Feminist BANNED For "Misgendering" Files Lawsuit Against Twitter
Feminist BANNED For "Misgendering" Files Lawsuit Against Twitter. Megan Murphy was banned a few months ago for "targeted misgendering" of a transgender individual on Twitter.The social platform insists that it doesn't use politics when determining if someone should be banned but this clearly is not the case considering misgendering and deadnaming are specific only to a small political and feminist ideology. This would specifically be political censorship considering what is deemed to be right or wrong on Twitter.Twitter is essentially enforcing social justice activism within its rules and is clearly in favor of a regressive left wing ideology.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Feminist writer Megan Murphy was banned from Twitter not that long ago for saying something to the effect of, and then after a suspension due to that tweet, she tweeted something similar and was banned.
We're now learning that she is filing a lawsuit against Twitter, saying this was an unfair banning.
Now, Twitter likes to claim that they don't use politics, they don't think about politics when they enforce their policies, but that is an outright falsehood.
Their policies are actually based on a political ideology.
And when you realize that even Twitter acknowledges foreign influence is manipulating people on Twitter, But their banning people over political ideas shows that they too are exerting undue influence over people in the political space.
Today, I want to take a look at some of the controversies surrounding Twitter starting with this lawsuit and what it means, and I want to look at some of the proof that Twitter knows there's political influence on their platform and how they are unfairly targeting certain individuals based on their politics.
But before we get started, make sure you're following me on Mines at Mines.com slash Timcast, because this is where we're going to be building out our digital newsroom for Subverse.
So go to Mines.com slash Timcast, sign up, and if you want to support my work, you can simply share these videos to help spread the message.
The latest news from the Wall Street Journal.
Writer sues Twitter over ban for criticizing transgender people.
Canadian blogger tweeted, men aren't women, violating harassment rules in the platform.
A Canadian writer filed a lawsuit against Twitter Inc.
on Monday, saying the social media platform unfairly banned her because her criticism of transgender rights doesn't line up with the company's politics.
Megan Murphy, a gender politics blogger, alleges that Twitter violated unfair competition law when it changed its hateful conduct policy late last year.
Under Twitter's new policy, users can be banned for calling a transgender individual by their pre-transition names, or referring to them with the wrong pronouns.
The suit alleges that the change conflicts with Twitter's previous commitment to free speech.
The lawsuit, filed in State Superior Court in San Francisco, combines two hot-button issues, how Silicon Valley companies should moderate content on their sites, and what protections should be provided for transgender individuals.
In the offending tweets, Ms.
Murphy wrote that transgender women are the same as men, as part of her argument that gender is determined at birth.
Those views are viewed by some lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activists as inciting hate speech against transgender people.
Twitter claims its policies do not take into account political views, said Noah Peters, Ms.
Murphy's lawyer.
They actually do practice viewpoint discrimination.
And as many of you probably know, and this has been discussed at great length over the past few weeks,
yes, Twitter's hateful conduct policy says, this includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of
transgender individuals.
This line right here should make it absolutely clear.
In no uncertain terms, Twitter does use politics in determining what is or isn't acceptable.
This line exists in a section that says, Repeated and or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, and other content that degrades someone.
But clearly, Twitter doesn't ban everybody who degrades somebody else.
Like we saw with the Covington incident.
There were people literally calling for violence and instructing their followers to engage in acts of violence.
And Twitter didn't ban them.
We can also see what happens with the latest Learn to Code controversy.
In what may be one of the most egregious displays of bias, this story from the Daily Caller, Daily Caller editor-in-chief locked out of account for tweeting Learn to Code.
Back at the Wall Street Journal, they say, Twitter said it believes Ms.
Murphy's claims are meritless and it will defend itself against the suit.
Twitter has been criticized for the way it draws the line between free speech and harassment, as well as its ability to make these decisions consistently and fairly.
For years, Twitter executives shied away from moderation on their platform beyond extreme cases.
Some early executives at the company called Twitter the free speech wing of the free speech party, brandishing their commitment to a marketplace of ideas where more speech could counter hate speech.
They say, in the case of Twitter's policy update for transgender issues, the company banned the practice of intentionally referring to individuals by the wrong gender or referring to their previous names, saying it can be a form of harassment.
The policy was designed to make Twitter a more inclusive space for transgender individuals.
Ms.
Murphy says that Twitter locked her account on November 15th, telling her that to regain control of her account, she would need to remove two tweets she posted the prior month.
One tweet stated, Ms.
Murphy deleted the tweets and posted a response on Twitter, saying, The post went viral, according to her suit, receiving 20,000 likes.
Days later, Twitter informed Ms.
Ms. Murphy deleted the tweets and posted a response on Twitter saying,
I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore.
The post went viral, according to her suit, receiving 20,000 likes.
Days later, Twitter informed Ms. Murphy that she needed to delete this tweet as well, the suit says.
Twitter then banned Ms. Murphy permanently.
According to the suit, Twitter sent an email to Ms. Murphy on November 23rd informing her
that an item she had posted previously on November 8th violated the company's hateful conduct policy
because she referred to a transgender woman as him, according to the suit.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear.
Twitter is well aware that their platform has influence over politics.
This story from back in October, Twitter posts millions of tweets linked to Russia and Iran.
Twitter Inc.
has published datasets comprising millions of tweets, images, and videos, and thousands of accounts linked to operatives based in Russia and Iran, shedding light on how bad actors outside the U.S.
sought to manipulate social media discourse in their home countries and abroad.
We also have this story from just a few weeks ago.
Twitter removed some accounts originating in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela that targeted U.S.
midterm election.
And more importantly, we had the lawsuit against Donald Trump and the subsequent unblocking of users that Trump had blocked from the New York Times.
White House unblocked Twitter users who sued Trump but appeals ruling.
It is well established in our country That Twitter is a place for important political discourse.
We know full well that people are using the platform to manipulate politics.
We know that a court has ruled Trump's Twitter account, the tweets he posts, are a public space, and that individuals in this country have a right to engage there.
If we all recognize the importance of Twitter in terms of politics, why then is Twitter allowed to adopt a fringe ideology in how they police content?
This is why I've been in favor of some kind of regulation, and I don't know exactly how it should come about, I don't know what it should look like, and I do have concerns over the government regulating speech in this capacity.
But I view it more of as a negative approach, that they should not be allowed to do certain things, not be forced to do certain things.
That maybe, so long as the speech is legal, it should be allowed.
Now this is where the left and the right come to odds.
The left says they have a harassment problem.
The right says that people are being too sensitive, and Twitter is banning them based on their political ideology.
The reality is, the world is tough.
There are dangerous things out there, and sometimes people say mean things.
One of the reasons I believe that Twitter is taking this approach is that they believe banning certain people on the right is more likely to increase their numbers, in the sense that there are many people on the left who will leave in outrage, in protest, And that by banning one or two conservatives or one or two people who are not in line with intersectionality, they can maintain more intersectional left-wing individuals.
The left is much more likely to leave the platform than the right is over speech issues, therefore they've decided to ban people more so on the right than the left, thus they can make their numbers bigger.
You also have the issues of advertisers being terrified of activists.
So what does Twitter do?
They say, well listen, Appease the activists, it's more in line with what's deemed politically acceptable, and ban those who say things that may be deemed to be offensive or just individuals that may be controversial.
And this all relates to the latest news with Ilhan Omar in a very interesting way.
First, we know that Laura Loomer was banned for criticizing Ilhan Omar's Muslim faith.
NBC News says, Loomer said she was told by the platform that her account violated its rules against hateful conduct after she sent a tweet criticizing Minnesota rep Ilhan Omar and her Muslim faith.
In the tweet in question, Loomer called Omar anti-Jewish and said she is a member of a religion in which homosexuals are oppressed and women are abused and forced to wear the hijab.
But let's think about that in terms of what just happened.
Ilhan Omar just issued an apology after she was criticized heavily by most Democrats and
the leaders of the party for statements that were perceived as anti-Semitic.
Laura Loomer was criticizing a public official for her public statements and for what Loomer
believed to be the beliefs of Ilhan Omar.
If Twitter understands the political ramifications of its platform, banning an individual for
criticizing a politician should terrify everyone.
Or what happened to Alex Jones?
Again, you don't have to be fans of Loomer or Jones.
Just because I think something was wrong here, or that Twitter shouldn't have taken action, doesn't mean I support their personal positions.
Alex Jones was banned because he confronted a journalist who had been calling for his banning.
That seems to be more about a marketing decision on Twitter's end than anything else.
We had Kathy Griffin call for the docks of kids.
We had several verified users call for violence against the Covington kids.
But Alex Jones is the one who was banned, again.
Individuals are being removed from public discourse, and we know that this platform does influence politics.
Twitter is intervening in political discourse, and in my opinion, it's probably worse than what Russia is doing.
When Russia buys ads on Facebook or Twitter that say things that exacerbate the culture war or push people to the left or to the right, sure, that's a problem.
We should make sure they don't do that.
But Twitter is doing essentially the same thing by banning people What did Laura Loomer say that got her banned?
I want to make sure I highlight the story about Ellen Page.
She recently called out Chris Pratt for his quote, infamously anti-LGBTQ church.
And the latest news today, Chris Pratt responded saying that his church welcomes all people.
What did Laura Loomer say that got her banned?
She said that people of a certain faith mistreat certain groups of people.
Well Ellen Page tweeted that same thing about Chris Pratt, but she isn't being banned.
It would seem that there absolutely is a political bias within Twitter, and it's shocking to me that people act like it's not true.
Listen.
When people talk about bias on Twitter, yes, they often refer to these select individuals being banned and others not being banned.
But don't even look at that.
Just look at Twitter's rules in general.
They very clearly have an ideological bent to them that not even everyone on the left agrees with.
I don't believe you can call Meghan Murphy, the feminist, a right-winger.
In that regard, you can see that there is an intersectional left and a trans-exclusionary left that are at odds with each other.
These are not right-wingers.
These are internal battles.
And if Twitter is banning her, it's not so much about left versus right, but we can see that Twitter has adopted a political ideology and they're enforcing their rules based on that ideology.
Now whether or not Meghan Murphy will win her lawsuit, I have no idea.
But there was some criticism.
When on the Joe Rogan podcast I mentioned this may be one of the most important political battles we're experiencing, and people said that's silly, it's just Twitter.
Yes.
But journalists use this platform religiously.
Political and public discourse is on this platform.
Politicians.
The President.
And we know it has political influence.
And Trump recently lost a lawsuit because they deemed his tweets to be a space for public discourse.
In which case, we must recognize the influence Twitter has over our political discourse, over our society, and over who actually might get elected.
Scandals erupt on Twitter.
We can talk about Twitter not being real life, but it's moving in that direction.
Guardians of the Galaxy 3, a major billion dollar potential movie.
But let me know what you think in the comments below and we'll keep the conversation going.
It will have real world consequences and Twitter needs to accept their bias and they need to accept their
responsibility.
But let me know what you think in the comments below, we'll keep the conversation going.
I know it's something we've talked about quite a bit, but I wanted to make sure something was clear in talking
about the lawsuit filed by Megan Murphy and yes, with the update.
But let me know what you think, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at Timcast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4pm.
And I'll have more videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash timcast, starting at 6pm.