JK Rowling tweeting now about 3 actors who revealed her home address on Twitter

[SocialConnection]

The police are involved and all three have locked their accounts.

I hope their agents will take note.

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1462758324177444870

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-targeting-of-jk-rowling-is-so-terrifying

Posie on what this means for the rest of us.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0228db26-4b9a-11ec-9bc6-5abf98655bc4?shareToken=716ef72734681c4901fc10975df7ac43

New article

They could have at least smiled for the camera.

I think marg had inadvertently admitted that gender critical is a majority position

@MiladyBerserko

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0228db26-4b9a-11ec-9bc6-5abf98655bc4?shareToken=716ef72734681c4901fc10975df7ac43

New article

“ It is understood that the actors committed no criminal offence”

Yet wasn’t one of the criminal charges agains Marion M that she had tweeted a picture of a ribbon next to a sign showing where [angry actor] worked and this led him to be afraid?

How is tweeting a photo of slogans on signs outside someone’s house different?

How is tweeting a photo of slogans on signs outside someone’s house different?

It's no different. Potentially worse if it's outside a home address rather than a place of work. Double standards. That go in the favour of men with certain views and transwomen.

Aren't harassment and malicious communication criminal.offences?

Yet wasn’t one of the criminal charges agains Marion M that she had tweeted a picture of a ribbon next to a sign showing where [angry actor] worked and this led him to be afraid?

The charges were dropped, so presumably it was agreed that she shouldn’t have been arrested.

Where have we seen the vile abuse and then desperate attempt to change the subject with insults and deflections before? Oh yes, the same poster as always, back to try again. It didn’t work then, nor does it now, it just shows them up for the abhorrent and hateful creature they are……

Love to JKR. xx

I’ve Google and found all 3 names. If any of them ever appear on TV I’ll be firing off a letter of complaint to get them off air.
I’ll also make sure I don’t support any theatres they appear in or are hoping to work on. I’ll be on the look out for these 3.

Oh and what a shame they have been in undated with abuse serves them right.

If the TRAs had actually read JRK's tweets instead of flying off into a toddler tantrum at the mere sight of her tweeting something they don't like, they would have seen that a large part of her telling this story of what happened last week is to support and bring awareness to those women who are currently also being harassed but do not have the resources and security that she does.

Which make the whole 'wah wah wah, everyone knows where her house is, wah wah wah, it's not different to doxxing the Queen, wah wah wah' performance kind of redundant.

JKR knows it will be very difficult to silence her, although God knows they are giving it a good go, but she is speaking up for women who don't have what she has.

In my eyes it is still stalking and harassing her. Why would they have to 'mourn the dead' outside her house specifically and then post pictures on Twitter?

@Gardeningcreature

Oh and what a shame they have been in undated with abuse serves them right.

Don't stoop to their level.

@MargaritaPie

There are videos on Youtube of fans who have uploaded videos of JK Rowling's mansion. Or at least one of her mansions.

Doxxing JK Rowling is almost like doxxing the Queen.

Can you just imagine if someone took a photo of themselves outside Buckingham Palace?

One is a private property, the other is a public property.

The Queen, has constant police security to protect her and her family from terrorists/stalkers/idiots.

Don't stoop to their level.

Very much agree.

It just turns the whole thing into a Twitter tit for tat and trivialises what was done.

Apologies if it's already been covered, but what is meant by the 'Don't be a Cissy' sign? Don't be non-trans? Is there more nuance to it than that?

@Thumpsquids

Apologies if it's already been covered, but what is meant by the 'Don't be a Cissy' sign? Don't be non-trans? Is there more nuance to it than that?

I suspect they didn’t put much thought into it, but it can also refer to porn/sexual practices.

Was just thinking that, Squid. What did any of the signs mean, and what did any of that really have to do with JKR? 'Trans rights are human rights'? I'm sure she'd agree. 'Trans liberation now'? From what? They really don't seem to be the brightest sparks.

I've struggled to understand the 'Don't be a cissy' sign too. (Mail online has published it btw, with address and door behind blurred out.)

Don't be 'cis'? Avoid sissy pornography or acts? What can it mean beyond that? The Times says it's a play on 'cis' and gives a definition which would make the meaning 'Don't be a non-trans'.

@SpindlesWhorl

I had a look at the morning papers online. They all seem to be covering this as a high profile story - but I can't see anything in the Guardian.

The Guardian doesn’t identify as a newspaper any more.

The Guardian doesn’t identify as a newspaper any more.

Haha! That made me genuinely laugh out loud.

@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant

The Guardian doesn’t identify as a newspaper any more.

Haha! That made me genuinely laugh out loud.

Grown up Bunty for the dudebros and uninformed.

I feel really despairing about the reaction to this. Those people clearly meant to frighten JKR - nobody goes and stands outside someone’s house just to have a civil debate. I remember when some people protested outside Jacob Rees Mogg’s house, and although he is a horrible person, most people I knew agreed that protesting outside his house went too far. But I know people who are not wildly invested in the debate but generally on the unthinking “be kind” side who seem totally ok with what has been done to JKR. I genuinely don’t know if there is any line they think should not be crossed. It is pure tribalism, they have pinned their colours to “be kind” and any horrors done in the name of “be kind” are fine.

I don’t think they should be shamed or silenced, or “cancelled”. I’d like them to have the courage of their convictions and explain their position, actions and thought process behind it. I suggest Emma Barnett on Women’s Hour as a starting place…

@MidsomerMurmurs, agreed, the Guardian cannot really call itself a newspaper if its editor filters out newsworthy stories, but still finds the space to keep running the day-old Eddy Redmayne non-news news story.