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.

    • hannes3120@feddit.de
      305·
      9 months ago

      The freedom of one person ends where it starts limiting the freedom of another person

      Unlimited freedom of speech just means that it’s possible to verbally deny a group of people a place in society either by lying about them or by just ignoring their existence - and both are limiting that person’s freedom - not just their freedom of speech.

      I really don’t understand how Americans don’t seem to understand that one person’s freedom should end when it limits the freedom of another person - and if it doesn’t then it’s just the stronger/more forceful one pushing the weaker/more defensive one into a corner.

      • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
        91·
        9 months ago

        I’m in Canada. The number of people who think we have free speech laws similar to our neighbours (and what they think they can get away with) is staggering.

      • fireweed@lemmy.world
        4·
        9 months ago

        It’s a “freedom to” vs “freedom from” issue. The US is much more on the “freedom to” side. For example, freedom to own firearms overrules freedom from gun violence. In this case, it’s freedom to say nasty shit overrules freedom from hearing nasty shit. This is also why libertarianism is so popular here (they’re all about having the “freedom to,” even when it’s at others’ expense). This isn’t always the case of course (our strict zoning laws and development codes are a great example of “freedom from” overruling “freedom to”).

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      1011·
      9 months ago

      And the US laws should be more like Scotland’s. Hate speech is implicitly violent and should be treated as such.

      • iLoveFishing@lemmy.today
        1·
        9 months ago

        The will never come to US because it would become a modern day witch hunt used for political purposes of whoever is in power at that time.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              21·
              9 months ago

              There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.

              https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate

              If librarians can figure this out, why can’t you?

                  • iLoveFishing@lemmy.today
                    1·
                    9 months ago

                    And when the right gets elected we can consider any criticism of Christianity as hate speech and lock them up too. People never abuse their power.