you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]itsnotaboutewe 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I want all UK women with stickers to remember this one thing. JK Rowling has never been charged with a hate crime. She has not been cautioned about a hate crime. She hasn't even been questioned about a 'non-crime hate incident'. She is a successful and beloved children's author who is celebrated for her contribution to the literary arts and to women's and children's charities. If you put up stickers stating 'I <HEART> JK ROWLING' you can be done for vandalism but nothing more. You cannot be done for a hate crime or hate incident for stickers supporting a respected member of the community who has never been charged with hate herself.

[–]jet199 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not sure that's right.

Hate speech in the UK depends on if the victim (or even an unrelated person observing) thought hate was involved. Hate doesn't have to be legally proved. Lived experience and all that.

Likely they haven't gone after JK Rowling because they are scared of her lawyers not because they wouldn't have a case. Certainly the CPS is actively looking for cases to get a precedent for transphobia as a hate crime.

This is why hate speech laws are a bad idea all over.

[–]itsnotaboutewe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How can saying you love JK Rowling be considered hate, though? If the theory is that Rowling is hateful, so support for her is hateful, then her hate must be in evidence. If Rowling has not even been questioned about hate how can someone be cited for hate just for supporting her? The stickers do not state why the person loves her. Can a supporter not love her for her charity work? For her writing? Hate speech, hate crime, and hate incidents cannot hold where there is no hate in evidence nor any whiff of ill will.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

As I say you don't have to prove hate.

There's no point worrying about how it could be hateful, that really doesn't matter.

All that's necessary is that someone else finds it hateful or offensive.

We need to repeal these laws.

As I've said elsewhere, this TRA stuff is just symptoms of bigger problems. Stop supporting stuff just because it seems nice, look cold and hard at all the consequences.

[–]squintypreyeyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're telling me someone can take another to court, and they don't have to make a case or demonstrate anything? Just claim that they were offended? I straight up don't believe you.