Lilly Wachowski accused J.K. Rowling of "funding trans genocide" and compared her to the Nazis — and now, the author is responding to the Matrix filmmaker's criticism.

I really do think there is a massive misunderstanding about what freedom of speech and belief means.

Its as though some people think they have the right to say whatever they like because it's 'their opinion,' (or their truth as they might tellingly describe it) , and finding out that they actually don't comes as a shock, which leads to tantrums.

Similarly, prefacing their defamation with 'I believe' eg 'i believe x is a paedophile' doesn't magically make it ok.

And drastically misunderstanding the SLAPP concept - it does not mean 'somebody I don't like threatened somebody I do like with legal action, over the very illegal thing that the somebody I like definitely did'.

Then again, if you think some men are actually women, your logic chip is clearly malfunctioning so I don't know why we expect any sense on other topic. Hope over experience, probably.

Edit for clarity/typos

Somebody seems to be thinking that because you’re rich, it must be ok to call you a paedophile and a holocaust denier

What's even better is if you respond to the libel via the same platform it was posted on you will then get accused of punching down and setting your followers on poor vulnerable and marginalised folx.

Somebody seems to be thinking that because you’re rich, it must be ok to call you a paedophile and a holocaust denier. But if you’re not rich then it’s not ok. Which seems a very odd argument. Or perhaps it’s ok regardless of how much money you have: “If I personally don’t like you, then everyone else can say what they like about you and you just have to take it.”

Secondly, someone can’t see the difference between hyperbole about trans rights issues on which JKR and Wachowski clearly disagree, and suggesting JKR denies the holocaust and is a danger to children, which are simply character slurs with nothing to do with JKR’s views on sex and gender.

I feel that JKR has shown extraordinary restraint in not resorting to legal action more often. She's had plenty of defamatory stuff said about her and unlimited funds to pay the lawyers. But she mostly retaliates with a few pointed and extremely well chosen words, and leaves it at that.

From Variety

”Your enjoyment of these [Harry Potter] shows, and continued support of these shows, is supporting my eradication.”

Has he joined the HP PR team?

Who the fuck is Rivka Brown and what evidence do you have that JKR launched a suit against her?

Where is the evidence that JKR sued Nicola Spurling?

Spurling made a false and clearly defamatory accusation against JKR, and withdrew it on legal advice. I don’t see any evidence of a lawsuit.

Wachowski is entitled to his opinions about JKR as are Spurling and Brown, and they are all entitled to express them. Expressing an opinion is different to making defamatory statements, like Spurling and Brown did.

I have not the slightest doubt that if Wachowski said what Spurling said then JKR would have reacted the same way.

It's inexplicable that someone who made one good film 26 years ago isn't being fêted for what sounds like a fairly niche film student agitprop flick and showered with Hollywood money.

Out of interest, what do you agree with JKR on?

Hasn't been sued yet.

Be interesting to see what happens if Wach- doubles down.

Rivka Brown who called JK Rowling a Holocaust denier?

I think letting that go with just an apology rather that dragging Brown through the courts anyway was pretty fucking magnanimous myself.

Because of course the Third Reich, as we all know, were very much into the following of British law and 21st century women's rights. The parallels are...

well, obviously, nowhere to be found.

Bonkers. Must be on whatever Mr Trump appears to be taking.

Nicola Spurling who posted "Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children".?

I think letting that go with just an apology rather that dragging Sourling through the courts anyway was pretty fucking magnanimous myself.

Yes, I'm keen to know more about this as well. I certainly can't bring any to mind.

There was a thread about the holocaust denial claims recently. All I will say is that anyone who wants to attack JKR should do some historical research before pulling that thread.

Yes. So often, what trips the type of posters you describe up is that statements made about beliefs, sympathy or reasons for posting on one thread don't line up with behaviour and snide remarks when they get frustrated on another.

Yes the article is weird. The first two thirds are even and balanced, then the last paragraph looks like the TRA who usually does the tea jumped on the keyboard and posted a load of bad faith reddit "fact" dribble.

Again, I'm not really understanding your point. Would you rather she bankrupted people who don't have money? Do you think she is trying to make money?

I do see from other posts that you have misunderstood the concept of a SLAPP.

I do understand what a SLAPP is, but it’s quite clear you don’t - or that you’re pretending not to, it’s hard to say.

JKR is constantly subjected to unpleasant and offensive criticism on social media - my facebook feed is filled with endless crappy takes from so-called influencers about what a terrible person she is. She is also, as we know, on the receiving end of vast numbers of death and rape threats.

She ignores most of this. If she wanted to, she could easily silence people by setting her lawyers on them - she is, after all, vastly more wealthy than most people. To her credit, she doesn’t. If it amuses her, she’ll sometimes take the piss out of people like India Willoughby or other idiots.

But if someone makes a statement that is obviously defamatory, and that person has some public influence (eg they’re a journalist), then she puts her lawyers on the case and extracts a grovelling apology.

Calling someone a Holocaust denier is extremely defamatory. Do you really need me to explain why?

Perhaps these (had they gone to court) would have been good examples of an reverse-SLAPP - vigorously defending a position in court that has no chance of prevailing?

A multimillionaire claiming she's committed genocide and is a literal Nazi, is not going to lead to a slapp lawsuit, is it. Claiming she generates slapp lawsuits could also be defamatory.

She lets hundreds upon hundreds of things ride.

But if a powerful person is going to tell the whole world that she's committed genocide, is literally a Nazi, and recommend people boycott her product, then go figure.

And boy, are you quacking and walking like a duck now.

In SLAPP cases the plaintiff does not expect to win.

In the Metro and Rivkah Brown/Novara Media examples the plaintiff would have won.

So emphatically not examples of SLAPP.

Do you understand what SLAPP is? It's literally an explanation.

Could you imagine the amount of money Jolyon could grift if he chose to represent someone poor downtrodden TRA who was being threatened with legal by JKR for making a truthful statement about her?

What are you talking about 'had to apologise because he couldn't afford to fight back'?

If someone had done nothing wrong they wouldn't have had to apologise would they?

Are you arguing that wealthy people should accept defamation from less well off people as some kind of democratic right? Why shouldn't she have the same rights and protections as anyone else?

Irs really very simple: if you don't want to be taken to court, don't say anything defamatory/ illegal in the public sphere - the same laws apply however much wealth you do/ don't have.