It’s not irrelevant. What you said, is that it should be perfectly fine to insult someone, and within certain parameters it is. You can say all sorts of insulting things about people. What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person). Beyond that Rowling is a public figure with a large audience which means she is, or should be aware that her comments have a greater influence than the general public. She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane’s safety at risk. That’s certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person).
Agreed.
My incentive to argue that this is not a limitation of speech is that if you use this as an argument that limitation of speech is OK, then that’ll spread to other possible limitations of speech. While this can be banned similarly to how poisoning people being illegal is not a legal limitation of cuisine.
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
My point is that you can’t ban people who in your opinion are wrong. “For the general good” is not a justification, pun intended since we are discussing Rowling.
She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane’s safety at risk. That’s certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
Yes, I’ve read up on this now more attentively and realized that it’s about complete misinformation. See, if IK were a transgender, there would be reasons to argue whether she’s eligible. Men are physically stronger than women, gender affirming medications and surgeries do not change that completely (depending on age of transition I guess).
My brain just couldn’t accept that the whole argument is about some rumor or weird idea that this is the case.
However, I maintain this :
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
You’re using the free speech rhetoric. No one is saying speech is illegal. However, there are well defined limitations to free speech, you can’t use it to inflict real tangible harm. You can be arrested for falsely yelling “fire” in a movie theatre. Similarly, hate speech is an offense as it can incite violence. Most reasonable people can use their words without crossing those lines. I think it says a lot about Rowling that, as an author, she couldn’t manage not to cross those very well defined lines.
It’s not irrelevant. What you said, is that it should be perfectly fine to insult someone, and within certain parameters it is. You can say all sorts of insulting things about people. What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person). Beyond that Rowling is a public figure with a large audience which means she is, or should be aware that her comments have a greater influence than the general public. She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane’s safety at risk. That’s certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
Agreed.
My incentive to argue that this is not a limitation of speech is that if you use this as an argument that limitation of speech is OK, then that’ll spread to other possible limitations of speech. While this can be banned similarly to how poisoning people being illegal is not a legal limitation of cuisine.
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
My point is that you can’t ban people who in your opinion are wrong. “For the general good” is not a justification, pun intended since we are discussing Rowling.
Yes, I’ve read up on this now more attentively and realized that it’s about complete misinformation. See, if IK were a transgender, there would be reasons to argue whether she’s eligible. Men are physically stronger than women, gender affirming medications and surgeries do not change that completely (depending on age of transition I guess).
My brain just couldn’t accept that the whole argument is about some rumor or weird idea that this is the case.
However, I maintain this :
You’re using the free speech rhetoric. No one is saying speech is illegal. However, there are well defined limitations to free speech, you can’t use it to inflict real tangible harm. You can be arrested for falsely yelling “fire” in a movie theatre. Similarly, hate speech is an offense as it can incite violence. Most reasonable people can use their words without crossing those lines. I think it says a lot about Rowling that, as an author, she couldn’t manage not to cross those very well defined lines.
Edit: spelling