The Meghan Murphy situation proves that Twitter is not a free speech zone
In an unsurprising court decision, Twitter prevailed in another lawsuit from a permanently banned user. Meghan Murphy, an articulate and prominent feminist advocate, lost her account for violating “misgendering” policy which has changed what they deem to be “hate speech.”
Murphy opposes the compelled speech which would force her to refer to what she calls “trans-identified males” using their self identified pronouns.
The question of whether or not “hate” is in the eye of the beholder or the mind of the speaker is part of the current debate. Murphy’s position has sought to identify biological facts about the differences between genders and the danger of pretending those differences don’t exist.
An act of speech is now considered by many to be an act of violence. Of course this undermines the meaning and seriousness of “violence,” but that’s not something we’d expect Twitter to resolve.
The court decided that Twitter has the right to provide or refuse service at their own discretion, but Newton proved that all action has an equal and opposite reaction.
While science usually prevails, it can get a bit more complicated when mobs take control of facts. Of course the mob can’t erase facts simply by virtue of mass disapproval but they can prevent science from guiding society for a rather lengthy time.
Right now it is a social fact that, despite employing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, Twitter will make choices based on which group of people causes them more fear. And it is a legal fact that they have the right to make that choice.
While some people might have believed George W. Bush when he declared he was “The Decider” most people file a lawsuit hoping to gain that evermore elusive challenge of finding an impartial judge.
Unfortunately, the civil court process doesn’t always give people an open venue to state their case and just getting to trial can be part of the challenge. If you do get to trial it may be more about words and technicalities than the actual events of the grievance. The legal system isn’t really a substitute for civil conversation.
Perhaps the conversation is best held in the public square with proficient moderators.
While Twitter’s right to choose who they allow on their website legally remains within their discretion, they lost the right to call themselves a venue for free speech. Advocates for free speech never prove their mettle until they are willing to protect speech they loathe.
Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey was most effectively grilled about his uneven application of community standards by YouTube content producer Tim Pool on The Joe Rogan Experience.
The court decision, shutting down Meghan Murphy’s lawsuit against Twitter for breach of contract, did not determine whether or not Murphy was guilty of hate speech. It only determined that Twitter was permitted to ban her from their website.
While some may try to paint the decision as validation that Murphy must be forced to engage in compelled speech, that issue is yet to be resolved. It’s just a matter of what platform that debate takes place.
Not only does the debate continue, the debate must be heard.
Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order that restricted the influx of immigrants and refugees from some Muslim-majority countries, Justin Trudeau tweeted the following:
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada”
Trump’s policy was slammed by many as a “Muslim-ban,” mostly based upon statements he had made during the election campaign calling for a ban.
However, the policy itself ended up still allowing immigration and refugee settlement from the majority of the world’s Muslim-majority nations, and also included bans on countries like Venezuela and North Korea.
Of course, Justin Trudeau still didn’t miss his virtue-signalling moment, and his resulting tweet led to a large influx of illegal border crossers to Canada.
At the time, some might have claimed that it was just an emotional reaction by Trudeau, that he was legitimately upset by Trump’s remarks and the restrictive policy on immigration from certain countries into the U.S.
Yet, let’s just consider the contrast in Trudeau’s response to a policy passed by the United States (our close ally and a nation where the rule of law prevails), and Trudeau’s response to China’s actual Muslim concentration camps.
As revealed by the China Cables, there is now no way to deny that China is engaging in the mass oppression of Muslim people in Xinjiang province:
“The China Cables, obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, include a classified list of guidelines, personally approved by the region’s top security chief, that effectively serves as a manual for operating the camps now holding hundreds of thousands of Muslim Uighurs and other minorities. The leak also features previously undisclosed intelligence briefings that reveal, in the government’s own words, how Chinese police are guided by a massive data collection and analysis system that uses artificial intelligence to select entire categories of Xinjiang residents for detention.”
So, China is holding innocent Canadian Citizens hostage, has repeatedly threatened Canada, is oppressing the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, and is now arbitrarily arresting innocent Muslims, taking them away from their families, abusing them, indoctrinating them, and committing crimes on a horrendous scale.
Where’s Trudeau’s tweet about all this?
Where’s his tear-filled press conference?
Where’s the strong action by the Canadian government to distance ourselves from China, ban Huawei, and stop infiltration by the Communist State into the politics of our nation?
Instead, Trudeau and much of Canada’s pathetic political class are silent.
It’s gutless and hypocritical, and it makes Trudeau’s tweet following Trump’s so-called ‘Muslim ban’ seem like a complete joke.
China is in the midst of a real Muslim ban, punishing millions of people and trying to eradicate their faith.
If Trudeau and the Canadian elites aren’t willing to decouple our nation from China even under these circumstances, then our values and our national strength may already be gone.
A British daycare has faced criticism after it introduced a vegan-only menu for the enrolled children, according to the Daily Mail.
The daycare, named Jigsaw Day Nurseries, is intending to create an entirely plant-based diet by January of next year. The daycare in question has over 250 children, and they will be serving children who are aged between 0 and 4.
As soon as the daycare introduced these changes, parents began to complain, saying that the daycare introduced these changes without consulting them first.
There was also a significant amount of online criticism, with some respondents suggesting that the daycare is imposing a lifestyle change on other people’s children.
The owner of the daycare has rejected the parent’s claims, telling the Daily Mail that she feels “passionately” about the “sustainable path” she has chosen.
“Our sole focus has been on making a significant and impactful change for the good of our children’s environmental futures whilst ring-fencing this with robust nutritional planning which meets all the recommended early years guidelines.”
U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted a photo of himself—sort of.
At 10:54 am on Wednesday, Trump unveiled a gem to the world; a photo of himself, photoshopped on the body of Rocky Balboa.
The photo, which is actually of Sylvester Stallone from the poster for Rocky III, received a warm reception from his supporters and screeching hatred from the never-Trump crowd.
A flurry of memes from those who didn’t seem to get the joke came in, with many of them pointing out that Trump is actually overweight.
This is the latest in a series of Trump tweets that have utilized Photoshop.
Trump previously tweeted a doctored photo of himself putting a paw-shaped medal around the neck of Conan the terrorist-slaying dog, which led to joyless organizations like the New York Times to fact check the post, as if it wasn’t clearly photoshopped.
The photo, made by the team over at Daily Wire, became a thorn in the side of the Times, as they ran a headline reading “Trump Tweets Faked Photo Of Hero Dog Getting a Medal.”
“The dog appeared to have been edited over a 2017 Medal of Honor recipient,” stated the Times’ article, which has since reached a fine ratio of 516 Retweets to over 2,800 replies.
Trump also previously tweeted a doctored photo of himself with larger hands, which has roots from comments made by former Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio, wherein Rubio said Trump had small hands.
Yesterday, journalist and The Post Millennial editor-at-large Andy Ngo was suspended from Twitter for the following tweet directed at Chelsea Clinton: “The US is one of the safest countries for trans people. The murder rate of trans victims is actually lower than that for cis population. Also, who is behind the murders? Mostly black men.” Ngo has been banned from Twitter for saying a true thing. As a journalist, his job is to expose the truth. Twitter has deemed the speaking of facts to be “hateful conduct.”
Ngo’s tweet was in response to Clinton’s Trans Remembrance Day post honouring murdered trans women. He showed that Clinton’s tweet was misleading. There has been much talk about how many trans women have been killed for being trans in the United States. Many trans activists claim that it is an epidemic. It should go without saying that harming someone for any reason, other than self-defence, is not acceptable, but in the facts vs. feelings war regarding the murders of trans people in the States, facts have been getting the short end of the stick. America is actually the safest place for trans people to live.
A widely purported stat is that trans women of colour have a life expectancy of just 35. This has been stated as fact. But what Katie Herzog uncovered for The Stranger is that this number was taken from the life expectancy of trans women in Central America, where violence of all kinds is incredibly high. That makes this not a valid stat for the United States, but activists tout it anyway. In the U.S., there were 118 trans women murdered between 2015-2019. In 2016 alone, there were 3,895 women murdered in the US, mostly by men in domestic circumstances, and that number is rising. No one calls that an epidemic.
In many of the trans murder cases, the trans women who were murdered led high-risk lifestyles. That doesn’t excuse their murder, but it does mean, that for the most part, they were in dangerous situations, and their deaths were not a result of identity-based hate. “What we do know from all available resources is that the violence these individuals experience occurs to a very broad range of people with diverse backgrounds and identities,” writes Chad Felix Greene for The Federalist, “It is clearly more an issue of high-risk environments than identity-based discrimination.”
Today, Twitter has rejected Ngo’s appeal for suspension, claiming that “Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision. You will not be able to access Twitter through your account due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around: Violating our rules against hateful conduct. In order to restore account functionality, you can resolve the violations by logging into your account and completing the on-screen instructions.”
So there you have it: Ngo and Twitter are in a stalemate. Apparently, telling a statistically verifiable fact on Twitter is grounds for indefinite suspension. Meghan Murphy said women aren’t men, and it was curtains for her. Posie Parker was recently banned from Facebook, and interviews with her were removed from YouTube. Gender critical feminists have been taking heat for posting facts and the only thing Twitter has to say about it is that it’s hateful. Conservatives, too. James Woods tweeted, “If you try to kill the King, you best not miss #HangThemAll” in reference to the Mueller Report. He, too, was banished. Meanwhile, a quick Twitter search of the acronym “terf” reveals thousands upon thousands of abusive and threatening tweets, all in the name of social justice.
Discussion around trans issues is infused with feelings. When facts make an appearance, and those feelings are exposed as perspective and not reality, journalists and investigators are called out as transphobic. It’s as though the demand that we buy into the delusion that there is no such thing as biological sex transcends across the spectrum of feelings.
What happens next is unclear. Ngo may be the next Twitter exile, following in the footsteps of Meghan Murphy and James Woods, who paid the ultimate Twitter price for speaking their truth. Ngo tells us that “Twitter has determined that a verifiable empirical claim can be deemed ‘hateful conduct’ if enough people find it offensive. We know this only works in one direction.”
Indeed. As time marches on, so does Twitter, swiftly on its way to an Orwellian hellscape where only the approved may speak. The judgement process is opaque, the terms change definition depending on who is using the words, and the only appeals process is to apologize and submit to censure. It is into these hands that we have placed our free speech rights. It is beneath this gaze that we are exposed. That’s why it’s not enough to chalk Twitter’s practices up to corporate decision-making whimsy. We need to hold their feet to the fire. We cannot let the arbiters of truth be those who label facts as hate.