We have previously discussed the growing anti-free speech movement in Scotland with the expanding criminalization of political and religious speech. The new Scottish law is a perfect nightmare for free speech, expanding the potential of a jail sentence for merely insulting language. In response, author JK Rowling has taken a stand and dared the Scottish police to come and arrest her for criticizing transgender status.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 illustrates how these laws create a slippery slope of speech criminalization as more and more speech is banned. We previously discussed the law when it was first introduced.
The new crime covers “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything reasonably “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”
It is enough that a person is found to have likely understood that the comments would be abusive or insulting as opposed to intending to be abusive or insulting.
For that ill-defined crime, you can be sent to jail for seven years. Police officers are currently being given a two-hour training program to enforcing the law.
On April 1, Rowling posted a reference to various trans campaigners and other individuals as women. She then ended the thread with “April Fools! Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren’t women at all, but men, every last one of them.”
She stated “Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal.”
Even if meant as a joke, Scottish censorship laws have never been a laughing matter with comedians raising objections.
That could clearly fall within the law. The law is so broad that it allows arbitrary enforcement. To that end, Rowling made it plain:
“I’m currently out of the country, but if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.#arrestme.”
Well done
“Hume objected that morality was used to cut off opposing views, noting ‘I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.’”
That’s an odd use of Hume’s quote — which is in fact the premise for today’s censors.
Hume severs moral values (an “ought”) from reason and facts (an “is”). Thus he makes morality the purview of emotions (what he calls “sentiments”). That is precisely what the censors in Scotland (and elsewhere) are arguing: In the name of being sensitive to the feelings of the disabled, trans activists, et al. — halt your criticisms, or else.
“laws as stringent as those founds in Iran, Russia, and China”. Exactly to which laws do you refer? Russia, China, Iran; todays top boogeymen. Where did North Korea go? You’re almost as bad as Tucker Carlson with his China!, China! China!
The President and hopefully the next, has had a gag order placed on his speech. If they are allowed that, then they can attempt to limit our speech as well. Wake up!
Evidently Orwellian prophecy, is not an IOUmerica phenomenon. The “Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts, absolutely” saying rings true again.
The anti-speech laws proliferating in Europe and Canada are reminiscent of both 1984 and The Empire of Star Wars. When you allow a government to punish speech, you also allow the government to define what constitutes “wrong” or “bad” speech. Once that power is given away, it is nearly impossible to claw back.
I thought being arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic was the worst, but perhaps being thrown into prison for 7 years for making a social media post that children should not be castrated, or that men cannot become women, would be worse.
If we do not vote wisely, there go we.
Excellent points, Karen. Wasn’t the First Amendment’s prohibition against abridging speech meant to keep the government out of the censorship business? Point is, they wouldn’t dare touch JK Rowling given her notoriety, but the average Scotsman/woman would be arrested and prosecuted no doubt based on the UK’s track record of being a leader in censorship in the West.
There are two public figures on the Left who have taken a stand that I quite admire. One is JK Rowling, who of course has declared the emperor has no clothes in the transgender debacle. She firmly insists that a man cannot become a woman. He may surgically change himself to more closely approximate the appearance of a woman, but he is not a woman. She has defended women’s sports against biological male competitors, and resisted the temptation to go along to get along with the woke mob.
Then there is John Fetterman, D-PA, who steadfastly supports Israel. I have many policy disagreements with Fetterman, and I strongly believe that he should have dropped out of the race when he suffered a stroke, rather than hide his condition. However, it took great courage for Fetterman to buck the woke antisemitic mob of the Left, and defend Israel’s right to destroy the genocidal terrorist group Hamas that has pledged to kill all Jews, and was responsible for Oct 7.
Both of these people have planted their feet against the current, and are speaking truth to power. It does not matter that I disagree with them on other things. In this, I applaud them wholeheartedly.
We need JK Rowling to do battle with Scotland over free speech, because the average woman would have just been arrested and rotted in prison for believing in biology. Maybe JK Rowling will be our Joan of Arc on this women’s issue, with a hopefully better ending.
So here is the question—is it ok for those subject to prosecutions for these things to resist violently?
Here’s something awesome, OT: https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/04/01/christine-blasey-ford-was-no-hero-says-wapo-n3785760
The American Founders declared constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities to be natural and God-given.
That which is natural and God-given is universal.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are universal.
Scotland and all nations are part of the universe and must, by all logic and reason, enjoy and codify the natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities revealed in and conferred by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Subjugated and putrid nations that reject freedom and accept Karl Marx’s motto, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” must, in turn, accept Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat,” central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, social engineering,” and the entire Communist Manifesto.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Well than, O’er shooes, o’er boots. And In for a Penny, in for a Pound.”
– “Canterbury Guests,” Thomas Ravenscroft, 1695
Something for JK to remind her people.
When I was a boy, the priest, my uncle, carefully inculcated upon me this proverb, which I then learned and have ever since kept in my mind: ‘Dico tibi verum, Libertas optima rerum; Nunquam servili, sub nexu vivito, fili.’ ‘I tell you a truth: Liberty is the best of things, my son; never live under any slavish bond.’
William Wallace
I have too many thoughts about this as it relates generationally and politically and how political folks seek to exploit what they see to make much sense in a long comment. Suffice it say: what is happening in Europe is happening because they do not have our codified 1A and 2A. Protect these at all cost. They are literally *THE* line, along with our courts, and our division of powers, between us and the rest of the Western world, and it’s why the globalists are so keen to destroy them, which they attempt to do seemingly monthly if not weekly, and make no mistake: our modern dems are part of a globalist regime. This is no longer an American party, and they don’t give two poops for your freedom or your rights, let alone your right to just live in peace and contribute to society in your own way.
I think about the day Nelson Mandela was released, an historic moment; anyone conjoined to the left in 2024 should be ashamed of themselves, but they are incapable of shame; if not for narcissism, or social standing, simply because they are cowards incapable of expressing original thought, even if they have them (that is another symptom of fascist suppression/indoctrination, folks). It has been simultaneously fascinating and terrifying to watch what has happened to modern ‘liberals’. You are all the Indian Givers you’ve always been. everything is just fine until you are uncomfortable, and then you pick the nearest easy target to blame rather than your own idiocy. This is the problem with blind adherence to dogma, and it is no different than the Taliban deciding they need to stone women in public again. ‘Progressives’, my a**. You are regressives in every sense of the word, and the fact that it’s largely been designed to preserve your privilege – pfft. Go blow. Some of us have been trying to figure out what the hell has been going on since 1977, and that was made very clear in 2008. The current occupants of the White House have dragged us backward by literal decades.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
A “GAG” ORDER IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis in the Supreme Court.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has no power to modify or amend the Constitution.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has no power to deny constitutional rights and freedoms.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan is committing a crime of high office.
This trial, over one of the innumerable ubiquitous NDAs in America, is totally corrupt and political through and through.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Two major Democratic clients of the daughter of the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush-money trial have raised at least $93 million in campaign donations — and used the case in their solicitation emails — raising renewed concerns that the jurist has a major conflict of interest.”
“Trump’s attorneys are considering filing another motion demanding Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan recuse himself from the trial set to begin April 15, sources said.
“The judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser.”
– New York Post
If there is not impropriety with Merchan’s continued control of this litigation, there is certainly the APPEARANCE of impropriety. And the appearance of impropriety requires his removal – on his own motion or at the direction of the appellate court.
Article 19 (they take a while to get to this one) of the UN declaration of human rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
—- the global, globalist, aka communist, UN.
Support of the UN constitutes degradation of the United States of America and support for communism.
The UN is invalid, illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional.
Use their crap against them, that is what they do to the sane world.
You cant shame the Shameless. Using their own words against them is howling into a hurricane. You know it happened, but you are the only one.
What passes as a reasonable person these days? As far as I can tell only us dinosaurs who are not demented are reasonable. I have read and studied the constitution and the declaration of independence, a better than average understanding of history back 5+ millenia, world wide traveler and lived from japan to Germany and multiple spots in the US and that has taught me that no one group or person has all the answers to all the questions. Also I have discovered long ago that slogans are not answers just handy for shouting crowds.
That makes me think I am reasonable as are most, but not all, of the people posting on this blog. A law that depends on the action of a “reasonable” person is no longer a well defined statute.
GEB,
Having read what some argue on the good professor’s blog, does bring into question what “. . . passes as a reasonable person these days?”
Hired Turley troll says what?
So you don’t have gainful employment and/or are independently wealthy?
I can see why you would be unhireable.
Reputable websites don’t have hired trolls, you flaming moron. And Turley has a BUNCH of them, and they hang out here all day, every day.
Yup. And the definition of “reasonable person” is whatever the government says it is and we know that since reasonable is usually considered connected to common sense, there are fewer and fewer reasonable people these days and certainly none in government.
I was thinking, isn’t this legislating morality?
One thing comes to mind about this new law in Scotland that goes deeper and longer than any comment on Trans people or others has to do with Scots football (Soccer to us Americans) fans. The two iconic teams in the country are the Rangers (the Protestant team) and the Celtics (the Roman Catholic team). Does wearing a scarf with the fan’s favored colors constitute “hate speech”? Does it also have a tinge of ethnic rivalry since many of the Celtic fans while living and even born in Scotland could be of Gaelic Irish heritage? Just asking. But during the course of match would not most if not all the fans in the Stadium be guilty of mild to strong hate speech since the many of usual cheers would praise or demean the religious persuasion if not the ethnic heritage of the other team’s loyal fans?