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.

  • 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.

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

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 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.