Feels like she is trying to play a victim and implying that freedom of speech is under attack and people are jailed for opinions, when in reality it is about hurting someone.

[–] Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Her tweet was in response to an anti-hate law (Hate Crime and Public Order Act) this year, where you could spend up to 7 years in prison for example, communicating in a way "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive." So, if charged in Scotland, she could go to prison.

Though she's rich, so probably not.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe it actually is for opinions, but not in a bad way. If she had something like trigger warnings, it wouldn't hurt anyone, but it still wouldn't be ok. It's not about hurting someone, it's about spreading harmful opinions

[–] _wizard@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your statement is not correct.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Prove it. I proved the guy above me was wrong

[–] Glemek@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Not really. They asserted a thing, to which you, I think, mostly agreed with them, but in an obtuse way. Within your own comment, how would "spreading harmful opinions" not be hurting someone? Where does the harm come from?

It really just comes of as the OP giving a fairly reasonable statment about JKR probably not looking at jail time, and how they think she is probably cynically using that for clout. Then you come in saying you believe it isn't that for niche not-really-addressing-their-point reasons, which is proving them wrong on the level of say sunglasses emoji, gottem.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago

Lol, is that what you think you did?

[–] _wizard@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Nah, dude. Arguing with an idiot is never productive.