JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law
The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men in a series of social media posts.
JK Rowling has challenged Scotland's new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.
The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
She said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.
Earlier, Scotland's first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a "rising tide of hatred".
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
…
Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.
You're viewing a single thread.
Her opinion on trans folks is shit, but people should not go to jail for shit opinions. Broken clock and stuff.
It's more complicated than that. Like saying there is a fire in a theatre when there is none, saying transgender are undercover perverts and a danger to society when it's not supported by evidence will get people killed. Freedom of speech is great and all but when your lie and put people in danger there should be consequences.
And just for the record, this is not a theory. People HAVE been murdered.
Sick people are inspired to violence by all kind of thing, are we going to outlaw Catcher in the Rye?
There is a very incredibly stark contrast between telling a story on a page and actually saying "we should hurt people"
Kind of depends? There are books around that are rather direct in their hurtful message.
Yeah there are, but you'll never be able to stop people from spreading literature, legal or not, so things like catcher and the rye, mice and men, mockingbird, with all of their controversies are great to have in schools to help our children grow into adults who can identify this stuff for what it actually is and not some deranged gospel.
But then there's also a ton of other arguments to be made about mental health and all that, when it comes to violent psychos we shouldn't get in the habit of settling with a scapegoat
Maybe you are misunderstanding me, I'm not arguing for censorship of books but against censorship op speech.
You originally asked if we were going to suggest banning CATR, my point is mostly these books are great examples to help people identify this language and why it should not be used. If you went into a crowded theater and started shouting there's a shooter, you'd be arrested for inciting panic. Its not censorship when the point is stopping speech from causing physical harm. Same way your right to travel isn't infringed by requiring a license to drive
My right to travel is not infringed because I can walk.
Hateful people will be inspired by books and by speech to be hateful and to hurt others. Not sure why you draw the line at books, since also speech can be used as a lesson.
I would also there is fundamental differences between causing an immediate panick and voicing a hateful opinion. The later was times and times misused to silence governmental criticis. Sure - this time it might turn out different, since good guys are in power, but I highly doubt it.
We should because it's a shit book.
I see, since you are for outlawing books it all falls into places.
omg you're reaching so hard over this entire comment section. just stop, it's quite frankly embarrassing
Oh no I'm embarrassing myself in the internet, how will I ever live that one down.
You are the only voice of reason in this thread. Free speech is important and laws like this will be abused and used to punish political opponents.
Its not abuse when the political opponent is a bigot using hate and violence to build a platform. For the millionth time, you are free to run out there, make an ass of yourself, and use all the slurs you want.
What you are NOT free to do, and what this entire conversation is about, is organizing and inciting people to commit a hate crime.
Its pretty interesting that these things were fine when we're talking about the civil rights movement, but as soon as there's a trans or gay person around, your rights are under attack for trying to kill somebody.
Okay, it's nth time I see the undercover pervs/rapists about trans folk. The hell happened?
So who is deciding what opinions are puting people in danger. US government for example thinks that whistleblowers Manning and journalist like Assange are puting people in danger.
Have as many opinions as you want, but if you spread shit like "we should exterminate the lesser races" and "trans people are rapists" you earn a vacation at the greybar hotel for abusing your right of free speech to infringe on other people's rights.
The question is where the line is drawn and how to make sure the state is not abusing those powers to suppress opinions that it sees dangerous. A good example are cases when protecting the children is used as argument for more surveillance. This seems foelr me to go along the same lines.
Sometimes the question of "Where do we draw the line" is an important, valid question that must be considered. Sometimes, the answer to that question can also be "I don't know precisely, but this is damn well over it."
I'm not saying that hack writer is necessarily to that stage, but we absolutely should not allow "But where do you draw the line" to turn into "Everything is permitted because what about splitting hairs."
Than I will rephrase the question. Who should draw the line and do you trust people in power to draw it in a fair way? What if conservatives are holding that power against opinions they think are dangerous?
I'm not totally familiar with how the Scottish legal system works, but wouldn't the line be drawn by a jury of peers, and not necessarily the people in power?
Good question. But than again - not sure you want to be judged on sensitive topic by a group of peers, I'm not a huge fan of that concept to be honest.
he question is where the line is drawn
[Calling for the extermination of people based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/disability]
[Discrimination based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/disability]
|||||||||| THE LINE ||||||||||
.
.
[Literally 1984]
Most sane countries don't have a lot trouble with this.
Calling for extermination, I would agree on. Since it's more than an opinion it's a call to action.
Most sane countries don’t have a lot trouble with this.
I'm really curious for examples.
This is a good point and it's a good distinction to make. But it does not invalidate that weaponized/dangerous hate speech needs to have limits.
And she won't. This is the same performative bullshit Jordan Peterson pulled in Canada.
People shouldn't go to jail for shit opinions, I agree. That changes when their opinions become more than opinions.
That's cryptic.
Trans people have literally been murdered as a direct, traceable result of her "free speech". Several more people have been victims of harassment campaigns. She has actively engaged in Holocaust denial.
It's only cryptic because it's something that requires nuance, and to be addressed on a case by case basis. It's safe to say that we have crossed the line and then some
Is there a crime for nebulous comments?
lol well at least I thought it was a good joke
She grossly misinterprets what the law is meant to achieve. It's not for somebody who dead names a trans person or calls a trans woman he or him. It's when someone Tweets out "Who will rid me of this troublesome trans person?" and then their one or more of their followers goes out and beats or murders that person.
I swear every single person arguing against this bill hasn't read it.
The gist of it is consolidating existing hate crime laws, adding sexual orientation and gender to the protected classes, repealing the law of blasphemy, and then the main one people are on about, outlawing "inciting hate" and spending several entire pages defining exactly what that means and how its still covered by freedom of expression.
As you said, you can use the slurs. You can be a shit person.
What this seems to be addressing is the fact that ANYBODY can have a platform nowadays and some of those people use their platform to harm other people, whether indirectly or not.
You should maybe read the law.
Part 2 Section 3, 32: [...] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
It's talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:
Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it's own, but even more so in digital age.
Later it quite literally defines on which terms it's permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.
To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:
I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same. If you use a public platform to intentionally cause harm to another person by way of their race, nationality, sexual identity, or other specificity then you have committed a crime.
What you clearly missed was the point of the law. Hate speech isn't about saying what you want about another person, it's about using your speech to directly or indirectly harm another person or group of people.
I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same.
Sorry I'm bad at reading facial expression over the internet. My mistake.
What you clearly missed was the point of the law.
I literally quoted the law: "where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group."
That goes beyond what you claim. While even a possession of such speech would be an offence.
Lots of people just don't know what freedom is speech actually means. Speech isn't a crime, but crimes can be committed by speaking.
If you kill someone with a hammer, you aren't charged with possession of hammer - you're charged with murder. If you hire a hitman to do the killing instead, you aren't charged with "using speech."
When that theoretical person is arrested for "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they aren't actually being arrested for their speech or their words, but for a separate crime that uses speech as a mechanism.
Speech is a marvelous thing that should be protected, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of using speech to commit other crimes.
I, for one, get angry at big gubment limiting my free spech to call people slurs at home depot just like how I get angry at big government for limiting my god given right to come and go as I please when I break into people's houses and watch them sleep.
Can you explain to me then, what exactly is freedom of speech? Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't using speech then, it's assault on other persons by threatening harm. Criticize the government? That's not freedom of speech, that's just unlicensed protest. Sing a song protesting a war? You go to jail for treason.
Freedom of speech absolutely means being free from the government imposing consequences for speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater comes from Schenck v United States which found that speech must pose a clear and present danger to be able to be held criminally liable for it. And Brandenburg v Ohio narrowed the definition even further, that speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Despite our views on JK's abhorrent rhetoric, you cannot say that mis-gendering trans people is inciting imminent lawlessness.
Your comment demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech.
You quoted cases that literally demonstrate my point.
It's not the word "fire" that is the crime. It's speech as a mechanism by which lawlessness or panic is incited.
Hate-speech is more nuanced, but can follow a similar pattern.
Take the sentance: "It's time to cut down the tall trees." The words themselves are fairly innocuous. But that was the trigger phrase for the Rwandan Genocide. Saying those words on the air was a call to murder all the Tutsi people. Speaking those words on the radio was not an act of free expression by the Interhamwe, but the start of a barbaric hate crime that killed nearly a million people.
Well, ironically your example here demonstrates just how difficult policing or regulating speech can be, and how it will likely never, ever work.
How, exactly, would you write a law that captures "it's time to cut down the tall trees" as an act of hate speech (or a crime in general) while not simultaneously massively infringing on any potential innocent uses of such a phrase?
If you've spent any time on social media, you'll likely have noticed that if admins simply ban certain words or phrases, the people who want to communicate these words will simply come up with some code using words so innocuous that you cannot ban them without frustrating everyone else and thus tipping them off to the conspiracy, and basically giving it even more exposure thanks to the Streisand effect.
It absolutely is the word fire that is the crime and you really need to go back to middle school and take some sort of US legal class. The state of American education system these days...
No. It isn't. There's nothing illegal about the word fire, or even saying it in a theater.
Go. Find that law and report back if I'm wrong. Give me a citation.
You know what - fuck it. I'll do the leg work here and go into the most specific law I can find on the subject. It's within the Municipal Code of Ordinances Ordinances of the city of Reading, Ohio.
It sounds promising for you at first because it specifically mentions:
Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that the report or warning is false.
But that line §648.07(A)(1) only applies as a subsection of §648.07(A), which is:
(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:
(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that the report or warning is false.
(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence.
(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.
And to further clarify that the crime isn't the words, §648.07(C) specifically states:
Whoever violates this section is guilty of inducing panic.
Subsection B is about allowing fire drills as an exception.
So, according to the most-specific law I could find, the crime is inciting panic, not any specific word or phrase. And even if you did shout fire it isn't a crime unless it actually causes a real panic.
Also - I highly doubt you've taken more law classes than me. Just a hunch though: maybe you're just a bad lawyer.
Speech is a marvelous thing that should be protected, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of using speech to commit other crimes.
This is peak Reddit, now peak lemmy
If speech has a price, it's not free
Speech used to commit a crime isn't illegal. The crime being facilitated through that speech is.
If I assault you with a hammer, it's not the hammer that's the issue. Arresting me for it has nothing to do with the legality of hammers.
Agreed. It just becomes problematic when speech itself is redefined as crime, that is what I'm arguing against. And the the line with the consequences is not that clear either. Someone could read a book and go an kill someone. I personally think it's a hard thing to really understand consequences of words.
You can weaponize an opinion, that is what is getting punished.
Where you draw the line? And who is drawing it? Will you be equally happy when conservatives will use the same tools against opinions they see as dangerous?
I think the line is being drawn at "don't sympathize with
terrorist groupsan opressive theocratic government" (publicly stating "at least the taliban know what a woman is") and "don't directly fund hate groups".(Edited, see comment below)
Terrorist for ones are maybe freedom fighters for others - kind of sketchy line over there.
Whose freedom does the Taliban fight for? Because the people in the country of Afghanistan don't feel very free.
They were fighting against first Sowjet and than US-American occupation.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct! (they are technically the legit government of Afghanistan despite being a proxy warzone for the US and USSR(?) as I understand it)
When you woke up today did you decide you were gonna make excuses for the Taliban right there and then or did it kinda just happen? Holy shit.
Taliban are obviously the only terrorist group on the planet and rebels were never before labeled as terrorists.
Which other terrorist group did that TERF sympathize with?
How should I know? I personally don't follow those crazy people.
They're not rebels. They literally are the government of Afghanistan.
Do you ever try to understand what the other person is saying? Why bother otherwise?
The line was drawn by Western governments that all agreed gender identity is a protected group of people. Stop trying to pick apart policies that protect people at the cost of bigots' freeze peach. Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.
Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.
And my point, governments have a history of using such laws in the end to get rid of critics. Sure this time it will be completely different. I would love to share your optimism, but you will have to allow me to remain skeptical.
Interesting that no one makes this point outside of the trans debate over whether or not they deserve equal rights against hate rhetoric.
I make that point in general, that I don't trust governments with regulating speech. By the way I'm all in for private platforms regulating speech, would not hang around here otherwise.
There is no slippery slope if the law protects the weak from the strong.
And I don't trust governments with defining and enforcing those lines, when it comes to speech.
So you would let people yell Fire in a theatre?
I don't think it's a case of a law protecting weak from the strong. Since that was what I replied to.
But it's a fair question where I draw the line. It's somewhere with direct and indirect consequences, which is hard to define. I absolutely agree that her speech might have very tangible real consequences to real people from a group she is targeting. But than again it's due to actions of other people "inspired" by her words. While when shouting fire, you create panic just with your own words. Than again one can definitely incite violent actions through media. But that it is even more complicated since it becomes about intent and interpretation.
So you do think governments should enforce speech laws. I just want you to stop using this as an argument by itself.
If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.
Don't be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.
There is plenty of discussion to have about "the line" but we need to move away from free speech absolutists like Musk that once they get power they use it for censorship.
So you do think governments should enforce speech laws.
I think it's a more complex question that people make it out to be. I would say any speech regulation by the government is something we should be wary about.
If you look a bit on the history of fascism, they often attack liberal systems as oppressive because of laws that muzzles the hateful. Once in power, their first move is to muzzle the opposition.
I don't get your argument here.
Don’t be duped by their tactics, the oppressed few can barely get equal rights and the hate army is marching to take that away swaying the weak-minded with a narrative of free speech.
Sure, when people who disagree with you are weak minded, it's easy to be always right.
Please spare the rest of the world with your preaching about the abuse of freezepeach laws. America's is so much more abused than any other western country, its a joke.
What do I have to do with USA? USA would be a rather good example why government should not have the power to censor speech.
Its usually only Americans who are that totalitarian in their presence of protecting freezepeach, thinking we don't all know what they really want to protect.
What speech exactly is it that would be stopped from saying here, that you feel a need to say?
Who draws it? The government?!
What could go wrong? Assange and Manning would like a word with you.
Bad faith framing of the issue. OPSEC in critical national security operations is a little different than respecting people's gender identity. Not even in the same ballpark, it aint even the same sport.
Maybe bad faith interpretation of my argument on your side.
Or, maybe I got it right when I assumed that you were comparing Assange and Manning leaking information critical to military operations to Trans people not being the target of hate speech?
Or maybe you got it wrong and that's not the point I was making?
The reasoning used in Assange and Manning case, is that information they made publicly available is endangering peoples lives. That is not unsimilar to the argumentation that hateful speech is endangering people targeted by it.
Slippery slope fallacy "You're okay with the government saying certain ingredients can't go in food? Where does that stop? Will you be equally happy when a government you disagree with uses the same tools to dictate everything that goes in your food?"
"You're okay with the government saying certain areas are off limits to the general public? Where do you draw the line? Will you be equally happy when a different government uses the same tools to forbid you from leaving your home?"
Is this specific step reasonable? Then it's okay. When they try to take an unreasonable step then it is appropriate to do something about it.
My argument is more, that while I trust at least some governments with deciding on what food is safe, I don't trust governments at all with decisions about what speech is permitted.
I don't trust governments at all with decisions about what speech is permitted.
Hate crime laws already exist. In Germany it's illegal to deny to Holocaust. These are good laws. The creation and acceptance of good laws does not necessitate the creation and acceptance of bad laws.
Hateful ideas can be dangerous things. This is why insulting people in Germany can turn into a criminal offense. They know where that goes if left unchecked.
Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail. It can just be a fine the first few times and jail only when you show no intent on ceasing what you're doing.
JKR is being hyperbolic with this "arrest me" thing. She's playing the victim for her TERF followers.
Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail.
If you're poor and black, sure.
Notice how many times Trump has flagrantly broken the law.
I'm from Germany, the only way insulting someone is going to be a criminal case is if you insult police. Otherwise it gets almost always dropped.
So you want the government to decide which ideas are ok and which should be banned? How could this ever go wrong.
I'm pretty sure denying the holocaust can also get you jail time in Germany.
The government deciding what ideas should be banned is pretty typical in Germany lol
What could ever go wrong? Germany, there was something...
Ok, so which is it? I'm arguing it's fine to ban ideas if they're bad enough, like holocaust denial in Germany.
And I'm arguing that it's a bad idea. Germany is a good example, banning holocaust denial did not stop AFD from raising and getting political power. We were not even able to forbid the damn NDP.
That's not a great argument, there is no evidence those things are somehow connected or not. For all you know it would have been straight back to fascism 60 years earlier if it wasn't banned. The reason AfD has power is that the courts and government support them and let them get away with crime. If the law was actually applied it would have banned that party.
So it's about how a law is applied. And you still don't see the potential danger of a law regulating speech? Guess we won't agree on this one.
I don't really see a benefit in people being forced to phrase their hateful opinions in a way to circumvent laws. In the end, Rowling won't stop spreading her bigoted hateful bullshit - in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.
in best case she will just phrase it a bit different, which actually might get some stupid moderates on her side.
Look in the mirror. She is framing this issue in a hyperbolic way and you're siding with her.
Dude, I'm not siding with her on any issue besides freedom of speech - which just happen to be my opinion.
What does the broken clock analogy have to do with Joanne being a bigot?
I disagree with her on pretty much everything, except on the freedom of speech part - even for speech I might personally find disgusting.
That's starting to be an unusual stance
What she’s saying here probably doesn’t rise to the level of criminality under their law. She’s just doing performative nonsense while proving yet again that she doesn’t understand the difference between sex and gender.