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.
Someone already described the law but I think there should also be a good explanation why it’s not censorship. That explanation in short form is called the paradox of tolerance. If a society strives to be more tolerant they may also end up being tolerant of intolerance. That tolerance of intolerance then prevents society from becoming tolerant, that’s the paradox. So the only real course of action for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance.
Attacking someone based on their sexuality is intolerance. Thus to be tolerant those attacks cannot be tolerated, hence the law. Why people are calling it “censorship” is because those people want to be intolerant. They cry “censorship” because they’re being prevented of acting out their own form of censorship, the kind where they try for instance to censure someones sexuality. Calling this thing “censorship” is the wording of the right-wing and unless you want to associate with the right I suggest you stop calling it that. It’s not censorship, it’s being intolerant of censorship.
I think you’re onto something, but this still fits the definition of censorship. I feel like you’d have a better rebuttal if you argued that some censorship is actually good for society. I’d agree with you there, in this case. But no need try to dress it up like it isn’t censorship when it is.
It is censorship if you get into the philosophical weeds, but I don’t see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary. I also don’t see how the philosophical definition changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.
To be honest
Because censorship is a description of an action, not a judgement of it- think “killing” vs “murder”
I understand you oppose allowing speech that could lead to the rights of others being trampled. And that is a fair belief to have- it is however still censorship. Even to censor people calling for total thought control would still be censorship.
Not being allowed to kill other people also infringes on your personal freedom, is that censorship as well?
Censoring is about speech, but that is a limitation on actions.
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.
Art and a rally are both forms of speech. Speech doesn’t mean just the literal act of saying a word.
You can walk away from one and not the other.
Legality doesn’t determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.
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.
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.
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?