The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men in a series of social media posts.

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.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.worldEnglish
    252·
    9 months ago

    No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime. Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society. They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice. Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      612·
      9 months ago

      No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime.

      I’m not sure there is a difference with this law.

      Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society.

      I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.

      They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice.

      What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.

      Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

      Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn’t be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.

      A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive,” with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.