JK Rowling, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are fuming over Scotland’s hate crime law

If the only thing I knew about a given law is that those three complained about it I would immediately and wholeheartedly support and endorse that law. It's probably awesome and badly needed.

Haters gonna hate...

..up to and until they face real consequences for their behavior. Then they'll just whine about being treated unfairly.

I am anyways dismayed at how Joe Rogan stays relevant. He's such a moronic ape, who pushes misinformation and hate, and yet he's always at the top of the charts and half my relatives listen to him

I still can't believe Rowling ended up in the same sentence as these fucks. What the shit happened yo. Remember how happy people were when she made Dumbledore gay?

BITCH THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HATED YOU WERE RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS

professional haters don't like a hate crime law? Color me surprised.

that's how you know scotland's hate crime law is good.

They can go fuck themselves.

I did wonder what all the fuss was about. I don't live in Scotland, I live in the UK though. So it's kinda partially relevant to me. It's also relevant to JK Rowling I guess. But really not sure why Musk or Rogan feel the need to weigh in.

So, the act itself is not that long and is here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/introduction. There was also a 70+ page consultation/memorandum document that I also read (here https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/policy-memorandum-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf).

So, I think generally the law is well-meaning and a good thing. I think there were a few things I took issue with in the consultancy. Those were mainly that they had a review of the law by a lord, and a consultancy with individuals and organisations. However, they seemed to just not take into account some of the recommendations from either source when it didn't suit them.

When the consultancy didn't turn up a result they liked, they would just state that it's likely the people didn't favour hate crime law overall. Now to me that's kinda the point. If most people don't want an extension of hate crime law, and you're asking them about creating an extension of hate crime law, that consideration should have been taken into account.

I also think that Lord Bracadale raised a few good points which were also dismissed. The main one being about not including insulting as a qualifier for the new hate crime law. Here, I'd agree with what the people surveyed said. The term is far too subjective to be used in a law with such a maximum sentence. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, but I believe it should be abundantly clear when the line for breaking the law has been crossed. Saying "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting" isn't a clear objective statement. It makes it very subjective and very interpretable by the police officer(s) involved and the CPS.

Of course, none of the above is why the aforementioned people are complaining. But having read through it, those are just my concerns.

I have the same concerns about the Public Order Act (UK law, 1986) that has similar subjective definitions. However, that doesn't include "insulting" and only has a maximum sentence of 6 months and is almost always dealt with by way of a fine. So, the threshold being low and subjective isn't as concerning. This law seems to have a lower threshold to satisfy (despite the memorandum document stating it was meant to have a higher threshold than the existing laws it replaced and augmented) but a considerably longer maximum sentence (1 year summary, 7 years on indictment), which will almost certainly mean higher values in the sentencing guidelines. This is my main concern with it.

In summary, I think as an act and new law overall, it's fine and I do hope if used appropriately it will make people safer. I just feel like there's scope for over-zealous application due to the subjective language used. Time will tell I guess if that happens or not once cases and convictions start to happen.

Lol, the bigots are mad. Good.

How dare you protect a marginalized minority!

Got to admit, despite knowing next to nothing about the law, if those three are against it I am most likely going to support it.

nazis dislike law aimed at countering hate speech and harassment.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about the law. Which is to say it's clearly on the right side of history.

For a bunch of miserable whingeing bastards, the Scots are pretty progressive.

So stop being a bigot?

Why should Rogan and Musk be concerned about a law in Scotland? I can't be botheres to look up if Rowling lives in Scotland, but she's at least on the same island.At the minimum Rogan and Musk should mind their own business. As a German I also don't judge US gub laws, for example. None of my business.

It's interesting to see her timeline is full of Trump hate considering how much she hates LGBTQ

JKR actually lives there, the other two are just hate-signalling in their culture war and should mind their fucking business.

Hilariously Harry Potters world does have hate crime laws, its like a fifth of the book series.

A lot of astroturfing bots are also really mad about it as you can see with the tens of "I'm going to use this to report Humza Yousaf for anti-white racism" highest top-level comments you can see in UK subreddits right now.

The bizarre thing about Rowling is her hatred for trans people only extends to MtF trans people. She has no problem with FtM.

*Apologies, I did have these mixed up, I typed this while walking and only just read it back now.

Three dumbasses think alike.

White supremacy in action.

This is such a complicated issue. Free speech is a human right but hate speech can incite fear in targeted groups effectively silencing their voices. The Scottish hate crime law is consistent with international human rights laws which protect freedom of expression but do not protect hate speech. But they may been better served keeping hate speech within civil law. It's a balance between the freedom of expression of individuals and the freedom from harassment, discrimination and abuse of some of the most vulnerable individuals.

so is jonathan pie to be fair

Oh no

Anyway

Well they're in good company at least

If those 3 dislike something that strongly then surely it can't be that bad

Who gives a flying fuck about their opinions?

The law is silly to start with and only intended to illustrate a direction but having no powers at all. Its a huge waste of time and resources.

All three are addicts - coincidence?

Cry more emo kids, your tears are delicious.

free speech tho

Good for them.

Stand up for what you believe in.