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.

Not that this is helpful in terms of the legal side of things, but I suspect this is about bad internal administration.

ie a TRA spotted a known name listing an event on eventbrite and made a complaint. And whichever admin person received it just went, of course, its hateful or whatever and took it down.

Now eventbrite are stuck with having to admit that have not internal working standards, because there are many gender critical, and even shock horror) women only events listed on eventbrite.

And without wishing to jeopardise the listings on any of those events, the fact that they are there shows they aren't acting consistently.

As we know the TRA trolls wallow in smug satisfaction of picking on women whose names are known. Part of the underlying misogyny of TRAs. Putting uppity women in their place.

Well, your scenario is not going to happen as the US Constitution is sacred and furthermore takes a supramajority act of Congress to change.

No one is suggesting no equality rights apply when dealing with international companies (this statement is far broader than the situation at hand).

The question would be which country’s equality laws/rights apply to this particular company and contract?

And I think you will find that there are literally decades of international agreements with WTO, G7 and EU that have then been legislated within numerous U.K. laws with certain exceptions for this specific type of digital trade. All incrementally done since the 1990s specifically to lower trade barriers in pursuit of free trade objectives for Ecommerce.

It’s not really a “wish for” situation, it’s more of a status quo reality.

On Graham Lineham’s “Glinner Update”
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-a8a
he writes about FTM transgender person who is a cartoonist and activist who promotes transgender ideology to adults and children and whose cartoons use very little children, some in nappies.

The person is an author and Evenbrite is hosting them if that is the word. Isn’t it supposed to be against DoE guidance to make children think they are in the wrong bodies etc? Yet this event is seen to be fine. I am just mentioning this in case it gives some relevant basis for comparison.

Sorry missed this earlier, but is the above the tact you are taking in response to Eventbrite’s letter saying you are the author%? (which corresponds with your one and only book publisher Amazon also having you recorded as the author and presumably paying you your insignificant royalties).

You’re just going to say you’re not an author and both Amazon and Eventbrite thinking you are is akin to thinking you are George Clooney’s wife?

And if victory isn’t the point, how will you set the precedent that Maya’s victory applies outside the employment context without said victory? A precedent will be set win or lose and not winning would set the precedent that Mayas victory doesn’t apply to cross border internet based digital services provided by companies such as Eventbrite. So how is victory not the point?

Precedents aren’t set at that level

They all start in the lower courts though don’t they?

The 506 posts on this thread are the point. The impressions of my pinned tweet are the point. The thousands of views of my appearance on FSN are the point. The conversations I will have with my MP are the point.

LawFare is not limited to the court room. That shows a very limited imagination.

It’s true it’s not limited to the court room, but the court room is where the rubber means the road and where the decisions are made as to whether you have a case or you don’t (and Eventbrite is vindicated as a result.)

I don’t lack imagination, so much as wondering why I donated money to a cause that was advertised as a good faith endeavour to pursue Eventbrite via the courtroom to protect free speech via legal action and am now a bit surprised to hear that this is not the point but rather the point is now being disclosed by you as what appears to be more likes, retweets and replies to your pinned tweets? More views of videos of you? An audience with your local MP because you’re now “someone” with a public presence as an activist?

Because your reaction to this author issue and other clear legal pitfalls in contract law you’ve been informed of months in advance on this thread that you don’t seem to have taken any steps regarding and are now taking reckless “George Clooney’s wife” stances in response to- stances that cannot stand up in court…and your response to these issues that can quite literally get your breach of contract case thrown out of court is a flippant “victory isn’t the point”?

I honestly thought winning against Eventbrite in a courtroom was the point. Or at least the primary objective? 😳

I'm confused by this concern.

The whole point of the OP's case, as I understand it, is that a business operating in the UK must comply with UK law. A Saudi company can lawfully discriminate against women in Riyadh but not in London. So it's irrelevant what is happening - good or bad - with the legal position in the business' country of origin.

If you donate to a legal crowdfunder in the expectation of a legal victory, then you should not donate to legal crowdfunders and I am afraid I have zero sympathy for you.

Of course a legal victory would be amazing. But I am not a fool and I am aware that any legal action is fraught with uncertainty. So I am aware of all the other benefits of this type of action. And I will exploit them to their fullest. That's the bang you get for your buck.

I said I donated in the expectation of a good faith effort towards legal victory which is a reasonable expectation given your stated purpose for raising the funds was to take Eventbrite to court for unlawful discrimination/breach of contract.

You asked for my money by saying:
What do I want the court to do?

I want the court to confirm that what Eventbrite have done is unlawful.

I think there is a clear breach of the Equality Act here, in that my event was removed from the platform because it was decided it promoted ‘violent’ or ‘hateful’ content. It does not.

To be clear, the court confirming that what Eventbrite has done is unlawful, is the victory we have been referring to.

You have now said that “victory isn’t the point” and haven’t really been giving an impression of due diligence towards a victory judging by recent events and your responses to them on this thread.

So when did you decide that the court confirming what Eventbrite did was unlawful was no longer the point of your fundraiser or legal action? Or was it never the point?

Because I’m not asking for sympathy, I’m asking for accountability and transparency.

I would be content with a good case which is lost but which highlights an ability of Californian T&C to override the principles of UK legislation, in this case the Equalities Act.

We have had it before with Toby Young and PayPal. And elsewhere. (Facebook and Google blocking ads from legitimate organisations, a women's organisation being blocked from a small payments system, or major internet retailers refusing to sell specific books.) Yes bakers might be able to refuse to sell cakes with gay messages. But at what point does such an ability to refuse services to causes which are not illegal but which you disagree with, become a denial of free speech. Or interference by dominant foreign organisations in our ability to protect our free speech and to debate issues of cultural and societal relevance.

I am not a lawyer, and no doubt Discovereads will jump all over my argument. But this is why I donated. If Spero loses, then she has highlighted what Ministers and Parliament might consider to be a problem with our legislation that needs fixing. Sunlight. In the same way as Maya losing her initial employment tribunal brought sunlight and support.

Forget whether Spero is technically an author, in the eyes of the law and other such lawyerly arguments. Most people would agree that she has a right to hold an event to promote that book. That Eventbrite as a dominant supplier, is an obvious place to sell tickets. And that some T&C written in California, effectively some modern day cultural colonialism, should not be able to prevent her from doing so.

If Spero loses, then she has highlighted what Ministers and Parliament might consider to be a problem with our legislation that needs fixing. Sunlight. In the same way as Maya losing her initial employment tribunal brought sunlight and support.

This.

Spero may well have encountered unanticipated hurdles to outright 'victory'. But without highlighting those very hurdles and getting them addressed, ultimate victory, whether this time or next, will never happen.

It may not be the end, but it's definitely a start.

People are using laws, everywhere, in all countries, to censor women and they must all be challenged. However long it takes.

Discovereads - you have spent what seems like 90% of your posts here telling me my action was hopeless and even that I had mislead my solicitors about the facts. Forgive me if I am not going to be lectured on 'good faith' by you.

I am entirely transparent about what I do and always have been. You disagree? Fine. Dont donate, don't support.

I agree with PP. This is a long game. Victory is not necessarily about winning in the strictest sense of getting the court to make an order in your favour. If a court states that the law of another country can be used to allow discrimination in service provision in the U.K. irrespective of the Equality Act that is a significant and important result. That is something we can then take to our MPs and see to get the law changed. The implications potentially much wider than women’s rights.

Spero · Today 00:48

If you donate to a legal crowdfunder in the expectation of a legal victory, then you should not donate to legal crowdfunders and I am afraid I have zero sympathy for you.

I think that people will donate in the HOPE of a win, rather than an EXPECTATION of a win, which is entirely reasonable. Or if they have some legal knowledge, perhaps knowing it's unlikely to win, in order to bring something to the attention of the wider public; perhaps hoping that the law might be changed, further down the line.

I think it is quite funny watching how Discovereads thinks they can teach a barrister all about the law. Mansplaining at its finest. 😂

I'm confused by this concern.

The whole point of the OP's case, as I understand it, is that a business operating in the UK must comply with UK law. A Saudi company can lawfully discriminate against women in Riyadh but not in London. So it's irrelevant what is happening - good or bad - with the legal position in the business' country of origin.

It's my understanding that U.K. equality law compliance is necessary too, but the suggestion from some on this thread is that it's overridden in this case by this US company's T&Cs, which remains to be seen. I wasn't talking about the legal position in the US per se, or even Eventbrite specifically, it was more about the cultural context where US guidelines overriding U.K. law could potentially mean not just boring old feminists could be discriminated against, but all protected characteristics, including gender reassignment.

If Spero loses, then she has highlighted what Ministers and Parliament might consider to be a problem with our legislation that needs fixing. Sunlight. In the same way as Maya losing her initial employment tribunal brought sunlight and support.

Exactly. And here I think my point about TRAs being careful what they wish for is relevant.

Obviously, I always hope the court cases I donate to will win.

But we're a long way into this ideology, and dismantling it is going to take time. Activists have drilled down into every possible applicable law and are very practised at re-interpreting it for the own ends.

So frequently, the very first thing you have to do is publicise what's happening.

Datun · Today 10:37

So frequently, the very first thing you have to do is publicise what's happening.

Yes, I think that's exactly the case. And the more people hear, the more cases brought, the more people in general are going to think, "WTF? Now hang on a minute - that's not right."

There is the also the broader picture. Toby Young and the Free Speech Society's problems with PayPal are relevant. PayPal caved after questions were asked in parliament. Eventbrite are almost doing us a favour by not.

Back to the I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it. Our modern day Californian puritans look as if they are trying to impose their values on the rest of the world. They must not be allowed. We as a society must be able to debate which values and norms apply in our own context.

That was my understanding of many of these cases. In many situations they are so contrary to what most people expect as the ‘reasonable’ situation, there’s a whole process to go through before the penny drops and it is accepted that there is an actual problem and this was not just some mad anomaly.

Is this a TRA tactic now? Contribute (or claim to contribute) towards gender critical legal fundraisers, then complain that it's not going the way they want it to go? And claim some sort of entitlement in the way it is run, over the advice of the actual legal officers running the matter (who are obliged to follow the best course of action for the client)?

They have been doing this all along