Possible legal action against Twitter

And a number of feminist women seem to have been unbanned by Twitter in the wake of the Forstater judgement. One appeared yesterday who had been banned for nearly two years.

Thing is, you're entitled to hold your beliefs, which is what the ruling stated, but there's still a line where it stops being beliefs and strays into incitement if you start posting them online.

This is nonsense. "Incitement" isn't a crime in this context. It is for racism, but believe it or not, it's not illegal to say that biological sex exists, and what sex people are.

You also failed to understand that the Forstater judgement protects women with GC feminist beliefs from being discriminated against because of those beliefs, like any other religious or philosophical belief. And not being able to advocate for women's sex based rights might be an example of such discrimination, as would be sacked or victimised simply for saying that you don't believe TWAW.

Yes this annoys me but id be amazed if a case got anywhere and as im fed up of explaining to people who endlessly shout guff about 'freedom of speech', twitter is a private company which can moderate how they like. I may not like that in this case but when Trump and various rightwing scumbags think they should be able to incite riots, spout misogyny and racism and private entities not be allowed to delete it on their own service-fuck that, a very dodgy slippery slope that would be used against feminism.

And it must be reporting. I doubt the govt has ways to constantly trawl and identity the sort of content they're wanting gone.

It's v different.

Germany thing v different.

Relates to laws about holocaust denial, neo Nazi stuff etc.

'In January, the Enforcement on Social Networks Act, simplified to NetzDG, starting compelling Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to remove hate speech, fake news, and illegal material within 24 hours or face fines of up to $60 million. '

It's about wanting stuff removed. Not about stopping deletions.
Different.

It relies on things being reported. And when reported they have to review and act in 12 hours.
Different.

I don't see that this is similar at all.

No I'll have a look

Gerbil did you read the link above about Germany.

It doesn't mean the hate speech isn't there, it means your country filter filters it out.

Not much of a solution, but if you are having an off say maybe useful.

The whole of everything is accessible from a device on the web.

Whether it's a massive famous site or one server somewhere.

Sorry you know I'm not saying their behaviour is not shit.

I just don't think it makes sense.

What does operating in the UK mean in the context of the internet though?

Laws are different everywhere though.

If a chat board is hosted in I dunno. Belarus.

And I say I don't think the government is working for the citizens.

They delete.

Legal recourse? I think not.

I think it's.. how can it work?

Twitter is in USA.
Loads of cash.
As a private company they can more or less do what they want surely?

If eg I went onto an MRA site and said nope you're all horrible and this is why they'd ban me obv.

I don't get it.

Thing is, you're entitled to hold your beliefs, which is what the ruling stated, but there's still a line where it stops being beliefs and strays into incitement if you start posting them online.
Which is what people tend to forget, or ignore.
So would be really interested to know what this is relating to, any sources or anything as just seems to be an OP with nothing it it

People who tweet from accounts in Germany are able to use German equality laws.
www.wired.com/story/germany-twitter-social-media-trolling/

Yes, I guess they do.

People sure do love throwing their money away

It’s never throwing money away. GC women have won several cases and even when they lose, the publicity surrounding the case is great.

People sure do love throwing their money away

[quote AnotherLass]I was slightly put off by Maya Forstater's barrister not being very enthusiastic

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1418474251414380544[/quote]
Her barrister got it wrong on both accounts as was clarified in following tweets. The legal action against Twitter is going ahead and money is being raised on crowdjustice for it.

I really can't get over the fact that they banned a woman for accurately stating the law (that had just been confirmed in the ONS judicial review), yet let nonces discuss the ideal ages of their victims, and let creeps who are sexually attracted to animals discuss fucking them 🤮

Plus there's all the men who have threatened to rape and kill women that still have their accounts...

They have so much financial clout they have become undemocratic and no longer accountable. They will only change when new chat spaces spring up and are not bought out by twitter et al to prevent competition.

I have wondered about the influence they have. I'm not sure they have any idea how many will kickback if they feel there is unfairness and sm as it stands is very unfair it it's moderation

As a US based company, I can't see how a ruling in British courts about British law would have any impact on them.

I was slightly put off by Maya Forstater's barrister not being very enthusiastic

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1418474251414380544

Personally, I think any attempt to sue Twitter is destined to fail. For a start it would be necessary to file in the Country and state where Twitter are based. Meghan Murphy tried this about her account being permanently banned, and failed