@Ganymede said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Rinel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Here's the thing, though: it has none. Firstly, freedom of speech in the UK is already a flimsy construct. Secondly, employment tribunals have no precedential authority. Thirdly, the case was exquisitely narrow in scope--whether a person's "gender critical" views constituted a protected category of belief such that it would be unlawful to deny renewal of a contract with her based upon actions she had taken pursuant to this belief (e.g. misgendering coworkers).
I am not saying that the case actually had large consequences other than those involved. Plus, Forstater is a fucking moron that deserved to be sacked, as they say over there. But I do not want to presume that J.K. Rowling knows, or should know, this the same way we legal practitioners do (or would). Freedom of speech is a strong concern for writers, and I appreciate that.
I hasten again to say that I do not believe that Rowling isn't a TERF and that the case against her goes beyond that one tweet, but I simply want to point out that the power of internet hatred, which is often fueled by ignorance, can cause an indiscriminate, uncaring shit-fire.
I want to add that Rowling has a very poor understanding of freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) in the UK. She made a tweet a year or so ago about how blessed she is to be able to say what she wants because of freedom of speech. Now, she got largely panned for it by people who know better (mocked may be a better word), but we don't know if she reads Twitter replies very often. Or if she took it to heart.
If she still believes that the UK has the same freedom of speech the US does, she could very well have believed the Forester case fell into that category.
I know Mark Hamill tweeted something in support of Forester also before he got more details and apologized for his actions.