- Joined
- Sep 1, 2016
Where's that cap of Jon's exchange with one of the salons where he admits he's still got his man-junk?Pervo Yaniv said:
Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification
- Thread starter trannyfucker
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
True. We may one day find evidence that thetans are real and Xenu is still trapped in his prison on Mars or wherever. On the other hand, we have evidence today that Jonathan Yaniv and Macho Ma'am Randy Savage are biological men.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
This one seems to be getting some media traction. At least in the alt media
Tim Pool
The Daily Caller
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/12/twitter-meghan-murphy-transgender-censorship/
Tim Pool
The Daily Caller
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/12/twitter-meghan-murphy-transgender-censorship/
Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy is suing Twitter after she was banned for her tweets about transgender people.
Attorneys for Murphy on Monday filed suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, accusing Twitter of deceptive trade practices and breach of contract.
Twitter banned Murphy in November over a series of transgender-related tweets that included statements like “men aren’t women” and “How are transwomen not men?”
“Twitter’s repeated representations that it would uphold the free speech rights of its users and not censor user speech were material to the decision of millions of users, like Murphy, to join,” Murphy’s lawyers wrote in court documents reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Twitter would never have attracted the hundreds of millions of users it boasts today had Twitter let it be known that it would arbitrarily ban users who did not agree with the political and social views of its management or impose sweeping new policies banning the expression of widely-held viewpoints and perspectives on public issues,” the suit states.
“While it is appalling that Twitter would ban a journalist for asking legitimate questions about an incoherent ideology, such as gender identity, and for challenging legislation I believe is a massive threat to women’s rights, this is about more than just gender identity,” Murphy wrote in an email to TheDCNF.
“We cannot allow multi billion dollar corporations to dictate speech. Twitter is quite literally enforcing a 1984-style version of newspeak, wherein we may not speak or name material reality. The fact that it is so-called progressives, by and large, is appalling,” Murphy added.
Feminist writer Meghan Murphy is suing Twitter
(Photo courtesy of Murphy)
“These are people who should be challenging corporate power and seeking truth and justice, and instead they are imposing or going along with what I consider to be fascistic regimes, and allowing corporations to determine what we may think, say, and ask.”
“Twitter believes Ms. Murphy’s claims are meritless and will vigorously defend itself against this suit,” a Twitter spokesman told TheDCNF in an email. Murphy’s lawsuit was first reported Monday night by The Wall Street Journal.
A sign is posted on the exterior of Twitter headquarters on July 26, 2018 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The final straw for Twitter was a tweet in which Murphy referred to a transgender activist, Jessica Yaniv, as “him.” Murphy’s tweet included a screenshot of a review that Yaniv posted for a waxing salon, under the previous name, “Jonathan Yaniv,” which is still listed on Yaniv’s Twitter profile.
“In the past year, Yaniv has filed 16 different human rights complaints against female estheticians from across Canada for refusing to perform Brazilian waxes on Yaniv due to Yaniv having male genitalia,” Murphy’s lawyers wrote in court documents reviewed by TheDCNF. (RELATED: Twitter’s Algorithm Buried Republican Congressmen For Something Out Of Their Control)
In an email to TheDCNF, Yaniv called it “totally untrue that ALL of the complaints are involving Brazilian waxing and that they are women’“working from their homes’ because as such, many of these are retail salons. Also, she, nor the lawyer knows about my genitalia, nor is it applicable because as you know, I am legally a female.”
“One of these complaints is actually due to refusal of a hair cut at a unisex hair salon, to give you a sense of the inaccuracies here. Also, the refusal of services actually occurred immediately after mentioning that I am transgender. These salons had no issue with me booking the services as a female (or male) but when I mentioned I am transgender, they immediately refused service and this is where the discrimination complaints begin. In fact, one of these complaints actually boldly states ‘I don’t do for men and transgender,'” Yaniv wrote the email.
Murphy’s lawyers pointed to a December town council meeting where Yaniv took credit for Murphy’s suspension. “I personally got her Twitter account suspended,” Yaniv said. Video from the meeting shows Yavin also expressing frustration that Murphy “still has not been prosecuted” by authorities for her tweets, which Yaniv described as “hate crimes” that “violated the Canadian criminal code.”
“I don’t have any ‘connections at Twitter,’ and I simply reported her like any other user would. Twitter, on their own initiative banned her,” Yaniv stated in the email to TheDCNF. “While my report did cause her to get banned.. what happens after the report isn’t up to me.”
Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson
Attorneys for Murphy on Monday filed suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, accusing Twitter of deceptive trade practices and breach of contract.
Twitter banned Murphy in November over a series of transgender-related tweets that included statements like “men aren’t women” and “How are transwomen not men?”
“Twitter’s repeated representations that it would uphold the free speech rights of its users and not censor user speech were material to the decision of millions of users, like Murphy, to join,” Murphy’s lawyers wrote in court documents reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Twitter would never have attracted the hundreds of millions of users it boasts today had Twitter let it be known that it would arbitrarily ban users who did not agree with the political and social views of its management or impose sweeping new policies banning the expression of widely-held viewpoints and perspectives on public issues,” the suit states.
“While it is appalling that Twitter would ban a journalist for asking legitimate questions about an incoherent ideology, such as gender identity, and for challenging legislation I believe is a massive threat to women’s rights, this is about more than just gender identity,” Murphy wrote in an email to TheDCNF.
“We cannot allow multi billion dollar corporations to dictate speech. Twitter is quite literally enforcing a 1984-style version of newspeak, wherein we may not speak or name material reality. The fact that it is so-called progressives, by and large, is appalling,” Murphy added.
Feminist writer Meghan Murphy is suing Twitter
(Photo courtesy of Murphy)
“These are people who should be challenging corporate power and seeking truth and justice, and instead they are imposing or going along with what I consider to be fascistic regimes, and allowing corporations to determine what we may think, say, and ask.”
“Twitter believes Ms. Murphy’s claims are meritless and will vigorously defend itself against this suit,” a Twitter spokesman told TheDCNF in an email. Murphy’s lawsuit was first reported Monday night by The Wall Street Journal.
A sign is posted on the exterior of Twitter headquarters on July 26, 2018 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The final straw for Twitter was a tweet in which Murphy referred to a transgender activist, Jessica Yaniv, as “him.” Murphy’s tweet included a screenshot of a review that Yaniv posted for a waxing salon, under the previous name, “Jonathan Yaniv,” which is still listed on Yaniv’s Twitter profile.
“In the past year, Yaniv has filed 16 different human rights complaints against female estheticians from across Canada for refusing to perform Brazilian waxes on Yaniv due to Yaniv having male genitalia,” Murphy’s lawyers wrote in court documents reviewed by TheDCNF. (RELATED: Twitter’s Algorithm Buried Republican Congressmen For Something Out Of Their Control)
In an email to TheDCNF, Yaniv called it “totally untrue that ALL of the complaints are involving Brazilian waxing and that they are women’“working from their homes’ because as such, many of these are retail salons. Also, she, nor the lawyer knows about my genitalia, nor is it applicable because as you know, I am legally a female.”
“One of these complaints is actually due to refusal of a hair cut at a unisex hair salon, to give you a sense of the inaccuracies here. Also, the refusal of services actually occurred immediately after mentioning that I am transgender. These salons had no issue with me booking the services as a female (or male) but when I mentioned I am transgender, they immediately refused service and this is where the discrimination complaints begin. In fact, one of these complaints actually boldly states ‘I don’t do for men and transgender,'” Yaniv wrote the email.
Murphy’s lawyers pointed to a December town council meeting where Yaniv took credit for Murphy’s suspension. “I personally got her Twitter account suspended,” Yaniv said. Video from the meeting shows Yavin also expressing frustration that Murphy “still has not been prosecuted” by authorities for her tweets, which Yaniv described as “hate crimes” that “violated the Canadian criminal code.”
“I don’t have any ‘connections at Twitter,’ and I simply reported her like any other user would. Twitter, on their own initiative banned her,” Yaniv stated in the email to TheDCNF. “While my report did cause her to get banned.. what happens after the report isn’t up to me.”
Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson
Ed_ButteredToast
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/transparency-report-2018 (https://archive.is/7dnZD)
Section B3.
I wonder who did this...
Section B3.
I wonder who did this...
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
Lesbian media website AfterEllen has covered Jonathan and Meghan's story:
https://www.afterellen.com/general-...nt-feminist-sues-the-company-for-targeted-ban
https://archive.li/eM0pz
https://www.afterellen.com/general-...nt-feminist-sues-the-company-for-targeted-ban
https://archive.li/eM0pz
The reality is, feminists on the left have been quite vocal when it comes to various changes in law, pushed by the “LGBTQ” lobby. Some of those liberal feminists are “nice” and “polite” and others less so. Feminists on the left have been among the most vocally opposed to changes in law and APA guidelines. Opposed to things like early-childhood transition and giving double mastectomies to 13 year old kids, way before they’ve ever even had a chance to reach full cognitive brain development (which happens in your 20’s).
Lesbians, who are statistically the most underfunded and unrepresented group in the acronym, are also the most vocal when it comes to asking why.
Why the “LGBTQ” is ignoring liberal studies where 3 in 4 of these “non conforming” kids grow upto be L & G.
Why they no longer protect L & G kids who don’t conform.
Why they don’t consider various religions and conservative parenting—where a gay child is considered the worst possible scenario, and abuse/shaming starts as young as with an 18 month old baby, for liking the “wrong” things.
Why the vast melting pot of cultures and religions is overlooked, backgrounds where it’s punishable by death to be homosexual, but getting a “sex-change” is acceptable.
Lesbians, who are statistically the most underfunded and unrepresented group in the acronym, are also the most vocal when it comes to asking why.
Why the “LGBTQ” is ignoring liberal studies where 3 in 4 of these “non conforming” kids grow upto be L & G.
Why they no longer protect L & G kids who don’t conform.
Why they don’t consider various religions and conservative parenting—where a gay child is considered the worst possible scenario, and abuse/shaming starts as young as with an 18 month old baby, for liking the “wrong” things.
Why the vast melting pot of cultures and religions is overlooked, backgrounds where it’s punishable by death to be homosexual, but getting a “sex-change” is acceptable.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
This has got to be a nightmare for Yaniv, since his entire strategy involves burying negative shit about him.
Now his crap is plastered all over a lawsuit against a third party, and since his involvement with the sued party is what the lawsuit hinges on, he has no power to whine about his name being mentioned, especially since it's filed in an American court, where American transparency in public documents laws trump his butthurt.
Even if Murphy loses, he can NOT make this disappear.
Now his crap is plastered all over a lawsuit against a third party, and since his involvement with the sued party is what the lawsuit hinges on, he has no power to whine about his name being mentioned, especially since it's filed in an American court, where American transparency in public documents laws trump his butthurt.
Even if Murphy loses, he can NOT make this disappear.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The little male bitch can choke to death on it. Too bad he was ignorant of a fellow member of the Tribe named Barbra Streisand and her efforts to make a certain photograph disappear.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
Jared Taylor (American Renaissance) sued Twitter last year in the same court, which ruled he could proceed before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided otherwise:
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...n-in-must-carry-lawsuit-taylor-v-twitter.html
Twitter argued in that case that if it, Twitter, wanted to ban women/gays/minorities from its platform, it would have the right to do so under its First Amendment rights. It's about what Twitter wants, with "hateful" not even relevant.
The San Jose Mercury News 2/12 responded with this:
http://archive.is/qbHXr
Twitter sued for nixing radical feminist’s tweets about transgender people
By ETHAN BARON | ebaron@bayareanewsgroup.com
A lawsuit against social media giant Twitter has shone a spotlight on a branch of feminism whose adherents believe transgender women are just male oppressors in lipstick and skirts.
Canadian radical feminist Meghan Murphy’s suit claims Twitter forced her to delete several tweets about transgender people, before permanently banning her from the platform. Her legal argument focuses on a tweet she posted about a person who filed numerous complaints against female aestheticians because they wouldn’t provide a Brazilian wax job to a person with male genitals.
------
So...bigoted "TERFs" (Ethan uses the term later) bullying vulnerable transwomen over lipstick and dresses is the problem, even going so far as to harass Jonathan Yaniv.
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...n-in-must-carry-lawsuit-taylor-v-twitter.html
Twitter argued in that case that if it, Twitter, wanted to ban women/gays/minorities from its platform, it would have the right to do so under its First Amendment rights. It's about what Twitter wants, with "hateful" not even relevant.
The San Jose Mercury News 2/12 responded with this:
http://archive.is/qbHXr
Twitter sued for nixing radical feminist’s tweets about transgender people
By ETHAN BARON | ebaron@bayareanewsgroup.com
A lawsuit against social media giant Twitter has shone a spotlight on a branch of feminism whose adherents believe transgender women are just male oppressors in lipstick and skirts.
Canadian radical feminist Meghan Murphy’s suit claims Twitter forced her to delete several tweets about transgender people, before permanently banning her from the platform. Her legal argument focuses on a tweet she posted about a person who filed numerous complaints against female aestheticians because they wouldn’t provide a Brazilian wax job to a person with male genitals.
------
So...bigoted "TERFs" (Ethan uses the term later) bullying vulnerable transwomen over lipstick and dresses is the problem, even going so far as to harass Jonathan Yaniv.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
But the thing is while Twitter will probably win in court, it will decimate their user base. Look at Jack’s admission this week of double standards. Advertisers HATE that sort of thing. While Twitter May hate the right. Right wing engagement and trust of the platform is critical to its business success. And that’s where it gets real clever. Murphy will likely lose in court. But it will provide on the record evidence that Twitter, while having the legal right to lie and have double standards, does in fact unquestionably lie and have double standards. At which point a group of investors and shareholders, many of whom already hate Jack, will drop a massive lawsuit on his head for his failures and corrupt corporate governance. He is legally bound as the corporate officer to act in shareholder and investor interests. Not in personal ideological ones. When personal ideology damages investor interests it is legally very very bad.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2018
Someone on twitter had an interesting thought- platforms like twitter were originally released from being liable for what people posted because they claimed to be a platform instead of a publisher. From what I understand, the difference was that a publisher editorializes, and platforms don't. Twitter might really fuck themselves if they decide to editorialize so much that they become a publisher and then become liable for all the stupid lies and hoaxes they let on their website.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
Twitter isn’t really close to being considered a publisher for purposes of Safe Harbor. They may discriminate, but they don’t typically editorialize. Google/YouTube and Facebook face far greater risk there. Twitter has risks in other areas.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Online, the publisher of user submitted content is the person on the byline. Like the user account. A platform would basically have to willingly waive the section 230 protections. (Ie explicitly saying "we are a newspaper and therefore take responsibility for all of our contributors posts")
Or they'd have to undermine the validity of the byline/username by editing the post and failing to label the changes as not being the original words of the account holder.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2018
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
California takes a vastly expansive view of § 230, and it has been used successfully by Twitter to justify kicking people off. I.e. not only does California view § 230 as limiting liability for defamation for third party content, but as also immunizing ISPs for choices to ban that content in the first place and the users who post it.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
It'd be interesting if someone could figure out a way to sue the Silicon Valley firms in another state's courts though. I think that the courts there are at least somewhat biased due to self interest, and judges and juries elsewhere may have a different outlook on some of these laws.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
See, that's horrifying to me. I think taking away section 230 from Twitter destroys the web, but I also think giving it to ISPs destroys the web.
The real censorship is financial, like paypal, patreon, Mastercard, etc.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The EU is known for not particularly caring what U.S. law says about companies that are doing business within their borders. Not that I'm particularly fond of those assholes having any jurisdiction over this.
Twitter is only protected by it because they're legally an "ISP" within the meaning of the statute, which was enacted specifically to protect ISPs, which now simply means anyone providing any kind of Internet service whatsoever, or even in the case of California, anyone who posts anyone else's content.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
The "interactive" phrasing in the law makes it sound like it's specifically including non-ISP services.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
Noah Peters and Adam Candeub, supplementary counsel in MM's lawsuit, were also such in Taylor v. Twitter, which had Superior Court authority to proceed that the appellate court superseded.
The complaint: https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uplo...irst-Amended-Complaint-w-Exhs.pdf_extract.pdf
The transcript allowing suit to go forward: https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/06-14-2018-Taylor-v-Twitter.pdf
Twitter's appeal: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2785&context=historical
I agree w/ @AnOminous that the MM and Taylor suits appear very similar. As far as the theory that they're doing it for PR: If the Superior Court doesn't allow MM to proceed with the suit as with Taylor, there won't be discovery to build a PR campaign around and the story will be short-lived PR wise.
Peters and Candeub have been on that end just last year, and it makes no sense for them to be involved if they don't see some advantage over Taylor. Same with Murphy.
The complaint: https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uplo...irst-Amended-Complaint-w-Exhs.pdf_extract.pdf
The transcript allowing suit to go forward: https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/06-14-2018-Taylor-v-Twitter.pdf
Twitter's appeal: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2785&context=historical
I agree w/ @AnOminous that the MM and Taylor suits appear very similar. As far as the theory that they're doing it for PR: If the Superior Court doesn't allow MM to proceed with the suit as with Taylor, there won't be discovery to build a PR campaign around and the story will be short-lived PR wise.
Peters and Candeub have been on that end just last year, and it makes no sense for them to be involved if they don't see some advantage over Taylor. Same with Murphy.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The Superior Court at the county level is probably bound by the earlier decision, but another panel of the First Appellate Division is not necessarily bound by it. They could be trying to get contradictory opinions to get a shot at a Supreme Court of California opinion.