Author J.K. Rowling has fallen silent on her usually busy X (formerly Twitter) feed, after Olympic gold medalist boxer Imane Khelif filed a legal complaint in France for alleged cyber harassment over statements regarding her gender.

On August 9, lawyers for Khelif filed a lawsuit with a special unit of the public prosecutor’s office in Paris, stemming from false statements that spread online about her gender after the Algerian boxer defeated Italy’s Angela Carini in her first fight of the 2024 Olympic Games. Carini pulled out 46 seconds into the bout and told reporters afterwards that she had “never felt a punch like this.”

    • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      194
      ·
      3 months ago

      Only because she attacked a cis woman. No consequences from the years doing everything in her power to targetedly harass individual trans peolle, the community as a whole or publishing books about trans serial killers.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see her go quite, I hope she stays that way. But I’m bitter it wasn’t a realization that her crusade was mysgonstic hatred, only that she was a zealot who accidently friendly fired.

      • Samvega
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        3 months ago

        only that she was a zealot who accidently friendly fired.

        Bigotry is illogical, and will always ‘friendly fire’. No one is ever safe. People have transvestigated Joanne Koanne Roanne and Andrew Tate. No one is ever safe.

      • Vilian@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s the start, the lawsuit has more chance to win that way, and can pave a path for trans people to win cyberbullying lawsuits too

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    198
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Anyone with basic critical thinking skills would have known this whole scandal was bullshit in the first place. Did it not occur to any of these TERFs and transphobes that Algeria (a Muslim nation known for persecuting the LGBTQ community as a whole) is one of the least-likely nations to field a trans candidate?

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      111
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, it did not occur to them. They simply don’t care. Facts and reason can’t matter to the misogynistic anti-trans crowd. Their whole approach is built on hate and bullshit, and they know it.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, I’ve had a sad laugh about all this stupid alt-right knee-jerk reaction. Algeria, bastion of “wokeness”.

      How out of touch are these people?

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They are just so desperate for an Olympic level “gotcha” in their cultural crusade that they just singled out a woman boxer for being “too butch” and just ran with their assumptions.

      Then every try-hard wannabe right wing influencer type just gloms onto it hoping to be chosen by the algorithm for ten hot seconds of vainglorious right wing attention/validation.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      You assume they even heard of Algeria before this. Or even during it. The country she represented was not part of the bigotry, just her looks/build.

      • Xtallll
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        The TEFRs notably did not choose a white woman to attack here.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Joanne has a full university education and has traveled the world. There is absolutely no way she doesn’t know Algeria is a Muslim country and that a Muslim country would in no way approve an openly queer athlete to be on their Olympics team.

        She’s just a bigot.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      This reminds me of moon landing deniers. Like, y’all don’t think that America’s greatest enemy of the time, the Soviet Union, with all of their resources, wouldn’t have been denying the US’s claim to having landed on the moon if there were any credible evidence that it hadn’t actually happened?

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    129
    ·
    3 months ago

    She’s a bully. It’s time she actually faced consequences for her actions.

    • FarFarAway@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m honestly confused how she could write a story where Harry Potter triumphs over he who must not be named, when he who must not be named was her hero.

      It must have been really tough for her.

      • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s less that and more the system of prejudice itself is her hero, because she never truly challenges it, and the final state of peace at the end of the books does not require fixing its problems. Voldemort was a bad apple, nothing more (according to her I’d imagine)

        • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah the way she kind of bullies Hermione with the whole ‘SPEW’ thing was so off. First, Hermione had style and was a genius. I think she would know that ‘SPEW’ is a bad acronym.

          Also, making everyone turn away from her and no one supporting her - she didn’t need to really make it like that at all. Why couldnt the org have a cute name and Hermione and like Lavender Brown etc all get together to try to coordinate better working conditions for the elves. This then would later help with the plot involving the DA. It’s literally a fantasy and Harry gets magical hero results all the time. It’s just such a weird part of the books and negative when it really didn’t serve any purpose to be negative. Except to be shitty to lady activists.

  • LadyAutumn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Heaven forbid she lose money. Literally the only thing that could make her stop briefly pause harassing people on the internet.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      3 months ago

      She has billions. No matter how much she loses she’ll still be obscenely rich.

      • Blade9732@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe they can sue for billions. Gawker got sued out of existence, I hope she gets some good US attorneys and files in a jurisdiction that has unlimited damages. Maybe we can all use the new “K” platform after she owns “X”.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yep. Because they outed him. And he couldn’t sue them for that, so he waited around until he found something he could use to sink his teeth into them.

            People were cheering when Gawker lost and got shut down because Gawker sucked. Not me. I saw a billionaire using the justice system successfully for a personal vendetta and was horrified.

          • Samvega
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            3 months ago

            Is anyone suing Peter Thiel out of existence?

        • VeganCheesecake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t think the UK has the potential for redicolously high damages that exists in some US states.

        • Jomega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Are you referring to The Legend of Rah and the Muggles? That was found to be bullshit the second people read the book. It’s an extremely weird story about nuclear fallout, talking animals, and a shit ton of meandering filler. The only similarity was use of the word “muggle”, which doesn’t even mean the same thing in both stories. JK may be a TERF now, but she is not a plagiarist.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            She’s not a plagiarist per se, but the idea of an elite school for wizards is not exactly original to her. There’s The Worst Witch series of books. The first one was published in 1974. They were a huge hit, especially in the UK, leading eventually to a TV movie with a very impressive cast list in the 1980s, which, you will note, was decades before Rowling wrote any Harry Potter book.

            There’s absolutely no way she was not aware of those books. In fact, considering she was nine years old when the first one came out- the exact age for those books- she almost certainly read it and treasured it and it almost certainly inspired her to write Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

            On top of that, there was Ursula LeGuin’s Earthsea novels, the first of which takes place in large part at a boarding school for wizards where a poor boy who is from a non-magical family is sent after showing that he has magical powers and ends up being the most powerful wizard in the world, fighting the ultimate magical evil.

            That was published in 1968 and I would be very surprised if Rowling hadn’t read it before she wrote her books, because that is just too similar.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Maybe? I just remembered some thread from ages ago where people were saying that some guy had written a book that wasn’t popular, and she reworked it. This may have been pre-reddit, it was that long ago.

            Hence why I said rumors. I didn’t remember anything that was a smoking gun, or a conclusion to that rumor.

            • ReCursing@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              Almost none of the ideas in any of those books are original, they’re all cribbed from somewhere else, but that’s always the way art is created whether the creator knows it or not. The premise of a kid discovering he’s special and entering a secret world of other special people is not something new to childrens’ literature

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m a Conservative championing Genital Inspections on Children to make sure ONLY PEOPLE with Vaginas play Girl’s Sports but also THIS Women with a Vagina is ACTUALLY A MAN!

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s about PROTECTING WOMEN! And if I have to hurt a bunch of women to protect them from hypothetical scenarios I made up to demonize trans people, so be it!

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 months ago

      JKR is so far off base here that even if you are a dyed-in-the-wool TERF this is basically impossible to defend.

      Gate-keeping feminity by excluding women born with a vagina who are too butch by your opinion to be considered “women” is going too far… even if you are otherwise onboard with gate-keeping “womanhood” from trans women.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s just proof that the F in TERF is a lie. Rowling is in no way a feminist, even if you define feminism as only promoting the rights of cis women.

        Rowling is not a feminist, she’s a bigot who thinks that cis women who don’t pass her requirements for femininity and whiteness count as women.

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    when a man breaks a record he is a super human, when a woman breaks a record she is a man.

    • sudneo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Did she break any record? Also AFAIK the same didn’t happen to previous medalists or generally the strongest female boxers. It also didn’t happen with other monsters who broke tons of records (e.g. Katie Ledecky) just during this Olympics.

      This makes me think that it’s not what you are saying but there are probably other reasons in play. Probably the IBA and the media making a case after the first boxer withdrew are responsible.

      • DV8@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        In combat sports there’s a lot of derision for women who look too strong. Instead of complementing their training regiment and dedicated they get called ugly and a man all the damn time.

        On the other end usually those same trolls will call women who train and still look feminine to be gold diggers training with so many men, that’s for posting pictures of themselves training, making weight etc. And send them dm’s offering money to be choked out.

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I am sure that’s the case, but I think this has not to do with “breaking records” I.e. having success in sport. It might have to do with general gender stereotypes related to body types, for example, or with other stuff.

          So either way the comment I was answering to seems counterfactual and sensationalistic.

          • Lowpast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It has to do with the fact that testosterone is a performance enhancement drug and men are categorically stronger than females, and a man punching a female is strictly unsafe.

            • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              An breakdown of your wannabe argument would be:

              A: “Testosterone enhances performance” B: “Men are in most cases stronger than women” C: “A man punching a woman is unsafe”

              This vaudeville of ideas have no apparent link between them, the real product of a scattered mind. Scientists are still out about A.

              B is a statistical truism at this point irrelevant to the topic, since Khelif is a cisgender woman, and there is no evidence (for the time being) that she is intersex.

              C is also immaterial to the discussion. Perhaps you are trying to say that high-testosterone women are “comparable” to men in combat sports, because they pose a greater threat to cisgender women but this is quite the leap, since she is no man.

              Testosterone levels vary between individuals. Taking part in combat sports entails a risk of serious injury. The weight categories are in place to make things comparable between opponents, testosterone levels are not. Scientists have questioned whether testosterone level correlate that much to performance outcomes as people think.

              The ersatz argument makes no sense.

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              At the moment we don’t have any concrete data, so in case it is based on a suspicion at most.

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            obviously stereotypes make people’s story more believable and easier to go viral and that is why people choose the stories they choose. doesn’t change the fact that there are people who would rather explain an unexpected level of success shown by a woman by saying she is probably not a woman. the story they choose is irrelevant really. They could have claimed she has cybernetic extensions in her muscles and it would be the same thing. And all you are saying is “but there are other very successful women who have not been treated that way”. Sure, did not say every single very successful woman is deterministically being treated unfairly. I am saying it is a tendency.

            • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              there are people who would rather explain

              There are people who are transphobic to the degree of investigating born women, time and again. (Are you aware of the lesbians “bathroom problem”? It predates the current antitrans moral panic by a decade.) It seems their hatred is so rotten that eventually they are the ones unable to define what a woman is. Now even a vagina at birth is not cutting it. Just not beat around the bush, this is about transphobia, and Khelif naming Rowling, Musk, and Trump in her suit (all of them billionaire transphobes with a platform) is no coincidence.

              Ah and don’t forget that trans women are not men either. Too many let that slip in this debate because Khelif is cisgender, but let’s not forget that when nazis say “men are stronger than women” they mean trans women as men. They aren’t. Nazi punks fuck off.

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              but there are other very successful women who have not been treated that way

              What I am actually saying is that the vast majority of successful women athletes didn’t suffer from this at this time at all. If this argument works only for Imane Khelif (not even the Taiwanese boxer, who has been mostly ignored), out of the hundreds of women who just won medals, maybe it is not an argument that can be generalized to “women of success”, and other causes have to be searched.

              This to me is basic common sense: if a thesis works only on a handful of examples and there are hundreds of counter examples, maybe the thesis is wrong. A tendency would require also more examples.

              • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                So are you claiming that there is no historical bias towards downplaying women’s successes in general or that in history there was but now as a whole Earth has progressed so far that we have left all those behind? Or is it just that it doesn’t happen in sports but happens in other areas? Or women have been downplayed but never because of success but always for other reasons?

                This to me is basic common sense: if a thesis works only on a handful of examples

                What you call a handful of examples is taking a magnifying glass and only looking at this particular event. If %10 of successful women have ever been downplayed because of their gender (due to unconscious biases for example) vs %1 of successful men, then this is still a handful of examples which nevertheless points to a significant bias.

                • sudneo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  None of those, really. Just that downplaying successful women doesn’t happen as much in sport, and when it does it’s not by stating they are men.

                  If %10 of successful women have ever been downplayed because of their gender (due to unconscious biases for example) vs %1 of successful men, then this is still a handful of examples which nevertheless points to a significant bias.

                  1. Ok, but where is the data?
                  2. Sure, it point to the fact that women’s success are downplayed. Not that when women are successful they are called men.
      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        The IBA is notoriously corrupt and in the pockets of Russia. The whole stuff against Khelif was likely made up, because she did not adhere to planned match fixing by the IBA.

        Add to that the fact that she is from an African Muslim country and on top of that the country that kicked the French colonisers out. She was made the perfect targeted for all levels of racism and white supremacism, from the very blatant, to the more or less concealed “Liberals”.

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          To be honest I don’t consider something being Russian as automatically 100% false. This case from the IBA seems likely made up, or at least it is until they provide further proof, which they didn’t so far.

          That said, this is irrelevant in this particular conversation. Real or not, that precedent is in my opinion partly responsible for why people decided to attack this particular athletes. I agree with you on the next country also playing a role.

          Basically my whole argument is that there are multiple factors that made this a case. The fact that she “broke records” or “had success” is generally very low in the list, imho.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        breaking record not in the formal sense but performing exceptionally well, such as beating your opponent in 46 seconds in the last 16

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          I doubt that fight can be counted as “exceptionally good performance”, but anyway why the same didn’t happen for those that both performed exceptionally well and actually set records?

          There are so many examples of that not happening that makes me seriously doubt it identifies the right cause(s).

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            What you think are the right causes are not the causes, they are the tools (stereotypical biases etc) that these people use to make their stories believable.

            And counting is not the correct methodological approach to this question it is the incident rate (historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same).

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Those look nothing like “tools” to me.

              I will make it simpler: In this very thread a person talked about “high testosterone”. Why they didn’t say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions? Probably because of a combination of factors:

              • The masculine aspect of this particular boxer, that doesn’t fit the image that many people have of women
              • The media reporting the immediately pushed to a polarization of opinions -> you had to take a side
              • The previous IBA debacle that planted the seed of the doubt

              To me the combination of the above is a much better explanation of the causes for which people attacked this particular boxer, and not the many other women of success, including black and including masculine (e.g., Simone Biles, or Grace Bullen).

              historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same

              I really don’t see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion. How can you not measure the amount of women who don’t fit the stereotypical woman aspect and yet whose success has not been downplayed due to their aspect (i.e., people called them men)?

              • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Why they didn’t say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions?

                It makes up for a more believable story in this context (boxing which is accepted as a masculine sport) and therefore becomes a more efficient tool. It fits in more easily with people’s biases making it much easier to spread. Simon Biles is a gymnast so that does not fit into the context here. Grace Bullen does. But you can not simply say “it did not happen to other women in plausible scenerios, therefore it is not real”. It is like saying belts are useless in %90 of the cases, it is a useless statistic that does not take into account the expected effect.

                I really don’t see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion.

                What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying “but many successful women are not subject to such effects”? If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.

                • sudneo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You can take any other boxer, I specifically chose black and “masculine” athletes as examples to show that even race/body type alone was not the determining factor. In these Olympic games you have just Imane’s example: how can you call this a trend or make general statements with one case (not even the Taiwanese boxer got attention)?

                  What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying “but many successful women are not subject to such effects”? If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.

                  Men don’t have a category to which they are wrongfully assigned when they win sports. This is also because men are the higher category in most sports (i.e., higher performers), so it is a parallel that simply doesn’t make sense. So yes. It is a worse statistics because men who are victim of gender stereotypes are generally not the ones who excel at sports (men who are called women in general break the masculine stereotype of the muscular and competitive guy - and these unsurprisingly are not characteristics common in elite athletes).

                  If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed

                  But this was not your claim either. Your claim is that downplaying is done by specifically saying those women are men. The whole point here is on the cause, not the existence of the phenomenon in general.

      • AdaA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It also didn’t happen with other monsters who broke tons of records (e.g. Katie Ledecky) just during this Olympics.

        Katie Ledecky faces regular accusations that’s she’s trans and/or intersex…

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I had to search, and I did find a few articles talking about a rumor.

          I don’t think the two events are of same scope and magnitude. The Khelif’s case has been a worldwide media case, what I found for was very US-specific and limited to some niche deranged corner of the internet (https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/07/27/katie-ledecky-trans-rumors/ listed Facebook and Twitter posts from individuals and 2 articles).

          Possibly I shouldn’t have used US athletes as example. Given how the topic is so controversial there, I am quite sure you can find a few idiots who would make this claim about any athlete.

          • AdaA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Rowling is one of those idiots this time. That’s the difference

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              And Musk, and the Hungarian boxer, and many more around the World. This has been a worldwide case, not just a private US shitshow.

  • ravhall@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    3 months ago

    Transgender people in competitive sports that are already segregated by biological sex is relatively uncharted, and should be carefully navigated. There are ways, and appropriate settings, to bring this topic up respectfully. Twitter is not the place, and these people are not qualified to offer their opinion. JK (and others) aren’t fighting some good cause, they’re just being assholes.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      On top of invalidating the lived experience of a cis-woman because this Olympic boxer with more muscle than most men looks kinda masculine in some pictures.

      So much for the “we can always tell”.

      It’s a double whammy of bigotry.

    • gimsy@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is right. This requires a discussion a bit wider than 420 letters, even more when they come from Rowling

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better?” the writer asked. “The smirk of a male who’s knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered.”

    This fucking smug cunt.

  • Korrok
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s so weird of Rowling to call her a man, considering they have a similar face structure.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    3 months ago

    And let this be a lesson to all internet people, I know y’all hear about the first amendment a lot, but it only applies in America. You have to actually follow the laws of the country you’re in

    • DJDarren@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also, the first amendment only applies to free speech against the US government. You can’t chat shit about any private individual without them having the option to sue you.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s a whole lot here that’s just slightly off the mark. I’ll give you the general sentiment, but the details need work.

      • mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        3 months ago

        The first amendment does not give every US citizen carte blanche to say whatever they want. This is often misunderstood, even amongst a lot of the US population.