really want me to list the dozens of instances throughout history where the right to restrict people’s expression has inadvertently caused or helped authoritarians consolidate power? I would think you largely know about those already.

A quite recent example is ironically related to the same topic, namely conservatives and religious zealots wanting to police speech the other way by banning inclusionary language. The other side of the exact same coin. I’m sure you are familiar with that issue since it most prominently happens in america, though plenty of European right wingers are looking to do similar things.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I want you to list the dozens of instances throughout history where, specifically, hate speech laws have done so.

And if your example is one where Rowling was not arrested, it’s not a very good one.

GregorGizeh ,

Why are you moving the goalpost now? That’s pretty lame.

I am arguing that the right to free speech is a central element of a free and pluralistic society, and that allowing the government to interfere with it beyond the direct prevention of harm, such as incitement of violence, will inevitably help erode those values, as it has done countless times before. And curtailing them, even with the best intentions, is the start of doing just that.

FlyingSquid , (edited )
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

How am I moving the goalposts? My argument this entire time is that hate speech laws are a good idea. You have given me one single example where they didn’t work properly, which I still contend is about the way the laws were written, not the law itself.

Again, the fact that Bolsonaro did not abuse Brazil’s hate speech laws suggests that autocrats can’t do so if the laws are robust. Your lack of addressing that uncomfortable fact does not make it less of a fact.

The fact that Rowling was not arrested after trying very hard to get arrested (same with Jordan Peterson in Canada) also suggests that this is not the horrific problem you imply.

GregorGizeh ,

I don’t want to be rude, but do you really not understand that this first small infraction isn’t the issue, but the precedent it sets? One of my first comments in this increasingly exhausting thread of talking in circles was that this specific instance of interference might even be justified, but that it would open the door to unjust interference.

Just look at your own political system. Reactionary forces are constantly eroding, amending, and expanding on overreaching legislation once it is passed. And your Democrats are just as happy to make use of it too.

One great example off the top of my head is the ”temporary” patriot act, an overreaching anti terror measure that was extended for almost 20 years by various political actors, and (as far as I know) the most critical parts of it got spliced off into other legislation and made law indefinitely.

So if we open that door, and the political climate continues to polarize, chances are at some point in the reasonably near future (a few decades maybe) an authoritarian party or movement will use this ability to interfere with or outright suppress their opposition, dissidents, minorities, the citizens in general, what have you. It only takes a few complicit judges in high places to compromise even the most benevolent legislation. Guided democracy is only ironically cool in helldivers.

As for Brazil, I don’t see how that has any bearing on my point. Just because a government hasn’t abused or wasn’t able to abuse the law this time doesn’t mean that the next won’t do so. Reactionary forces are always at work; patiently and silently lobbying, bribing, influencing, working to control the narrative. Always to slowly erode and subvert the system.

Anyway, I don’t think there is much point in continuing this discussion, you seem very set on the government policing speech and I am dead set on the opposite. We probably won’t convince each other.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yet again, the only example of this setting any sort of precedent is Germany and yet again, I contend that is because of the laws there being poorly-written.

What happened in Brazil absolutely matters because it showed that, due to the robustness of their hate speech laws, even a would-be dictator couldn’t abuse them.

Badly-written laws will be badly applied no matter what those laws are.

kaffiene ,

Not everyone is a free speech extremist like many Americans. When the idea of free speech was developed, it was to protect political speech from legal consequences, not to guard some kind of right to incite hatred or violence towards minorities. These ideas are very different and shouldn’t be conflated.

GregorGizeh ,

I am not an American, in fact I am German, a country which actually has restrictions on free speech in place.

Nowadays we use it to squash anti Israel protests.

Shake747 ,

That’s exactly how I’d expect a government to use this. It’s not a good path

TheOctonaut ,

I fully support Palestine and yet I’m 100% OK with Germans having the sense to keep their opinions to themselves on the matter.

GregorGizeh ,

We don’t keep our opinions to ourselves, we dissolve demonstrations for Palestine and arrest even Jews who speak out against the genocide.

TheOctonaut ,

Good. Germany’s input on this one matter isn’t helpful.

GregorGizeh ,

So we should oppress citizens and their rights if they do a public wrongthink. Gotcha

kaffiene ,

Yeah thats not a free speech issue, that’s a German national guilt gone mad issue.

GregorGizeh ,

Indeed, which only strengthens my point.

anon987 , (edited )

They are cracking down on the anti Israeli protests because antisemitic hate crimes have doubled.

GregorGizeh ,

So its only antisemitic if its against Israel? We are arresting and silencing other Jews and Israelis who are against this campaign of genocide. That’s okay with you?

solivine ,
@solivine@sopuli.xyz avatar

Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences.

GregorGizeh ,

Freedom of speech is, very much so, the freedom of consequences from the government for anything you are saying. In fact that is pretty much the textbook definition.

The consequences are for other citizens to mete out, like ostracizing bigots. But fundamentally the government has no right to police what anyone says, aside from inciting of violence and such.

dumbass ,
@dumbass@lemy.lol avatar

So telling an entire group of people, who some of them used your books as a safe escape from the bullying they suffered in the real world, that you think they are vile, disgusting and shouldn’t exist, is just simply being disrespectful?

I believe that once you become part of the global zeitgeist you should be held more accountable for your words and actions, like old racist Jimmy Noneck down at a local bar can’t encite hate and violence on the same level as a global household name can.

Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence.

GregorGizeh ,

It isnt freedom of consequence. It is freedom from the government interfering or penalizing you for what you are saying. The consequences are for the civil society to determine, but never the government.

dumbass ,
@dumbass@lemy.lol avatar

Hate crime laws were because of civil society, that’s how this system works, these laws always came after some sort of civil unrest.

Plus we’re not talking about a random normal person like us, were talking about someone who has a global reach and some power to wield, they should be held responsible for what they say, she can get someone hurt or killed way easier than you and I could.

Yeah the law could be tweaked a bit, like all laws, but to leave it up to society to dish it out is, in my opinion, a bit more dangerous.

Son_of_dad ,

We have hate speech laws where I live. 99% of us don’t even realize it because 99% of us aren’t running around being bigots and calling for the extermination of groups of people based on race, gender, etc. You only need to worry about those laws if you’re the kind of person who those laws are in place for. Nobody is gonna arrest you if you’re a bigot, but if you’re standing on a street corner calling for blood you just might

SupraMario ,

The issue with this thought is that when the party you hate comes into power they just might decide to add their own groups to these type of laws. Would you be ok if people got arrested for protesting against Trump?

Gabu ,

That’s a stupid-ass take, as they could do it regarless…

SupraMario ,

Lol no it’s not, it’s why no one dumb enough is willing to pack the courts. They know what happens if the other side gets in control again. Might work out for 2-4 years but after that it’s anyone’s guess on how much damage the other side will do.

avonarret1 ,

That’s why you have multiple instances such laws have to go through. It would all work so much better if people would vote, too.

TheBat ,
@TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

Would you still say this if some rando inspired by this cunt’s incessant endorsement of anti-trans rhetoric assaults or murder someone?

GregorGizeh ,

I’d say that’s a matter for civil courts and the legal system to deal with. Not the government

TheBat ,
@TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

Newsflash: The government passes the laws that are interpreted by the legal system.

TheBat ,
@TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

And that wasn’t a hypothetical scenario.

pridesource.com/…/in-the-wake-of-brianna-gheys-mu…

FanciestPants ,

To a large extent I agree, but i think anti slander laws are a generally accepted precedent that limit what people can say to or about another person. It’s possible that the new law follows similar logic, and is intended to prevent harm in much the same way.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Now have a poor person say the exact same shit and report that

Catoblepas ,

Hilarious that this wretched lump of hate is being a crybully about how she’s supposedly putting herself in legal danger, even though she sends legal threats to people in the UK who call her a TERF. And I do mean people posting shit on Twitter, not newspapers publishing stories about her. “Free speech” (the right to incite hatred against minorities) for me but not for thee.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

She sends legal threats to people who write books about child wizards going to wizard school.

slate.com/…/harry-potter-and-the-international-or…

She wants to invent news laws to push on others and make herself a martyr against one that already exists.

goferking0 ,

Does she think there weren’t wizard school books until she had the idea of one???

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Apparently.

angrystego ,

She knows there were some, if I’m not mistaken, she admits she was directly inspired by one. I guess she just wants more money and power over people.

Omegamanthethird ,
@Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world avatar

Why would she object to being a TERF? Isn’t she pretty open about her beliefs?

Catoblepas ,

TERFs love to play this game where TERF is actually a misogynistic slur, even when it completely accurately describes their bigotry. It reframes them as victims of misogyny instead of bigots.

Omegamanthethird ,
@Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world avatar

Do they pretend that they don’t hate trans women? Is this like the “I’m not racist, but…” people?

Catoblepas ,

Depends on the audience, very often they will pay lip service to the idea that trans people shouldn’t be criminalized out of existence, and then with a more fashy audience just start goose stepping and talking about all the ways trans people should be criminalized out of existence. Even JKR has done that song and dance, saying that “if trans people were oppressed” she would march for them. 🙄

Hackerman_uwu ,

No. They pretend that acknowledging trans women erases womanhood itself and is the ultimate mysogyny.

ada ,
@ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Do they pretend that they don’t hate trans women?

Rowling has done that, yeah.

She’s literally said that she’d march with trans people if our rights were under attack, whilst attacking our rights.

JimVanDeventer ,

She’d rather be remembered as the biggest FART in history.

TheRealKuni ,

Fascism-Affinitized-Radical-Transphobe?

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

On a side note, what is with all those fake, AI generated, car ads down at the bottom?

alquicksilver ,
@alquicksilver@lemmy.world avatar

This TERF needs to just accept that she’s not relevant anymore. She is just a washed up, miserable person and not even her bottomless wallet can bring her happiness.

glimse ,

You say this yet people keep throwing money at her. Studios and HP fans alike.

She is still unfortunately relevant to a huge swath of people

accideath ,

That’s why I sail the seven sees, especially if it’s about content she might get royalties from.

But also, there hasn’t been anything good since the first fantastic beasts movie…

Also also, I made harry potter themed fuck JK pins, so a few lgbtq friends of mine could still wear their hp merch without endorsing her.

DudeImMacGyver , (edited )
@DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works avatar

She looks like Putin in a wig and seems to share his views too.

Coincidence?

I’ve never seen them in the same room together, just saying.

FunkPhenomenon ,

called it yesterday :P

tsonfeir ,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

The laws don’t apply to rich people

fuego ,

True, but she also isn’t breaking any laws in this case.

Do you people legitimately believe others should be arrested because they don’t call you the words you want? Wow.

fuego , (edited )

This comment was removed for saying: True, but she also isn’t breaking any laws in this case. Do you people legitimately believe others should be arrested because they don’t call you the words you want? Wow.

The reason given was saying “you people.” It’s painfully clear there is a a biased mod or group of mods on the mod team that wants to censor anything critical of the trans agenda.

Here’s another comment with someone calling me a “weird little goblin”, but they support the trans agenda so their comment gets to stay: lemmy.ca/comment/8395791

Lol. It’s so transparent it’s actually sad. I hope we get a new news community to replace this one.

coffee_with_cream ,

Crazy how many people in here agree that you should be punished by the government for things you say

littletranspunk ,

Arrest her anyway, call it the Rowling challenge.

SkyeHarith ,

Notice how they said

Not assessed to be criminal

And not

Assesed to be not criminal

Scottish Cops are still Cops I guess

Gakomi ,

Sorry but is free speech dead or something? If this constitutes a crime then I have no hope for the human race anymore!

lorkano ,

If you are popular person you must keep in mind that your words could ruin someone’s life. She cherry picks people here that “changed” gender to avoid man prison but in reality those are outliers. In the process, she is putting negative light on a whole group of people. This is similar to what politicians do to manipulate groups of people for votes

cosmicrookie , (edited )
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

Does the new law account for how famous one is?

Based on your comment, this is doing the exact same thing that you are blaming her of: Enforcing a law on everyone when it should apply to a minority of people who have a massive following

lorkano ,

I am not familiar with law there, I just commented based on common logic and my human decency expectations. Imo, all hate should be equally punished, but non public hate will obviously be harder to pinpoint

cosmicrookie ,
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

This is all a reaction to a new law in Scotland, as described in the actual post above:

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.

It is a vague definition, but people have been using it to go after JK Rowling for her stance on transgender people . I am not taking sides and not saying that her opinions are right, but I am just saying that people should be allowed to have and state their own opinion. It is the individuals responsibility to evaluate that opinion, and decide for or against it, not any law. Also a law should apply to everyone and not only to people who have a massive followage.

cosmicrookie , (edited )
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

The same law prohibits age hatred. If it was to be enforced like people here want it to, you’d get penalised for calling someone a boomer. Or maybe calling someone disabled instead of a person with a disabillty

Sure its wrong but you can’t go around regulating people like that

Gabu ,

Sure thing, boomer. Go take your meds before you turn to dust.

cosmicrookie ,
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

Exactly! You should be allowed to call me a boomer without fearing that id call the police on you.

Gabu ,

So what you’re saying is that it’s okay for me to call you a braindead moron-ass motherfucker with your own head lodged up your wide and prolapsed asshole destroyed by years of sitting on rightwing dick?

cosmicrookie ,
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

Are you saying you should be fined for it? Or just that you should be fined only if you have over X followers?

Gabu ,

I’m saying you’re an idiot for having that opinion

cosmicrookie ,
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

This is exactly how it should be! You shouldn’t be able to call the police on me for having it though or on anyone else for having an opinion that you don’t agree with. This is the main topic of this discussion.

reallyNaughty ,

I mean…yeah. you get to express your opinion. He gets to express his.

I don’t agree with JK, but I’ll defend her right to say it. We stop what she is saying by being more compelling, not by prosecuting her for saying it.

Gabu ,

That’s the kind of moronic thinking that led to the current wave of fascism to begin with.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •