J.K. Rowling will not be arrested for comments about transgender women, police say
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.
But will she continue bitching about it like Jordan Peterson still does about the law in Canada that he didn't get arrested for supposedly violating?
She did send Harry Potter into the ladies toilet though 🤔
She also said she created Harry because she wanted to be a boy.
If She is not against transgender men. Then she may want everyone to be a boy.
https://medium.com/queertheory/harry-potter-transgender-hero-83094e02cd25
“I was supposed to be a boy,” she notes in A Year in the Life, a 2007 documentary
Oh my goodness, that’s a tragic tale that explains so much. Back story really does make a difference in perspective, but she’s still a massive anal fissure of a person for alienating others and perpetuating the suffering she was passed.
Yeah if the most dramatic interpretation of all that is true, and I’m not saying it is, it’s not an excuse. A lot of the worst things done at anti gay conversion groups are done by people who objectively experience significant same gender attraction. That doesn’t absolve the straight people who taught them to hate themselves but their self hate manifests as torturing those who don’t hate themselves. It’s still evil to torture them no matter why you do it.
Oh, it's the trans version of being gay is a choice i guess...
Would explain a lot, because to most transppl the thought of someone wanting to be what they were assigned at birth makes no sense whatsoever. But regardless it's not hard to accept that others might feel like you do but in reverse. Shows one hell of a lack of empathy to then conclude that must mean anyone claiming they do want to must have ulterior motives.
Maybe that at least means there's hope for her to realize what kind of bs she's spouting, but she's probably a lost cause.
It's sad watching you people twist your brains into knots to avoid realizing that some people don't agree with you.
This has nothing to do with not agreeing with people.
Misinterpreted the law and went on a campaign about how he'd protest it and go on some sort of hunger strike like a martyr. Everyone that platformed him during that time owes everyone an apology.
100%
So many bigots suffer from perpetual victimhood.
A law is a strong as its enforcement. Without enforcement, it's just political posturing.
What makes laws strong is precedent and this law doesn't have any. Her case is too flimsy and we don't want her to set precedent since she has infinite lawyers to defend her. Its better to get more solid cases first and then go after her when there is solid precedent.
Bingo. Just wanted to thank you for saying this
It's better not to persecute people just because you disagree with them.
It's sad how you people are literally pushing for a world where someone can get arrested for not calling a trans woman a woman.
You're going to make way more enemies than friends with that rhetoric, trust me.
Hello baby account that was created in order to comment on this thread but is also asking me to trust you.
The bill does not say that people will be arrested for "Not calling trans women women". it's the fucking Jordan Peterson thing again. You need to make clear threats towards the group and calling for the group to be abused to the same standard required by individual harassment charges.
So what's the problem? She's not making clear threats to the group or calling for them to be abused, but people in this thread still think she should be arrested.
Why do you think I want to defend the opinions of people that isn't me? Go reply to their comments instead you weird little goblin.
Why are you insulting me? Lol.
If you don't agree with them, then why are you commenting?
You are correct, but laws like this do not need to be enforced. This is draconian.
Hilarious that this wretched lump of hate is being a crybully about how she’s supposedly putting herself in legal danger, even though she sends legal threats to people in the UK who call her a TERF. And I do mean people posting shit on Twitter, not newspapers publishing stories about her. “Free speech” (the right to incite hatred against minorities) for me but not for thee.
She sends legal threats to people who write books about child wizards going to wizard school.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/06/harry-potter-and-the-international-order-of-copyright.html
She wants to invent news laws to push on others and make herself a martyr against one that already exists.
Does she think there weren't wizard school books until she had the idea of one???
Apparently.
She knows there were some, if I'm not mistaken, she admits she was directly inspired by one. I guess she just wants more money and power over people.
Why would she object to being a TERF? Isn't she pretty open about her beliefs?
TERFs love to play this game where TERF is actually a misogynistic slur, even when it completely accurately describes their bigotry. It reframes them as victims of misogyny instead of bigots.
Do they pretend that they don't hate trans women? Is this like the "I'm not racist, but..." people?
No. They pretend that acknowledging trans women erases womanhood itself and is the ultimate mysogyny.
Depends on the audience, very often they will pay lip service to the idea that trans people shouldn’t be criminalized out of existence, and then with a more fashy audience just start goose stepping and talking about all the ways trans people should be criminalized out of existence. Even JKR has done that song and dance, saying that “if trans people were oppressed” she would march for them. 🙄
Rowling has done that, yeah.
She's literally said that she'd march with trans people if our rights were under attack, whilst attacking our rights.
She’d rather be remembered as the biggest FART in history.
Fascism-Affinitized-Radical-Transphobe?
Notice how they said
And not
Scottish Cops are still Cops I guess
The tweet makes it plainly obvious where she stands regarding trans people. Disgusting.
Im ashamed to admit that I thought the previous allegations against her were wrong and only based on maliciously misinterpreted tweets.
Yeah, two years ago I was kinda not sure what the issue was not actually following the thing too closely. Then I watched Shaun's video essay on YouTube, discussed with some trans friends about the issue and started checking her twitter.
She literally only tweets about trans people all day every day and often insinuates they are rapists/pedo etc.
She's crazy.
Yeah me too. She's become what they said she was it seems.
This TERF needs to just accept that she's not relevant anymore. She is just a washed up, miserable person and not even her bottomless wallet can bring her happiness.
You say this yet people keep throwing money at her. Studios and HP fans alike.
She is still unfortunately relevant to a huge swath of people
That’s why I sail the seven sees, especially if it’s about content she might get royalties from.
But also, there hasn’t been anything good since the first fantastic beasts movie…
Also also, I made harry potter themed fuck JK pins, so a few lgbtq friends of mine could still wear their hp merch without endorsing her.
Now have a poor person say the exact same shit and report that
She should really check on the other laws to see if they’ll be enforced, too.
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.
Not everyone is a free speech extremist like many Americans. When the idea of free speech was developed, it was to protect political speech from legal consequences, not to guard some kind of right to incite hatred or violence towards minorities. These ideas are very different and shouldn't be conflated.
I am not an American, in fact I am German, a country which actually has restrictions on free speech in place.
Nowadays we use it to squash anti Israel protests.
That's exactly how I'd expect a government to use this. It's not a good path
Yeah thats not a free speech issue, that's a German national guilt gone mad issue.
Indeed, which only strengthens my point.
I fully support Palestine and yet I'm 100% OK with Germans having the sense to keep their opinions to themselves on the matter.
We don't keep our opinions to ourselves, we dissolve demonstrations for Palestine and arrest even Jews who speak out against the genocide. We also confiscate their assets.
Good. Germany's input on this one matter isn't helpful.
So we should oppress citizens and their rights if they do a public wrongthink. Gotcha
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.
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.
You can ignore progess all you want, that doesn’t erase it’s existence.
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.
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.
We have hate speech laws where I live. 99% of us don't even realize it because 99% of us aren't running around being bigots and calling for the extermination of groups of people based on race, gender, etc. You only need to worry about those laws if you're the kind of person who those laws are in place for. Nobody is gonna arrest you if you're a bigot, but if you're standing on a street corner calling for blood you just might
The issue with this thought is that when the party you hate comes into power they just might decide to add their own groups to these type of laws. Would you be ok if people got arrested for protesting against Trump?
That's why you have multiple instances such laws have to go through. It would all work so much better if people would vote, too.
That's a stupid-ass take, as they could do it regarless...
Lol no it's not, it's why no one dumb enough is willing to pack the courts. They know what happens if the other side gets in control again. Might work out for 2-4 years but after that it's anyone's guess on how much damage the other side will do.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.
Freedom of speech is, very much so, the freedom of consequences from the government for anything you are saying. In fact that is pretty much the textbook definition.
The consequences are for other citizens to mete out, like ostracizing bigots. But fundamentally the government has no right to police what anyone says, aside from inciting of violence and such.
To a large extent I agree, but i think anti slander laws are a generally accepted precedent that limit what people can say to or about another person. It's possible that the new law follows similar logic, and is intended to prevent harm in much the same way.
So telling an entire group of people, who some of them used your books as a safe escape from the bullying they suffered in the real world, that you think they are vile, disgusting and shouldn't exist, is just simply being disrespectful?
I believe that once you become part of the global zeitgeist you should be held more accountable for your words and actions, like old racist Jimmy Noneck down at a local bar can't encite hate and violence on the same level as a global household name can.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence.
It isnt freedom of consequence. It is freedom from the government interfering or penalizing you for what you are saying. The consequences are for the civil society to determine, but never the government.
Hate crime laws were because of civil society, that's how this system works, these laws always came after some sort of civil unrest.
Plus we're not talking about a random normal person like us, were talking about someone who has a global reach and some power to wield, they should be held responsible for what they say, she can get someone hurt or killed way easier than you and I could.
Yeah the law could be tweaked a bit, like all laws, but to leave it up to society to dish it out is, in my opinion, a bit more dangerous.
Would you still say this if some rando inspired by this cunt's incessant endorsement of anti-trans rhetoric assaults or murder someone?
I'd say that's a matter for civil courts and the legal system to deal with. Not the government
And that wasn't a hypothetical scenario.
https://pridesource.com/article/in-the-wake-of-brianna-gheys-murder-its-time-to-reexamine-trans-news-coverage
Newsflash: The government passes the laws that are interpreted by the legal system.
So the new law is not enforce? or is it only for the plebs?
TL;Dr like everything else TERFs whine about the law doesn't mean what they think it means
This is a good thing, the law is draconian. Thatcher would have loved it.
Oh I agree it's a shit law, but if you are going to have shit laws make sure they apply evenly. I also have a personal vendetta against JKR. HP was just crappy Stsr Wars fanfic, and she is a trashcan of a human being.
Thatcher hated trans people and Rowling is a Holocaust denier. what do we gain by allowing her to continue spewing hateful rhetoric to a massive audience?
We have far too much to lose by allowing the government to dictate what people can and can not say.
so you'd rather lose the trans people to violence or suicide than regulate hate speech against them?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I don't wish anyone harm, but I will always choose the right to speak freely over what a governing body considers "safe".
This is literally not news. It's literally not something happening.
Arrest her anyway, call it the Rowling challenge.
On a side note, what is with all those fake, AI generated, car ads down at the bottom?
Crazy how many people in here agree that you should be punished by the government for things you say
She looks like Putin in a wig and seems to share his views too.
Coincidence?
I've never seen them in the same room together, just saying.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
This whole law is absurd and draconian.
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.
Sorry but is free speech dead or something? If this constitutes a crime then I have no hope for the human race anymore!
If you are popular person you must keep in mind that your words could ruin someone's life. She cherry picks people here that "changed" gender to avoid man prison but in reality those are outliers. In the process, she is putting negative light on a whole group of people. This is similar to what politicians do to manipulate groups of people for votes
Does the new law account for how famous one is?
Based on your comment, this is doing the exact same thing that you are blaming her of: Enforcing a law on everyone when it should apply to a minority of people who have a massive following
I am not familiar with law there, I just commented based on common logic and my human decency expectations. Imo, all hate should be equally punished, but non public hate will obviously be harder to pinpoint
This is all a reaction to a new law in Scotland, as described in the actual post above:
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.
It is a vague definition, but people have been using it to go after JK Rowling for her stance on transgender people . I am not taking sides and not saying that her opinions are right, but I am just saying that people should be allowed to have and state their own opinion. It is the individuals responsibility to evaluate that opinion, and decide for or against it, not any law. Also a law should apply to everyone and not only to people who have a massive followage.
The same law prohibits age hatred. If it was to be enforced like people here want it to, you'd get penalised for calling someone a boomer. Or maybe calling someone disabled instead of a person with a disabillty
Sure its wrong but you can't go around regulating people like that
Sure thing, boomer. Go take your meds before you turn to dust.
Exactly! You should be allowed to call me a boomer without fearing that id call the police on you.
So what you're saying is that it's okay for me to call you a braindead moron-ass motherfucker with your own head lodged up your wide and prolapsed asshole destroyed by years of sitting on rightwing dick?
Are you saying you should be fined for it? Or just that you should be fined only if you have over X followers?
I'm saying you're an idiot for having that opinion
This is exactly how it should be! You shouldn't be able to call the police on me for having it though or on anyone else for having an opinion that you don't agree with. This is the main topic of this discussion.