You're REEEing here, and getting to mad on the internet to see things rationally.
I am the one posting link after link to Twitter being consistently victorious in these cases from butthurt users wanting their accounts back. You haven't given me a single example of someone succesfully suing Twitter -or any other social media plaform- and getting their account back. It you are so "rational", where your evidence? You have none and it's evidently meritless lawsuit.
except that Murphy already listed the exhaustive advertising that twitter did about being a free speech platform, and that their terms of service say they won't apply new rules retroactively.
There is case after case saying Twitter, or any other social media platform, is allowed to ban who they want for whatever reason they see fit under Section 230. TERFs have not responded to a single one of those previous cases to show how this case is different. They can't because it's not. It's just another clearcut Section 230 case.
Twitter has to answer for the decisions it is making, and that is probably most of what she is after.
No, that is not what she's after. According to the lawsuit she wants the court to impose an injunction.
This legal action will launch an internal investigation of some sort, and publicity of this issue has already started as a result of filing suit.
Like I said, there was already publicity because Twitter was suspected of having an anti-conservative bias. TERFs didn't pay attention to this other publicity because they are a bunch of self-obsessed navel gazers stuck in their own safespace bubble, just like the troons are. TERFs didn't care when Twitter was banning conservatives, they only cared when their own got banned.
You seem like you're a very black or white type of thinker, but this kind of gray area is how the legal world functions most of the time.
There is nothing "gray" about abusing the discovery process or filing frivolous lawsuits for the sake of famewhorish self-promotion. Is plain abuse of legal process. TERFs are ethically bankrupt for rationalizing this abuse of process in the name of promoting their cause. Typical example of "the end justifies the means" which is the epitome of ethically bankrupt thinking.
She is doing the world some good by filing this suit, even though a bunch of assholes will probably taunt her for losing
She is doing no one any good engaging in a frivilous meritless lolsuit speding other women's money to do so, and people laughing at her for going in to lose are absolutely right.
Most of the major workings of law are callbacks to small mechanics of much larger cases - you don't look at a decision and say, "Well, this serial killer was not acquitted, therefore serial killing is still illegal."
That's irrelevant. There is case after case of courts saying social media platforms can ban who they want when they want under Section 230. This case is no different from all those other cases.
“We are grateful for every effort to bring attention to the growing — and by now indisputable — problem of the censorship of viewpoints that are out of favor in Silicon Valley," NRB Vice President of communications James A. Smith Sr. told PJ Media on Wednesday. "Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to Twitter’s willingness to suppress ideas and opinions that run counter to its corporate values."
"The continued censorship of Christian and conservative beliefs is validation of our conviction that it’s time for Congress to carefully evaluate the ‘Good Samaritan’ protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act enjoyed by Big Tech," Smith concluded.
If Congress amends Section 230, lawsuits like Meghan Murphy's will not just multiply — they'll become even more devastating. Unlike Meghan Murphy's lawsuit, they may also involve hefty monetary damages. Twitter had better clean up its act, and fast.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/feminists-lawsuit-against-twitter-the-first-of-many-lawyers-say/
Changing Section 230 is a political issue, not a legal issue. Stop abusing the courts for political reasons. If you want to change a law go to your law makers, that's what they're elected for, to make better laws.
What were Twitter's movements leading up to the decision, how is that decision applied across the whole platform, etcetera.
TERFs can continue to act like they don't know what was happening, everybody who follows SJW circles on Twitter was a direct witness to what was happening and knows exactly what led to all this.
Twitter TERFs have this demented idea that they have a right to subject troons and others to their gender critical views which of course is bullshit and is exactly the reason why the ToS was changed: because Twitter TERFs would go looking for discussions on trans issues between troons and others, insert themselves into those threads and begin deadnaming/misgendering troons to their faces to let them know that they are not having any of it and are standing up to the Man. You could tell that TERFs really got a kick out of misgendering/deadnaming troons to their faces. It made them feel like badass rebels and they became addicted to the rush so they would seek out those threads and start fights with troons repeatedly. Some TERF accounts on Twitter did nothing but engage troons and initiate/participate dogpiles against them. Everyone knew this was happening, feminists knew it and troons knew it.
Meghan followed plently of these accounts and sometimes participated in or initiated dogpiles on her own account, usually by using the embedded tweet feature, as I explained before. Meghan would embed a particularly stupid or offensive tweet from a troon, and as her fellow TERFs responded to the embedded tweet, all of their responses would show up on the troon's Mentions timeline. This is how TERFs dogpiled troons on Twitter for years. After Twitter began banning them for dogpiling, they would take a screenshot of the tweet rather than embed it, but that was less fun for the TERFs because they really wanted to trigger the troons into responding so they could engage them and get in their faces. Troons were complaining about this abuse of the embed feature forever and a day, and I believe that was ulitmately the reason for the ToS change, not the TERF conspiracy bullshit with Ballwaxer contacting his people at Twitter to secretly enact the change. It was coming down the pike, whether Ballwaxer was the catalyst or not, it was TERFs themselves who brought this onto themselves because of their addiction to triggering and fighting troons on Twitter.
You can rest assured Twitter knew all about this shit going on, and if asked to they will show evidence in court to explain both the ToS change and why they banned Meghan.
She has as least as much a right to file suit as Yaniv did to file his 16 lolcomplaints.
A troon abusing the legal system does not give a TERF the right to do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Like I said, Ballwaxer is not a party to this lolsuit. TERFs can keep bringing him up as an excuse for suing Twitter, but at the end of the day he's not a party, so what he did or claims to have done is irrelevant to this case. It's all abuse of law, it's all clogging up the legal system with frivolous lawsuits.
Finally, suppose Meghan won the lolsuit and got her Twitter account back.
Would she then abide by the new ToS that bans misgendering/deadnaming, now that she's aware of the changes to the ToS?
Of course not. Meghan has made it abudantly clear that she intends to violate the new ToS by continuing to misgender and deadname troons to their faces, in direct tweets like she has done for years. In the lolsuit she openly announces her intent to violate the new ToS because she thinks the ban violates her free speech right to deadname and misgender troons in the context of gender critical feminist activism. All of this will be brought up by Twitter. The argument that the ban was enacted retroactively, or that Meghan wasn't informed 30 days in advance is just something her lawyers came up with to claim breach of contract. However, Twitter can point out that Meghan herself has openly admitted that she does not agree to abide by the new ToS, and has thus herself admitted her intent to effectively breach her contract with Twitter. What fucking social media service in their right mind would enter into a contract with a user knowing that this user would violate their new ToS by their own public admission? Meghan cannot retroactively retract these statements of intent on her part and say: "Oh, I would agree to abide by the new ToS and refrain from deadnaming/misgendering troons, as long as I get my account back.", because no one would believe that, and neither does Twitter, hence why she remains banned.
