219
J.K. Rowling will not be arrested for comments about transgender women, police say
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
219 points (91.0% liked)
News
22841 readers
3616 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.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
That's exactly how I'd expect a government to use this. It's not a good path
Yeah thats not a free speech issue, that's a German national guilt gone mad issue.
Indeed, which only strengthens my point.
They are cracking down on the anti Israeli protests because antisemitic hate crimes have doubled.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Why do you trust powerful governments so much?
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?
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
You can ignore progess all you want, that doesn’t erase it’s existence.
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.
So you're saying we should form a mob and fuck her up then, that's your preferred solution to this problem?
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.
This "slippery slope" of yours has not been a problem in the many countries that have adopted it.
Not even in Brazil under Bolsonaro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
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.
Sounds like a reason to make the law better, not throw it out.
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.
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
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?
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.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.