The TerFblocker list

[FourRustedHorses]

Are there any legal people here who could answer a few questions about the legality of this list?

1- The list is held/created by a political party candidate so surely this list must comply with data protection rules given its political in nature?

2- what’s the legality of a political party candidate using such a list to not only silence women but also people in the constituency they plan to run for?

3- data protection has very specific rules on the holding of data especially when that data includes names, locations and sexual orientation. There are many women on that list using real names, their town locations and declaring their sexual orientation primarily leabians. Does this list fall under those rules?

It is created and presumably ‘held’ in the UK given who created it.

4- could the list be considered a form of deformation of character given everyone on it is labelled a ‘terf’?

5 does the list cause any issue with regards to the equality act (I think) given its mostly women and highly sexist?

6 what about safeguarding if there are under 18s on that list? Holding data on children is a different kettle of fish surely?

7- Are there any other issues such a list could cause given its held and used by people in positions of power to primarily silence an oppressed class - women?

8- what rules must political party candidates adhere to when creating lists of this nature?

This list has existed for a while and I can’t find anybody information whether it’s legal, whether there are any conflicts or if the latests GDPR rules apply. Specifically because of who created it and it’s intent.

[thebewilderness]

Discrimination against women is of no interest to the MPs or the police and appears to just recently come to the attention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Years ago women were told that if the police investigated all the crimes perpetrated against women they would have no time for anything else and the courts would grind to a standstill. So they mostly don't bother unless someone reports a dead woman.

[FourRustedHorses]

Yes, as I said earlier I fully understand any individual choosing to use them. It’s the political figures etc that create, distribute, use, moderate them along with big organisations who we must be able to hold to account. We can’t do that if we’re on block lists or mass reported. And there’s huge questions about the nature of them esp in light of recent revelations.

[CaitlynsCat]

I used CultBlockerPro despite not really wanting to silence anyone, the reason being that I found that there were lots of gender cultists reporting me to Twitter which would result in a ban. So the best thing is to block them.

AFAIK, gender critical feminists do not generally report transactivists for their bullshit.

CultBlockerPro is a (partial) defence against being mass-reported.

[OlennasWimple]

The same questions also apply to L Madigan, of course, who had a falling out with TerfBlocker and then created their own list (and who tweeted about getting their hands on "all that pretty contact information" just before taking up post )

[Tanith]

“I choose not to block anyone, but I am on that list, so I’m aware that limits the people who see my posts.

Is the creator of the cult blocker list guilty of silencing me?”

I am blocked on some terfblocker list or other despite having never posted on Twitter. So are several others.

According to the person responsible for cultblocker, you just need to contact them to be removed from the list if you think a mistake has been made.

[NotTerfNorCis]

Terfblocker probably has no grounds to sue as he's anonymous. If he does, he'll lose his anonymity and drag his ideology into disrepute by trying to capitalise off a horrific child abuse case.

[Magpiesarehuge]

I believe the block list being used by some (often more high profile and not anonymous) GC feminists was created fairly recently due to TAs (see the pics above) either threatening or group targetting certain feminists/women to get them banned from twitter. That’s a bit different from someone who hardly uses twitter finding they’ve been blocked by folk they have never interacted with - imo anyhoo.

[SunsetBeetch]

Looks like that Badger person in that last screenshot is the same person who wants to burn down the Pussy Church.

[SunsetBeetch]

And here

[SunsetBeetch]

More evidence of Aimee's involvement in mass block lists and mass reporting

[TheFemaleGaze]

Interesting > the unblocker
sjwomble.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/find-out-what-blocktogether-org-lists-you-are-on/amp/

Scroll down to the sample tweet and the sprout appears...

[HavingALittleBabyToolshed]

mobile.twitter.com/TerfBlocker/status/1034070855754686464

丅𝐞ᖇᶠ βlỖ𝓒𝕜Ⓔ𝓡
@TerfBlocker
Replying to
@Glinner
This is an outrageous libel. You will be hearing from my lawyer, unless its removed, and a full retraction and apology is tweeted by you. These are my terms. I advise you to accept them.
2:31 pm · 27 Aug 2018

[FourRustedHorses]

bronners simple answer is yes.

But as I’ve explaimed there’s a difference between private individuals creating and using such lists compared to big organisations, charities, political parties and candidates as well other publicly funded bodies.

[OhtheHillsareAlive]

Ahhh. StickyStuff yes, you're correct. But it seems incontrovertible that they were convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a minor.

[OhtheHillsareAlive]

And:

genderidentitywatch.com/2015/01/29/allison-woolbertdennis-woolbert-usa/

So I think any threat to sue for libel allegedly committed on this thread might well be a non-starter.

[StickyStuffRemover]

Sorry, that should read they are not a ‘registered’ sex offender.

[OhtheHillsareAlive]

On Woolbert: laurelai.info/index.php/allison-woolbert-exposed-part-one/

[OhtheHillsareAlive]

Although what you say seems to indicate that they are a sex offender: "aggravated sexual assault" - surely that's a sex offence?

Particularly awful as the victim was so young.

[Bronners78]

Aimee is on the cult blocker list, anyone who subscribes to that lists won’t see her tweets.

Subscribing to a block list is a personal choice, but by doing so you personally make the choice to restrict the content you see on Twitter.

I choose not to block anyone, but I am on that list, so I’m aware that limits the people who see my posts.

Is the creator of the cult blocker list guilty of silencing me?

[StickyStuffRemover]

I retract my previous statement that Woolbert is a convicted sex offender.

According to The Transadvocat they have a conviction for aggravated sexual assault against a 15 year old relative, but are not a registered sex offender because it took place 3 years before New Jersey’s law mandating sex offender registration was brought into law.

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

[OhtheHillsareAlive]

Oldstyle, yes Woolbert is also a convicted sex offender. They had some standing in the TRA community but were forced to step down when this was uncovered

They're threatening legal action on Twitter. reading this thread But I always thought that the truth was a solid defence against slander or libel?

[SingeBuggerCack]

Neither have I, and I doubt any GC woman would bother using it. Sounds like something TRAs made up to justify their own, multiple, 'terf' blocking lists. They seriously do that sort of thing.

Either that or the vast majority of accounts on the list are sock puppet abusive trolls, the dick pic DIAF rape threat types. Which is just the tiniest bit different from the accounts of gender critical women who follow the ‘wrong’ accounts or might have liked a tweet once or who persist on asking inconvenient questions.

[Kyanite]

That's interesting...I'm blocked by NUS_LBGT but not by evrydayfeminism, so they must use different lists.

[FourRustedHorses]

bronners

My problem is political candidates using them, allegedly inclusive public organisations, political parties and it’s emplyed memebers if staff.

If a private individual wishes to use a block list fine - I don’t use them but ultimately understand why people choose to use them to remove themselves from attempted harassment and abuse. I have concerns how any list is moderated because one persons diagreement is another persons abuse and vice versa.

My problem is those in positions of power creating lists abusive language to name those lists with the intent to silence predominately women and lesbians , it is a big deal and the fact the list was/is kept private (as confirmed by documents etc) and you have to request to subscribe. That in itself is suspicious as hell. No one has a way to see if their data is being held by a political candidate and/or associates, how that data is being held and for what purposes. Under the law we have a right to request any information held about us and a clear policy about the collection of that data and it’s use. This list has neither, was/is created by a prominant candidate and allegedly had a pedophile rapist involved in its creation bringing safeguarding issues into this too. By being blocked we have neither the ability to engage nor request the information held about us.

This isn’t about being trans this is about worrisome collection and use of data and attempts to silence specific groups from engaging politically.

[DuckingGoodPJs]

I haven't heard of the cult block list.

Neither have I, and I doubt any GC woman would bother using it. Sounds like something TRAs made up to justify their own, multiple, 'terf' blocking lists. They seriously do that sort of thing.

The whole thing about the 'terf' blocker list, is that it is supposed to shield the poor delicate little genderists from anything that will burst their bubble. However, they seem to spend a lot of time MONITORING places like here for women's wrong think.

Pointless. Perhaps a little like themselves I suspect.