• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rowling actually proves my point about cancel culture, in that it's selective outrage dressed up as a concern about broader free speech rights. None of these reactionary dweebs that whine about cancel culture have made a peep about a rich lady using her immense wealth to threaten people with dubious libel lawsuits, because this is exactly the kind of hierarchy and restriction to speech that these supposed free speech warriors are perfectly comfortable with.

Rowling actually proves that lying for Jesus crosses the political divide. You've no problems with her suing the Daily Heil, so a single case about not being called a child abuser is somehow... something I guess?
 
Rowling actually proves that lying for Jesus crosses the political divide. You've no problems with her suing the Daily Heil, so a single case about not being called a child abuser is somehow... something I guess?

I cited two examples of her deciding a Twitter flame war warranted a legal threat, you may have missed it.
 
Rowling actually proves my point about cancel culture, in that it's selective outrage dressed up as a concern about broader free speech rights. None of these reactionary dweebs that whine about cancel culture have made a peep about a rich lady using her immense wealth to threaten people with dubious libel lawsuits, because this is exactly the kind of hierarchy and restriction to speech that these supposed free speech warriors are perfectly comfortable with.

I can't think of a more perfect example of Cancel Culture, than accusing someone of Nazism without any justification.
 
A second occasion in which Rowling has resulted in legal threats to silence her critics on Twitter.



https://www.tricitynews.com/local-news/jk-rowling-threatens-legal-action-against-coquitlam-transgender-activist-over-tweets-3123135

Except she hasn't been silenced. She took down one specific tweet, because it did in fact contain defamatory implications, but she's absolutely still criticizing Rowling, and those tweets are still up. She's still calling Rowling transphobic, and that insult isn't being taken down. Hell, Rowling isn't even asking her to take it down. Do you think Spurling's free speech rights have been noticeably impacted by not being able to suggest that Rowling molests children? Does that really constitute silencing?
 
I can't think of a more perfect example of Cancel Culture, than accusing someone of Nazism without any justification.

You and I probably have a very similar definition of cancel culture then, because as far as I can tell it just means "certain kinds of criticism from certain people I don't agree with".

If you actually care about free speech, obviously the gravest offense in this dust up is the threat of litigation over opinionated speech.
 
Except she hasn't been silenced. She took down one specific tweet, because it did in fact contain defamatory implications, but she's absolutely still criticizing Rowling, and those tweets are still up. She's still calling Rowling transphobic, and that insult isn't being taken down. Hell, Rowling isn't even asking her to take it down. Do you think Spurling's free speech rights have been noticeably impacted by not being able to suggest that Rowling molests children? Does that really constitute silencing?

Sure, it could be worse. She's still sending out dubious legal threats to squash negative opinions she doesn't like. That's censorious behavior whether you agree with her generally or not.
 
For my part, it's a matter of turnaround is fair play. I'd love it if cancel culture wasn't a thing. But it's not up to me. And if it is a thing, then it should be applied to the left too, not just the right. So bring it on. Cancel all the left until they cry uncle, and agree to do away with it. Or if you prefer, Alinsky's rule 4.

I'm not aware of frivolous litigation being traditionally one of the things considered "cancel culture", however dubiously defined it may be. It's a much older, more conventional form of censorship. It's less "turnabout is fair play" and more "rich people have always been able to deploy battalions of lawyers at people who dare criticize them".

Turnabout as fair play would have been Rowling trying to get a critic fired or otherwise ostracized, this is something quite different.
 
You and I probably have a very similar definition of cancel culture then, because as far as I can tell it just means "certain kinds of criticism from certain people I don't agree with".

If you actually care about free speech, obviously the gravest offense in this dust up is the threat of litigation over opinionated speech.

We do have laws against slander, and if one is falsely accused of things that seriously damage their reputation and ability to make a living, then lawsuits are in order. Let the courts decide if the speech is dishonest slander or not. And if a judge feels the case or cases are frivolous and abusive, let there be punishment.
 
None of these reactionary dweebs that whine about cancel culture have made a peep about a rich lady using her immense wealth to threaten people with dubious libel lawsuits, because this is exactly the kind of hierarchy and restriction to speech that these supposed free speech warriors are perfectly comfortable with.
If you believe that is it wrong to falsely accuse a public figure of promoting Nazism, what would you say we should implement as a socially sanctioned remedy? It sort of amazes me that you compare trying to get someone to retract false claims to trying to get someone fired or deplatformed or what-have-you. It's not all that painful to retract a false claim, and moreover it is the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
If you believe that is it wrong to falsely accuse a public figure of promoting Nazism, what ought to be the socially sanctioned remedy? It sort of amazes me that you compare trying to get someone to retract false claims to trying to get someone fired or deplatformed or what-have-you. It's not all that painful to retract a false claim, and moreover it is the right thing to do.

Don't play dumb, do you really believe this person removed the claim because they had an honest mea culpa, or because they realized that, even if they ultimately were victorious, they could not afford an expensive defamation lawsuit?

Rowling already had a non-censorious option. She could criticize the criticism as being overheated or badly reasoned. Hell, a lot of people would agree with her.
 
Last edited:
Sure, it could be worse. She's still sending out dubious legal threats to squash negative opinions she doesn't like. That's censorious behavior whether you agree with her generally or not.


It strikes me that if Rowling were actually as evil as they say she is, then men’s rights activists wouldn’t have to lie about her. They could just tell the truth and expect everyone to agree with them. But they don’t do that.

When women’s rights proponents want people to dislike Andrew Tate, they just point to the stuff he’s actually said and done. Seems like a better strategy.
 
...do you really believe this person removed the claim because they had an honest mea culpa, or because they realized that, even if they ultimately were victorious, they could not afford an expensive defamation lawsuit?
I suggest a one-for-one swap; I'll answer the above question if you answer mine.

If you believe that is it wrong to falsely accuse a public figure of promoting Nazism, what ought to be the socially sanctioned remedy?

It almost sounds as if you don't believe there should be any legal remedy for defamation whatsoever, but I don't want to assume you really believe that.

ETA: Here is an interesting case on point. What should this Labour MP have done, after being accused of promoting Nazi imagery?
 
Last edited:
How about a swap; I'll answer this question if you answer mine.

It's often quite embarrassing to be known as the person who casually and wrongly throws around such insults. People who don't think Rowling is Nazi aligned probably think less of this person as of a result of the insult. A loss of credibility (in some eyes) strikes me as a perfectly reasonable corrective.
 
What ought to be the socially sanctioned remedy? Are you saying that the UK should roll back libel law entirely, or only in the special case of people who accuse TERFs of doing Nazism?
 
Last edited:
What ought to be the socially sanctioned remedy? Are you saying that the UK should roll back libel law entirely, or only in the special case of people who accuse TERFs of doing Nazism?

The UK probably ought to bring their libel standards up to something similar to the better ones seen in some states in the US, specifically with anti-SLAPP laws.

It's really hard to see how threatening litigation on someone for claiming you're nazi-aligned is a good outcome of the legal system. The public courts should not be used as hired muscle to shut up critics.

The socially sanctioned remedy to non-defamatory speech is more speech. Rowling could have just called this person an ******* and been done with it. Or done nothing at all. It's pretty wild how thin-skinned she is on these issues, shining a spotlight of relative nobodies who have nasty opinions about her.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty wild how thin-skinned she is on these issues, shining a spotlight of relative nobodies who have nasty opinions about her.


You still haven’t let us know how many people Rowling has sued (or threatened to sue). If she’s as thin-skinned as you say, it must be a pretty huge number, given the number and nature of the lies MRAs say about her.
 
The socially sanctioned remedy to non-defamatory speech is more speech.
Do you sincerely believe it is "non-defamatory speech" to say "Rowling is Nazi aligned" in the UK? I doubt that would be true even here in the United States.

TurkeysGhost said:
...do you really believe this person removed the claim because they had an honest mea culpa, or because they realized that, even if they ultimately were victorious, they could not afford an expensive defamation lawsuit?
The sort of people who casually throw around false accusations of Nazism are not known for mea culpas, in my experience.
 
Last edited:
Do you sincerely believe it is "non-defamatory" to say "Rowling is Nazi aligned" even here in the States?

yes, it's opinion based on disclosed facts, it's obviously non-defamatory.

This specific kind of thing has been tested, the ACLU cites three different similar examples:

Courts around the country have held that individuals cannot be sued for calling out the views of others as racist, fascist, homophobic, radical, or sexist. As we and the Center for Constitutional Rights explained in a friend-of-the-court brief we submitted last week in support of SPLC, such statements of opinion criticizing hateful or bigoted views lie at the core of First Amendment protection. They enable us to express ourselves (including our disgust), they animate our political discussion, and they offer us a tool to persuade others. For debate on political issues to flourish, we must be able to express our views about the prejudices of others without fearing that a defamation lawsuit could arise from our words.

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/theres-no-such-thing-right-not-be-called-nazi
 
Last edited:
You still haven’t let us know how many people Rowling has sued (or threatened to sue). If she’s as thin-skinned as you say, it must be a pretty huge number, given the number and nature of the lies MRAs say about her.

At least 2, which strikes me as a lot. Any number of threats to sue is a lot, it's a very strange thing to do. What do you consider an inordinate amount of threats to sue?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom