Canadian gender-politics blogger Meghan Murphy filed a lawsuit against Twitter on Monday after she was banned from the platform for criticizing transgender people.
Murphy, who founded Feminist Current, took to Facebook and YouTube to explain why she was suing Twitter.
On Facebook she would write:
“Twitter allows porn, as well as accounts that enable sex trafficking, on their platform, but ban women who speak the truth about material reality and challenge the idea that individuals can change sex through self-declaration.
They hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to defend their allowance of illegal activities, violent threats, and pornography on the platform, but then shut down and silence women who share opinions and arguments they don’t like, or attempt to hold predatory men to account.
Twitter has advertised itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party” and repeatedly promised its users in its Terms of Service and elsewhere that it would not censor their speech. Its Terms of Service state that any changes “Will not be retroactive,” and that it will provide 30 days’ notice to users of any changes. Nonetheless, I was banned in November, presumably for violating Twitter’s new rules on “misgendering,” though no one from the company has ever explained the reason for my ban, as certainly I have never engaged in “hateful conduct” on the platform, which were never made known to users. The first news report on these new rules was published TWENTY MINUTES after I was banned from the platform.
Twitter is not going to get away with this hypocritical, dishonest, entirely sketchy and unlawful behaviour. We cannot allow multi billion dollar companies to dictate free speech!
Also, did no one tell them not to f*** with me? Do not f*** with me.”
Murphy would elaborate on YouTube explaining why Twitter suspended her account.
“On November 23, 2018, Twitter permanently suspended my account after tweeting, “Yeah, it’s him” about a male who identifies as transgender, but who continues to use his male name on social media, including on Twitter, as well as in a Google review I shared as part of my tweet. My account had previously been locked for posting such seemingly innocuous statements and questions as, “Men aren’t women,” and, “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?”
Murphy’s Twitter account was permanently locked in November. According to National Review, Murphy deleted a number of her Tweets from October that read, “Women aren’t men” and “how are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?”
Another Tweet read, “I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore?” She also Tweeted, “That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane.”
Murphy has been outspoken in her critique of the transgender movement. In 2017 she spoke in front of the Canadian Senate, “Treating gender as though it is either internal or a personal choice is dangerous and completely misunderstands how and why women are oppressed under patriarchy as a class of people.” She would add, “The rights of women and girls are being pushed aside to accommodate a trend.”
In Murphy’s lawsuit she wants an injunction that orders Twitter to cease and desist from “enforcing its unannounced and viewpoint discriminatory “misgendering” rule. She also wants Twitter to lift any suspension or ban due to their “misgendering” policy. She wants Twitter to cease and desist “promulgating or enforcing any other rules or policies that discriminate based on viewpoint.”
Murphy also wants Twitter to cease and desist “from any attempts to make or enforce material changes to its User Agreement without providing 30 days’ advance notice of the changes.” The injunction would also make Twitter “cease and desist attempts to enforce changes to its User Agreement retroactively.”
She also wants Twitter to stop its policy of “requiring users to delete Tweets without first notifying the user of what rule or policy the Tweet allegedly violated.” The lawsuit also states she wants Twitter to remove parts of their Terms of Service that states Twitter can ban or suspend an account “at any time for any or no reason” and “without liability to you.” She also demands Twitter cease efforts to invoke or enforce this language.
Finally, the injunction would force Twitter to issue a “full and frank public correction of its false and misleading advertising and representations to the general public that it does not censor user content except in narrowly-defined, viewpoint-neutral circumstances such as impersonation and copyright violations; that it welcomes all voices and serves as a platform for the free expression of its users; and that it does discriminate based on the political viewpoints or perspectives of its users in either its policies or enforcement.”
Aside from the injunction, Murphy also wants two declaratory judgments. The first is “that Twitter has breached and continues to breach its contractual agreements with Murphy and similarly-situated users, and has violated and continues to violate the rights of Murphy and other similarly-situated users under the UCL.”
The second declaratory judgment is that “Twitter has violated and continues to violate the rights of Murphy and other similarly-situated users under the UCL.”
Murphy is being represented by Harmeet Dhillon, Adam Candeub, and Noah Peters.