If you make your money in the public eye, then you run the risk of being "cancelled" in the same way that a restaurant will lose business if they're found to be unhygienic.

It seems to me that the Harper's letter is mostly a bunch of well off white people demanding that they be immune from criticism of any kind.

If you have an opinion, people can have an opinion on *that* opinion and reevaluate their support of you as a result.

A lot of the Harper letter signees love this idea of open debate when they get to debate a minority of people that isn't them.

If you have an opinion that marginalises LGBT people, for example, don't be surprised if they don't treat it like an academic debate. It's their *life*

I look at it like this; if I read an article by a guy questioning whether Irish people in England should have same rights as English born people, I won't see that as a point to be debated. I would see it, rightly, as an attack. That's what POC, LGBT+ see in those "debates".

JK Rowling seems to want to Have An Opinion and then for that to be it. Nobody can have an opinion on Her Opinion. Nobody can reevaluate their support of her products off the back of that Opinion.

She wants even more privelage than she already has as a literal billionaire

If I said or did a thing that was wildly against the general mores of my "audience", I would expect to get blowback that goes beyond people disagreeing with me.

Thinking any different is just delusional and believe me, I know all about that.

Like, I would expect it to hurt my income in a situation where a portion of my audience wildly disagreed with a personal stance or action of mine because I am paid directly by my audience.

It’s the shop analogy again. If people don’t like the shopkeeper, they won’t shop.