About 4 months ago, fresh off the most intense period of the censorship campaign targeted at her, Rowling posted this tweet.
She is not an irritant to the regime. She is not simply someone with whom we might disagree on some things, agree on others, but with whom we share a common interest in freedom of expression: she is an active advocate of censorship for political dissidents, so long as they are not her.
She will continue to shriek from the hilltops about her right to free speech at the same time that she demands you be denied yours.
A similar TERF and (now former) cancel culture adherent, Graham Linehan, who was one of the most obnoxious anti-GGers back in the day, has himself endured a similar cancellation to Rowling's, and for the same reasons. He used that experience as a reason to reexamine his views on censorship and cancel culture. He has since acknowledged that he was wrong about Gamer Gate, and has issued a public apology to Count Dankula after spending years demanding he be sent to prison over the Nazi pug video.
That is an example of someone with whom we might disagree, but find common ground, because when his turn came to be an irritant to the regime and pay the price for it, he admitted he'd been wrong to support their tactics.
Rowling has proven herself incapable of either the moral or intellectual capacity to do this.
About 4 months ago, fresh off the most intense period of the censorship campaign targeted at her, Rowling posted [this tweet[(https://archive.ph/Z9iTz).
She is not an irritant to the regime. She is not simply someone with whom we might disagree on some things, agree on others, but with whom we share a common interest in freedom of expression: she is an active advocate of censorship for political dissidents, so long as they are not her.
She will continue to shriek from the hilltops about her right to free speech at the same time that she demands you be denied yours.
A similar TERF and (now former) cancel culture adherent, Graham Linehan, who was one of the most obnoxious anti-GGers back in the day, has himself endured a similar cancellation to Rowling's, and for the same reasons. He used that experience as a reason to reexamine his views on censorship and cancel culture. He has since acknowledged that he was wrong about Gamer Gate, and has issued a public apology to Count Dankula after spending years demanding he be sent to prison over the Nazi pug video.
That is an example of someone with whom we might disagree, but find common ground, because when his turn came to be an irritant to the regime and pay the price for it, he admitted he'd been wrong to support their tactics.
Rowling has proven herself incapable of either the moral or intellectual capacity to do this.
About 4 months ago, fresh off the most intense period of the censorship campaign targeted at her, Rowling posted [this tweet[(https://archive.ph/Z9iTz).
She is not an irritant to the regime. She is not simply someone with whom we might disagree on some things, agree on others, but with whom we share a common interest in freedom of expression: she is an active advocate of censorship for political dissidents, so long as they are not her.
She will continue to shriek from the hilltops about her right to free speech at the same time that she demands you be denied yours.