this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
547 points (92.0% liked)

World News

38583 readers
2294 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It was no April Fool’s joke.

Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.

Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.

Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So suppressing a rally is not censorship? Burning art is not censorship? Censorship has historically applied mostly to speech and literature and as such is generally associated with those two things, but censorship can be far more abstract and in it's most abstract form applies to any form of expression of an idea. In that sense the limitation isn't speech, it's the act of expression.

And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence? The only real difference is that if done one causes physical damage while the other causes mental/emotional damage. The intent and outcome of that action is the same, to harm someone. So how come you consider one censorship and not the other? Simply because the method of expression is different?

To put your defense of censorship very bluntly. You think it's not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it's okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves? Because the latter is essentially what you are defending by calling limiting language of that nature as censorship.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Art and a rally are both forms of speech. Speech doesn't mean just the literal act of saying a word.

And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence?

You can walk away from one and not the other.

You think it's not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it's okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves?

Legality doesn't determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn't mean I think it's okay.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

Art and a rally are both forms of speech.

Speech is when words are coming out of your mouth. Art, rallying and speech are all forms of expression. Art can contain speech but doesn't have to, rallying can contain speech but doesn't have to.

You can walk away from one and not the other.

Because walking is a physical activity and when you take physical damage your physical capabilities can be hindered. Just because you can walk away from something doesn't mean it didn't do any damage.

Legality doesn’t determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.

But morality generally determines legality. The vast majority of our laws originate from what we as a society deem morally acceptable. It's not morally acceptable to kill someone hence it's illegal to kill someone. If you think it's not morally acceptable to tell someone to kill themselves until they do why should it be legally acceptable?