Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

[Spero]

On Oct 27 2022, Eventbrite pulled my book launch event for 'Transpositions - personal journeys into gender criticism'. This was a collection of stories from men and women about how they got involved in issues around sex and gender. Some of you may have contributed.

They told me that I was promoting 'violent and dangerous' content. I asked them to explain themselves. They haven't. So I am taking them to court for unlawful discrimination against my gender critical belief.

I wrote about it in the Critic here thecritic.co.uk/why-is-eventbrite-obstructing-my-book-launch/

I am hoping that some people may feel able to do a spot of gardening. I know its dark and miserable and not the best weather for gardening, but I think this could be quite an important piece of digging. There are some really important questions to ask about how private companies, based overseas are allowed to dictate what we think or say.

Thank you for your update Spero.

What is a “hate tag”?
How can saying a male is a male be “hate”?
Sometimes I feel like I can’t breathe, when confronted like this with such utter fantasy and denial of reality.

That's very interesting Spero. They're watching very closely who's interested, aren't they. And how much money you're raising. That would indicate a sense that instead of relying on the actual law, they're hoping a show of power and might will do the trick. (Wank move, I'll be donating again).

They haven't taken into account that it's not only about the law though, it's also about the surrounding publicity and getting all this info out into the public domain.

The absolutely 'determined to be wrong' interpretation of the Maya precedent, what constitutes hate speech, the NCHI scandal, all of it.

Thanks for the update.

I just wonder if it is worth looking at other people hosting events with Eventbrite and seeing if they have ever been 'disparaging' about anyone or anything else.

If they think they should be not hosting events unless all speakers are pure of heart and never 'disparaging' then I'd really question why they exists because many, many events host speakers that are at some point 'disparaging' about something at some time in their life. And if they do cancel all events where someone is disparaging they will have history to show it in court right?

(Wank move, I'll be donating again).

Me too

Thanks for update. As parts of the investigation misspell your name ("Philmore") I was wondering if further instances of this would even have been picked up in the usual FOI searches?

Donated. Might be worth making the link to the donation site more prominent e.g. on the substack article, especially as it's on democracythree rather than the more commonly-used crowdjustice? (It is on the front page of democracythree, though, in case that helps anyone!)

This seems very important.

I wonder if they can show equal treatment. I suspect I know the answer to this, but look forward to seeing the evidence.

Surely in the emails uncovered by the data access request, there are many examples of libel? You can't just accuse someone of being 'anti-trans' or 'transphobic' just because they believe in the evidenced biological reality of two sexes for humans and the importance of this fact for women's rights. That's defamatory isn't it?

That's an interesting take. Let their own purity spiral tie them up in knots.

And yes, whatever basis they will eventually claim was the one they used, is proven to have been used elsewhere, with absolutely no effect, then surely that would constitute a form of discrimination.

They said they were banning the event because of the speakers previous anti-trangender statements.

Their T&Cs ban disparaging comments. So, if banning legal but disparaging speech is legal under English law (and I think it is) and a single speaker can be said to have disparaged transgender people, then you have no case.

Should Eventbrite be forced to host all events, as long as the speech is literally not illegal? That's clearly nonsensical.

So, if disapragement is sufficient, the question is, has Graham Linehan or any other speaker has ever been disparaging to transgender people?

Dadjoke have Eventbrite ever cancelled an event because of perceived misogyny?

Surely the question is not whether they can ban an event for someone being disparaging but whether they apply this equally.

So, if they ban events for people saying things which trans people don't like then they have to ban events that someone (anyone) might think are misogynist or against any other protected characteristic (at least) also. If they don't apply the rule equally then it's discrimination.

Since trans people since people speaking about biological reality is disparaging and women think self ID is disparaging (not to mention dangerous) to women and children then I think you could argue someone from either side would not be able to have an event through event brite. Also biologists wanting to host a book launch about a biology presumably. You can then expand it to other issues and they have no business left.

Surely the question is not whether they can ban an event for someone being disparaging but whether they apply this equally.

indeed. If they're going to use the term disparaging it needs to be applied equally.

I can't wait to see their definition of the term disparaging. And then watch all the other events they allow where it's happening.

I think for easy reference it is worth re-posting the Eventbrite Community Guidelines referenced in section 16 of the T&Cs. As this might answer a few of the questions about “disparagement.”

*Hateful, Dangerous, or Violent Content or Events
Don’t Post Hateful or Dangerous Content or Events That Discriminate Against or Threaten Any Societal Group, or Encourages Violence. This includes:

-Hate speech, hateful ideologies and hateful activities that incite, encourage or engage in violence, intimidation, disparagement, harassment, or threats targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age or veteran status

-Terrorist symbols, activities and organisations or organised criminal activity*

Stating you don’t believe in something is not disparagement. Otherwise Eventbrite could never hold an event for atheists. Would they refuse an event for Richard Dawkins?
So not believing in gender identity is not likely to be sufficient grounds.

I think for easy reference it is worth re-posting the Eventbrite Community Guidelines referenced in section 16 of the T&Cs. As this might answer a few of the questions about “disparagement.”

We know what disparagement is. We can read words. Some of us even own our own dictionaries. Bought with money we earnt in professional jobs that we hold down all on our own.

The problem lies in thinking that calling a man a man is disparagement. It isn't. Any more than calling anything the thing it is using the agreed words in the language of choice to describe the thing we are describing. Honestly.

You did ask about disparagement towards “anyone or anything”? See here you said:

I just wonder if it is worth looking at other people hosting events with Eventbrite and seeing if they have ever been 'disparaging' about anyone or anything else.

I was simply being helpful in regards to your question. Now I wish I hadn’t bothered. Nothing in what I posted defined the word disparagement or implied you didn’t know the meaning of the word so the nastiness and sarcasm regarding dictionaries is completely unnecessary.

That’s not a legally protected characteristic in California law or in their T&Cs, so an irrelevant question.🤷‍♀️

Events That Discriminate Against or Threaten Any Societal Group

Are 'people that don't hold Eventbrite tickets' a societal group?
The ticketing company would not be allowed to discriminate between people that did or didn't hold tickets. <ponders>

This makes no sense. It's not irrelevant for a start - it's someone asking because they want to know.
Misogyny obviously isn't a 'protected characteristic' - no-one said it was. Misogynistic acts are arguably covered under the T&Cs about hatred against [perceived] gender identity. Unless discovereads thinks that no gender identity can be subject to misogyny. Because it's based on physical sex.

In which case, the lack of protecting sex as a characteristic is misogynist in itself, because female people hold less privilege than male people.

Sex is a protected characteristic in the UK, where Eventbrite operate. They've got the protected characteristics wrong in their list but sexual orientation is in there and gender identity ideology is about as homophobic as it's possible to be because it redefines gay and lesbian as being about gender not sex.

Unless they can show they've cancelled other events for someone stating what they believe is a scientific fact, then they're discriminating.

My question about misogyny was in the context of the word "disparagement", and not about protected characteristics in California.

If disparagement is not allowed, presumably mother-in-law jokes are banned. Even Boris jokes?

I dont think there is a policy. I think individuals within the organisation have acted, probably based on a few complaints aimed at individuals.

For instance many women's support groups advertised their training or whatever on eventbrite and they are specifically women only as per SSE.

If the logic of those doing the cancelling is that it is "disparaging" to recognise the reality of sex, why aren't these groups targetted.

Not saying this makes it any better, and it would be sad if women's groups offering SSE services lost this platform, but I suspect that lone TRAs have set out to target anyone with a "name" thinking they are fighting the good fight, and as we know from other institutins, they nearly all have committed TRAs in their midst who act like Pavlov's dogs and choose to take these complaints as valid. And the managers are then caught in either supporting their staff or sticking their necks out. Which we know they wont do.

Not saying I like Musk, or in fact twitter, but look at what happens when someone with the authority says you cant target people who have certain beliefs.

It would be good to think that threatened legal action would make those at the decision making level would make sure their staff didn't abuse their positions to silence those they dont agree with.