JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s not a crime to be an insufferable piece of shit. Usually. If they make an exception for her, okay then.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, but it seems like “stirring up hate” is a crime. And, as a public figure who is publicly hateful, she potentially fits that description

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yep, there really needs to be the distinction between private remarks and public instigation in free speech law.

        Otherwise you’re not protecting anything except the right of the loudest to monopolize the airwaves via intimidation of dissent and “the other”

        It’s not freedom of speech unless everyone feels safe using it, be it from fear of retaliation by the state, or by the tyranny of cousins.

        • nfh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s a delicate balancing act, but there is a sliding scale of speech acts, from the harmless, to bigoted, to hate speech, to incitement of violence.

          There’s not universal agreement on where to place the line between protected speech and public instigation, but her public comments have been drifting ever closer to that line, especially with her most recent bout of denying Nazi crimes.

          Not chilling protected speech is important, but so is enforcement against those who have crossed the line. Countries with stricter laws are generally those who have learned this the hard way.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, but it seems like “stirring up hate” is a crime. And, as a public figure who is publicly hateful, she potentially fits that description

        According to the article the law doesn’t apply in a general sense.

        It appears its written (along with another law) to only apply to an aggressor’s interaction with a specific person. So the law wouldn’t apply to Rowling’s comments from twitter about the group in general. No specifically named person is targeted.

        Also, something I just learned from this about Rowling’s Transphobia that was strange to me. She doesn’t appear to have any problem with FtM, but only problems with MtF. I have never run across someone who has such specific bigotry in this case.

        • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Nah, she’s said some awful stuff about trans men too, more paternalistic and insulting than actively hostile though. I’m not going to go looking for what she said though because I’d like to continue having a nice day.