Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

beliefs even

The Forstater case was in the field of employment, but the importance of judgement is that gender critical beliefs are covered by the Equality Act as a protected characteristic.

Thus discrimination against such beliefs is prohibited in all areas covered by the Act, including the provision of goods and services, not just employment.

Interesting comment from the Supreme Court in Lee v Asher
"35. In reaching the conclusion that there was no discrimination on grounds of
sexual orientation in this case, I do not seek to minimise or disparage the very real problem of discrimination against gay people. Nor do I ignore the very full and careful consideration which was given to the development of the law in this area, to which Mr Allen QC drew our attention at considerable length. Everyone, as article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put it 70 years ago is “born free and equal in dignity and rights”. Experience has shown that the providers of employment, education, accommodation, goods, facilities and services do not always treat people with equal dignity and respect, especially if they have certain personal characteristics which are now protected by the law. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope."

As GC believes are now WORIADS - I think the direction of travel is clear. You cannot discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of a protected characteristic.

@Coyoacan
The overreach of US law has been a problem for other countries for decades. The principle of crime being territorial - ie governed by the laws of the territory in which the crime took place - has always been flouted by the US govt.

The legal and ethical principles involved are interesting. If, for example, the USA started to pass laws against Jews, would its tech platforms be entitled to force other countries to comply.

Contrary to what discovereads thinks, although that's probably the outcome, that's not the motivation.

I get that, I don’t thing DR does though. For them it seems entirely personal; which in itself I find hugely illuminating.

As for content / link appraisal Hellofabore is a legend.

I do (try and) read but I’ve not patience or the skill to fillet and flay quite like Hell

Whatever you published on Eventbrite is now deleted so I can make no comment on what might have been construed by Eventbrite to have violated the Eventbrite T&Cs and Community Guidelines you agreed to by using their digital services.

However, it largely doesn’t matter what anyone thinks as you agreed Eventbrite had the sole discretion to determine if content violated the terms and furthermore that they could remove content for “any other reason”
17.3 :
“Eventbrite reserves the right to remove Your Content from the Services if Eventbrite believes in its sole discretion that it violates these Terms, our Community Guidelines, or for any other reason.”

I think you’d have an uphill battle as the community guideline they referenced states “This includes:….hateful ideologies…that engage in….disparagement…targeting a…group based on their actual or perceived….gender identity.” (Just parsing what I think they might have applied)

The use of “this includes” also means its not just what is listed, eg they can decide any ideology (hateful or not) that disparages a group based on gender identity is a violation. Disparagement is also a very low bar. You’d have to prove not only was your content not hateful, but also not disparaging.

The Forstarter decision was about employment law in that you cannot disciple or sack an employee for expressing beliefs (no matter how offensive) outside the workplace on public digital platforms. It would be a stretch to expand that to protection as a consumer to publish content (no matter how offensive) on a digital platform. In addition, in the Forstarter case a number of her tweets were actually removed by Twitter for being offensive, the court did not rule that Twitter was wrong to remove her content- which would be more similar to what’s happened to you. You’ve posted content on a public platform that has been removed by the host. The courts decision didn’t affect Twitters ability to remove Forstarter’s tweets.

Laws are trending towards requiring such platforms to better monitor and remove offensive content under a precautionary principle. Ability to publish and disseminate content on public platforms is quite different from protection as an employee to hold different beliefs that have no bearing on performing your role.

Forstarter would kick in if you were losing your job or being discriminated against by your employer for having written this book and having GC beliefs.

I suspect however that no answer will be forthcoming. Because there is nothing about this event or the book that anyone could reasonably describe as 'violent, dangerous or hateful'.

I don't imagine you will get any kind of analysis of those descriptions. It will be more along the lines of they can do what they like because they're not subject to English law.

Contrary to what discovereads thinks, although that's probably the outcome, that's not the motivation.

Nothing I've ever read from that poster leads me to think they are pro women in this issue. Which is why I skim their posts and don't read the links. (Although, I might be more inclined to if Hellofabore didn't do such a sterling job. No point both of us doing it).

Currently, the attempt to shut women down is taking the form of, it won't work, it's a waste of money, no one is listening, no one cares, or trying to discredit on the basis of bogus association with the wrong sorts.

So if I see that happening, I'll challenge it.

But if discovereads really does want to help and can lend spero the benefit of their experience, that would be great !

🍿

@Waitwhat23
Love it!!!
🤣

This is a man being patronised by a TRA rather than a woman but still one of my favourite examples.

I love when TRA's try to patronise ilovebeetles (Emma Hamilton) on Twitter. It's very much a grab the popcorn moment as she absolutely annihilates their ill thought out arguments.

In awe of you spero

Good luck, Spero. I have fetched my spade.

As to Discovereads' legal analysis, I am prompted to an appropriately lawyerly response, namely that I shall give their comments all the attention they deserve.

US arms dealers are what is passing for the left, nowadays.

Well I shan’t be using eventbrite again and I’ll be speaking to our events coordinator to make sure we find an alternate platform.

Good luck OP, and if you decide to use an alternate platform for your book launch let us know!

Well there you go, spero has asked you for more fleshing out of your first post about the Ts and Cs Eventbrite are using.

If you're genuine, I would certainly be interested in why you think the the case will fail, and then to see speros counter argument.

Ukraine appreciates the arms we are sending.

Or would it have been more “charming” and “compassionate” to just let Putin rampage across the country killing and raping before formally annexing the Ukraine to Russia?

When you & others posted “I stand with Ukraine” were those just empty words? What did you think actually standing with an ally being invaded by a totalitarian autocratic nation bent on imperialist reconquest means?

Thoughts and prayers?

Sitting thousands of miles away in front of a screen and doing a virtue signalling tweet? Or a FB profile with a Ukraine flag? A day out in London to wave a sign about? Creating and laughing over Putin memes? Hosting a refugee that you don’t give two shits about until they’re actually here and in front of you in person?

Following with interest.

It is upsetting for you to be so blatantly prejudiced against me that you presume to criticise and pass judgement on something you have refused to read.

We must have different definitions of help. Sometimes helping is giving unpalatable truths rather than what people want to hear.