The "Harry Potter" author slammed a newly enacted hate-crime law in Scotland in a series of posts on X in which she referred to transgender women as men.

The “Harry Potter” author slammed a newly enacted hate-crime law in Scotland in a series of posts on X  in which she referred to transgender women as men.

J.K. Rowling shared a social media thread on Monday, the day a new Scottish hate-crime law took effect, that misgendered several transgender women and appeared to imply trans women have a penchant for sexual predation. On Tuesday, Scottish police announced they would not be investigating the “Harry Potter” author’s remarks as a crime, as some of Rowling’s critics had called for.

“We have received complaints in relation to the social media post,” a spokesperson for Police Scotland said in a statement. “The comments are not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken.”

Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Act criminalizes “stirring up hatred” against people based on their race, religion, disability, sexuality or gender identity.

  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    0·
    2 years ago

    While i agree with the sentiment i am concerned by this idea of policing how other people talk to each other. It seems completely insane that a government should be able to legally punish people for talking disrespectfully with each other. That is the essence of freedom of speech. People are able to express themselves freely without fear of the state punishing it.

    • Infynis@midwest.socialEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Denying somes’s personhood is more than speech. It’s dangerous, and can cause actual harm, especially for someone with such a huge platform, with special influence over children

      • A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        While I want to agree with the sentiment behind what you said I find it really hard to get behind government legally telling people what they can and can’t say. I personally feel like it’s every skinhead assole’s right to say racist awful shit. I also feel like if you’re going to exercise that right with reckless abandon, you’re gonna get fucked up by some people who don’t take kindly. As detrimental as their regressive views may be, I believe we simply cannot have legal punishments for saying something the government doesn’t agree with. It’s a very slippery slope.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 years ago

          I personally feel like it’s every skinhead assole’s right to say racist awful shit. I also feel like if you’re going to exercise that right with reckless abandon, you’re gonna get fucked up by some people who don’t take kindly.

          Is that what happened in 1930s Germany or the 1950s U.S. South?

          Racism is an implicit call to violence. Suggesting that it can also be solved by violence is not borne out by history.

          • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            0·
            2 years ago

            Racism isn’t an implicit call to violence. Violence is one of the ways it can manifest if it’s deranged enough, but most racism is just sorta quiet and often unconscious.

            It’s not a good idea for the government tell you what you’re allowed to say - that change has to come naturally from the bottom up, not artificially from the top down

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 years ago

              that change has to come naturally from the bottom up, not artificially from the top down

              Cool, when is that change going to happen? Because from what I’ve seen, there’s still a vast amount of racism in this world.