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
23259 readers
2946 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
I strongly disagree. some opinions are literally harmful to express. the narrative that trans women are dangerous, predators, or not really their gender, is hate speech. it is statistically linked to increased violence against trans people, especially when coming from someone with a huge platform. it's unclear whether Rowling actively intends to cause harm, but she has been associating with literal Nazis lately. we should respect each other's opinions, sure, but when people hold exclusionary opinions, we have to decide whether their right to spout hatred is more important than trans people's right to safety, comfort, and wellbeing. I choose the wellbeing of the trans community over Rowling's right to bigotry.
"we have to decide whether their right to spout hatred is more important than trans people's right to safety, comfort, and wellbeing."
In no uncertain terms, it is imperative that we do not allow any governing body to decide what we can and can not say. What is and isn't dangerous, what is and isn't hate, can not and should not be legislated, or we will be robbed of our voices lest dissent be considered dangerous, or hatred. It won't be long until calling the police "pig" is a hate crime and criticizing your leaders sedition.
Shun them, malign them, discredit, and mock them publicly, but I can never see the good in giving the government the ability to punish someone for their speech, no matter how vehemently it goes against modern paradigm.
so you suggest completely deregulating hate speech, then? how about direct incitement of violence? how about slander and defamation?
there are many restrictions on "freedom of speech" already, and it's not like anyone is complaining that people calling in bomb threats shouldn't get arrested. there NEED to be restrictions on speech. imagine if advertisers could just lie with no repercussions, or if you could state your intent to kill someone and it would be illegal to arrest you until you actually do it.
calling a policeman a pig is not hate speech. it is hateful, but there's a big difference between calling a cop a pig and misgendering or using slurs against trans people.
minority groups are especially vulnerable to hate speech and there are already laws in place to protect them from certain kinds of speech. this is especially true with trans people, as we have seen their suicide rate linked very clearly with the presence of hate and absence of support.
we can say "the repercussions must only be social" but that leaves it up to the people to enforce it. what about minorities living surrounded by people who don't support them? are they supposed to just grin and bear it? for a trans person, this could easily and quickly drive them to suicide.
I will never advocate that simple (especially accidental) misgendering should be grounds for arresting somebody. but these acts, when done intentionally, actively spread hate, misinformation, and tangible harm which touches the lives of trans people. this is why we must choose which is more important: the lives and safety of these trans people, or the comfort and "freedom" of people who want to see them eradicated. your freedom ends where it would violate another person's freedom or basic rights.
this choice has been made on many other matters, which I touched on before. we have repeatedly found that certain kinds of speech are harmful enough to warrant legal repercussions. refusing to regulate this kind of hate speech just takes the side of the oppressor; it means trans people have no recourse and it becomes easy to spread massive misinformation campaigns (as Republicans are currently doing) which directly leads to people dying (dozens of anti trans laws have been passed in dozens of states, and those states have extremely high trans suicide rates).
why do we need to respect the opinion of someone whose opinion is "trans people should die or go to jail"?
"this is why we must choose which is more important: the lives and safety of these trans people, or the comfort and "freedom" of people who want to see them eradicated"
This is a strawman and a false dichotomy. Legislation restricting speech is overreaching and dangerous to a free society. I, and many others, do not trust the government with that kind of power. Today, it's trans people, tomorrow it's soldiers and police and politicians suddenly beyond critique, on pain of government punishment. Anyone can become a "protected class" when it's convenient to the ones writing the rules.
Yes, it should be social only. If that society sees the speech as unacceptable, they'll react accordingly. If not, they won't. Society is capable of handling itself, even if it sometimes makes choices we don't personally agree with.
There is no scenario where giving the government further power into the lives of citizens a good idea. Every time we've tried that, things have only gotten worse. The PATRIOT ACT all but demolished the 4th amendment. Something like this would be similar for the 1st.