219
J.K. Rowling will not be arrested for comments about transgender women, police say
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
219 points (91.0% liked)
News
23406 readers
4368 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
I'm tired of having to do this work and it never ending. Get a law passed and start enforcing. People are being harmed and it shouldn't be this much work to defend them. Perhaps absolute free speech regulated by individuals was scalable when not every deplorable pos had a worldwide megaphone.
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.
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
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.
Why do you trust powerful governments so much?
You didn't answer my question.
You said change has to come naturally from the bottom up in order to stop bigoted attacks. Bigotry has been around for a very long time.
So... when is that natural change going to happen? Are we talking centuries?
You're asking me to predict the future, maybe it doesn't happen. Maybe 1 lifetime? Maybe 2?
Who knows, but all we can do in the meantime is continue to actually talk with people caught in the storm.
If the government tries to force speech, what do you think that will do? Do you think everyone will say "oh ok", and just quietly live out their lives at home in resentment or in prison for this never to return?
It's a bandaid to a problem where we're just supposed to trust that governments will always use this power correctly
So rather than prosecuting people for fomenting violence with racist hate speech right now, everyone should just wait a couple of generations for it to sort itself out unlike it has for thousands of years.
That seems both likely and reasonable and such a concept could definitely could only come from someone who has been the victim of severe racist attacks.
You're forgetting that we have technology that connects most of the world now, even across languages. This definitely changes things.
But it sounds like you'd prefer to live under a government like the CCP. That way you don't have to worry anymore because they'll take care of everything for you
It certainly does change things.
It's enabled bigots all over the world to get in touch with each other and become even more vicious and violent because they can coordinate.
But I'm sure if we pray hard enough to Jesus, no black person or queer person or Jewish person or any other minority will ever be threatened again.
Because it's either that or Soviet Russia. There's nothing in between.
It's also enabled everyone to see cultures and ways of life they would never be able to before. People can share their differences and traditions more openly too. Knowing more about cultures, practices and different people is what opens doors to not being racist
Can you actually demonstrate this to be the case so far?
Because this sure doesn't seem to agree with you- https://div46amplifier.com/2022/12/14/online-racism-has-the-internet-caused-more-harm-than-good/
Not a lot of real world analysis (that's not a priori) that I could find specifically on race, but here's one regarding this issue but with prejudice against transgender:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad9713
That's about face-to-face conversations. So what does that have to do with your claim that the internet reduces racism?
This is so pedantic it hurts. I don't know how to dumb this down any further. You win, racism will never end and let's just put everyone in jail. Enjoy!
I made neither claim. Why are you lying about what I said?
You claimed the internet reduces racism and your so-called evidence didn't involve the internet. That's not my fault.
You can ignore progess all you want, that doesn’t erase it’s existence.
So you're saying we should form a mob and fuck her up then, that's your preferred solution to this problem?
While this specific case may even be somewhat justified, where does it end? What constitutes an insult so grievous that the government should punish you for it?
Misgendering, alright. Attacking someone's honor? Probably. Putting together an angry, slur-filled rant? Perhaps. Insulting someone's parents? Hmm.
And so forth. This is an incredibly slippery slope, one that virtually all democracies currently existing have avoided to go down because it inevitably leads to oppression.
This "slippery slope" of yours has not been a problem in the many countries that have adopted it.
Not even in Brazil under Bolsonaro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
I am German. We have restrictions on free speech in place, primarily around Nazism and Israel.
Our government is literally curbing anything critical of israel with those restrictions at this very moment.
Sounds like a reason to make the law better, not throw it out.
I don't think that's the lesson here. More that even the most well intentioned restrictions can and will be abused by the government once they have that power. If our far right gets into the government I cant imagine what kind of dystopian crap they will try to do with it.
I am similarly very sceptical of the constant debate for more surveillance and online control in the name of ”protecting the children”. Another very worthy, and very emotionally charged cause where most people will instinctively agree before even thinking about the consequences.
Again- that did not happen when Bolsonaro took power in Brazil.
So maybe the problem is your laws, not hate speech laws in general.
You're acting like Germany is the only country in the world that has these laws.
And you are acting as if because there is one struggling democracy somewhere on the world who has yet to abuse it, all other incidents and examples throughout history for the inevitable abuse of such power are not valid.
You've given me one single example of abuse. The one in your country.
Again, that sounds like a problem with your country's laws in specific.
Do you really want me to list the dozens of instances throughout history where the right to restrict people’s expression has inadvertently caused or helped authoritarians consolidate power? I would think you largely know about those already.
A quite recent example is ironically related to the same topic, namely conservatives and religious zealots wanting to police speech the other way by banning inclusionary language. The other side of the exact same coin. I'm sure you are familiar with that issue since it most prominently happens in america, though plenty of European right wingers are looking to do similar things.
I want you to list the dozens of instances throughout history where, specifically, hate speech laws have done so.
And if your example is one where Rowling was not arrested, it's not a very good one.
Why are you moving the goalpost now? That's pretty lame.
I am arguing that the right to free speech is a central element of a free and pluralistic society, and that allowing the government to interfere with it beyond the direct prevention of harm, such as incitement of violence, will inevitably help erode those values, as it has done countless times before. And curtailing them, even with the best intentions, is the start of doing just that.
How am I moving the goalposts? My argument this entire time is that hate speech laws are a good idea. You have given me one single example where they didn't work properly, which I still contend is about the way the laws were written, not the law itself.
Again, the fact that Bolsonaro did not abuse Brazil's hate speech laws suggests that autocrats can't do so if the laws are robust. Your lack of addressing that uncomfortable fact does not make it less of a fact.
The fact that Rowling was not arrested after trying very hard to get arrested (same with Jordan Peterson in Canada) also suggests that this is not the horrific problem you imply.
I don't want to be rude, but do you really not understand that this first small infraction isn't the issue, but the precedent it sets? One of my first comments in this increasingly exhausting thread of talking in circles was that this specific instance of interference might even be justified, but that it would open the door to unjust interference.
Just look at your own political system. Reactionary forces are constantly eroding, amending, and expanding on overreaching legislation once it is passed. And your Democrats are just as happy to make use of it too.
One great example off the top of my head is the ”temporary” patriot act, an overreaching anti terror measure that was extended for almost 20 years by various political actors, and (as far as I know) the most critical parts of it got spliced off into other legislation and made law indefinitely.
So if we open that door, and the political climate continues to polarize, chances are at some point in the reasonably near future (a few decades maybe) an authoritarian party or movement will use this ability to interfere with or outright suppress their opposition, dissidents, minorities, the citizens in general, what have you. It only takes a few complicit judges in high places to compromise even the most benevolent legislation. Guided democracy is only ironically cool in helldivers.
As for Brazil, I don't see how that has any bearing on my point. Just because a government hasn't abused or wasn't able to abuse the law this time doesn't mean that the next won't do so. Reactionary forces are always at work; patiently and silently lobbying, bribing, influencing, working to control the narrative. Always to slowly erode and subvert the system.
Anyway, I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion, you seem very set on the government policing speech and I am dead set on the opposite. We probably won't convince each other.
Yet again, the only example of this setting any sort of precedent is Germany and yet again, I contend that is because of the laws there being poorly-written.
What happened in Brazil absolutely matters because it showed that, due to the robustness of their hate speech laws, even a would-be dictator couldn't abuse them.
Badly-written laws will be badly applied no matter what those laws are.