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.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah don’t use the word Nazi when describing opposition to censorship, however well intentioned the censorship is

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Someone already described the law but I think there should also be a good explanation why it’s not censorship. That explanation in short form is called the paradox of tolerance. If a society strives to be more tolerant they may also end up being tolerant of intolerance. That tolerance of intolerance then prevents society from becoming tolerant, that’s the paradox. So the only real course of action for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance.

            Attacking someone based on their sexuality is intolerance. Thus to be tolerant those attacks cannot be tolerated, hence the law. Why people are calling it “censorship” is because those people want to be intolerant. They cry “censorship” because they’re being prevented of acting out their own form of censorship, the kind where they try for instance to censure someones sexuality. Calling this thing “censorship” is the wording of the right-wing and unless you want to associate with the right I suggest you stop calling it that. It’s not censorship, it’s being intolerant of censorship.

            • CosmicDetour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              I think you’re onto something, but this still fits the definition of censorship. I feel like you’d have a better rebuttal if you argued that some censorship is actually good for society. I’d agree with you there, in this case. But no need try to dress it up like it isn’t censorship when it is.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                It is censorship if you get into the philosophical weeds, but I don’t see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary. I also don’t see how the philosophical definition changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary

                  To be honest

                  changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.

                  Because censorship is a description of an action, not a judgement of it- think “killing” vs “murder”

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              I understand you oppose allowing speech that could lead to the rights of others being trampled. And that is a fair belief to have- it is however still censorship. Even to censor people calling for total thought control would still be censorship.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not being allowed to kill other people also infringes on your personal freedom, is that censorship as well?

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Censoring is about speech, but that is a limitation on actions.

                  • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    So suppressing a rally is not censorship? Burning art is not censorship? Censorship has historically applied mostly to speech and literature and as such is generally associated with those two things, but censorship can be far more abstract and in it’s most abstract form applies to any form of expression of an idea. In that sense the limitation isn’t speech, it’s the act of expression.

                    And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence? The only real difference is that if done one causes physical damage while the other causes mental/emotional damage. The intent and outcome of that action is the same, to harm someone. So how come you consider one censorship and not the other? Simply because the method of expression is different?

                    To put your defense of censorship very bluntly. You think it’s not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it’s okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves? Because the latter is essentially what you are defending by calling limiting language of that nature as censorship.

          • rmuk@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.

            Attacking someone specifically because of their gender, sexuality, politics, religion, race, ethnicity, etc is worse and more illegal.

            The new law adds ‘transgender’ to that list.

            JK Rowling thinks that is a problem.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 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.

              • Jojo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  7 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.

                  • Jojo@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    7 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.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Rowling literally did holocaust denial not too long ago

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          28
          ·
          7 months ago

          Idk if she did or didn’t, but censorship isn’t a liberal solution

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s telling that you stopped replying to the thoughtful explanations on why this isn’t censorship and decided to keep calling it censorship.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              “Its telling you stopped replying once I pointed this out”

              I’m sorry but that was just a ridiculous thing to say- it had been a couple hours, and I was doing other things in my life- plus was half asleep as it was 2am. I think its important to try to understand the situations others could be in aren’t identical to your own- that is empathy.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              Also just checked the thread, I did not get notifications for some of these replies