547
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

It was no April Fool’s joke.

Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.

Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.

Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aidan@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.

Attacking meaning what? Verbally?

Yes it is true I agree with both of those statements, I don't know specifically about Scottish laws- but I remember hearing about this especially dumb case.

The dumbness was on the part of the government. It was censorship then, and it is still censorship now. I am nowhere near a fan of celebrating someone's death. Still censorship, expanding what is censored is expanding censorship.

Limiting any speech is censorship. Speech is censored in some capacity everywhere, to use that as a basis for redefining it to not actually be censorship is very disingenuous.

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

Yes. "Fighting words," credible threats, and other such aggressive language are generally illegal, even in the USA.

If any language being illegal is automatically censorship, then I don't think censorship isnecessarily bad in every case.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

Yes it is censorship, and it's fair think sometimes censorship is okay, I generally disagree but I'm sure you could think of a case where I would tolerate it. Censoring fighting words I definitely oppose though for example.

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

I guess you're welcome to that opinion. Just as one would be welcome to the opinion that literally stalking someone should be legal.

Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict, even in places like the USA where "unlimited free speech" is a big motto. It's illegal to slander and libel people, for example. That it's illegal in many cases to verbally harass and abuse as well should be fairly non-contentious.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict

Yes. Another is copywrited material, which I oppose the considered censoring off. I also oppose the censoring of slander.

But regardless, all of that, and especially this law is censorship

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

When you define a word loosely enough, it can cease to be meaningful. When most people hear "opposition to censorship," they're not going to expect the reference to be advocating for the legalization of public and deliberate slander or open threats of violence and attempts to incite violence.

Using the phrase in that way may not be technically incorrect, but it is still misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. Again, you are welcome to your view of what constitutes censorship and the belief that it is always, ipso facto, abhorrent, but I don't think that view leaves any room for meaningful discussion about this case, so I don't think I'll be engaging any further. Call it self-censorship if you like.

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
547 points (92.0% liked)

World News

37319 readers
3099 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS