Meghan Murphy announced 2 1/2 years ago she was suing Twitter for permanently banning her account after she tweeted, “women aren’t men” and other declarations referring to scientific facts about biological differences between women and men.
She filed the lawsuit in February 2019. In the YouTube video announcing it, the Canadian journalist and feminist spelled out a policy that would reveal the Big Tech censorship that severely threatens the Freedom of Speech and Expression in America.
“Twitter has begun silencing individuals and political views they don’t want heard,” Murphy said in November 2018.
This month, the liberal far left court of appeals in California ruled that Twitter was right to ban her account.
“I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore?” she tweeted. “That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane.”
Her account was locked permanently a few days later when she referred to a transgender female by a male pronoun.
The legal battle between tech and social media giants and their censored users often come down to the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230.
It provides the former with broad, almost impenetrable protections, while disenfranchising the latter’s free speech.
Despite the fact that the US Supreme Court observed Congress had promotion of free exchange of information and ideas over the internet in mind when it created Section 230, liberal courts are interpreting this law differently.
The greedy power of Big Tech allows these giants to do what they want–get it both ways–by hiding behind the legislation’s protections from legal liability for user-generated content, while not being obligated, or willing to protect free speech.
The 1st District Court of Appeal threw out Murphy’s lawsuit, seeing merit in Twitter’s argument that it had the right to censor information it sees as unacceptable, and is, essentially, not really in the business of being a free speech platform.
Murphy’s lawsuit attempted to make a point of Twitter previously marketing itself as precisely that, and even promising “not to actively monitor or censor user content.”
A second argument was that Twitter’s business practice was unfair because it gave itself the right to suspend or ban accounts “at any time, for any, or no reason.”
But as usual, this leftist California court took Twitter’s side.