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.

In awe of you spero

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.

@Waitwhat23
Love it!!!
🤣

I am surprised that Discovereads has not replied to my genuine inquiry asking if he/she/zir could explain what it was about my book launch that could be legitimately called 'dangerous, violent or hateful'.

The Conway Hall are still hosting the event. I imagine they will need to know that such a risky event is happening under their roof, so if Discovereads can clarify, I will warn the Conway Hall myself.

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'.

🍿

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 !

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

If it is true that Eventbrite can ignore me simply by relying on its T an Cs then I am even more perplexed as to why its legal counsel gave up an hour of her life to meet with me over Zoom.

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.

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.

beliefs even

I don't think Discovereads has a very good understanding of the Equality Act. Forstater is not limited to the employer/employee relationship. It confirmed a much broader and wider principle; what is a protected belief? A provider of goods and services (which Eventbrite is) may not unlawfully discriminate in the provision of those goods and services (which I allege Eventbrite have). I appreciate the boundaries may get blurred between one persons 'hate speech' and another's 'robust comment' but there surely has to be some attempt to mirror the content complained about with the definitions applied or words have no meaning whatsoever.

We will see.

Laws are trending towards requiring such platforms to better monitor and remove offensive content under a precautionary principle.

There does appear attacks on free speech at the moment from multiple directions. Thankfully the Tories have indicated that they are going to ditch the “lawful but harmful” section of the Online Safety Bill.

*appear to be

As a lawyer with more than 20 years of experience of international disputes I have yet to see a contract that has "UK law" as the governing law that wasn't either drafted by a lay person or a trainee. Scots law, NI law and the law of England and Wales differ in a number of pretty significant respects. I'm somewhat concerned for the MoD if what Discovereads says is correct.

I'm not a fan of this government, but credit where it's due. Removing that section removes the potential for some awful unintended harmful consequences.

Who ever was on Zoom with you was most probably a dispute resolution person from the customer department per 9(a) of the T&Cs. I’m sure they have tons of legal counsel staff on tap and depending how you go, arbitration or small claims, will assign legal counsel accordingly.

Why would they have done the Zoom? To demonstrate for the record that they are not discriminating against you as a person for your beliefs, but that the decision to remove was based purely on the content you posted. You haven’t been banned from Eventbrite have you? You still have an account, yes? It looks good on them to have “attempted” alternate dispute resolution if this does proceed into arbitration or court.

If you were to go after them, possibly the route to go down could include the arbitrary application of their "discretion". To make sense of this clause prior to exchange of contracts, I would have thought there needs to be some semblance of implied agreement that this clause would be invoked honestly, genuinely, rationally and in good faith by Eventbrite, as opposed to being invoked on a whim. And that both the process of invoking that clause and the outcome fulfilled these criteria. Looking at their record of whom else they have hosted on their platform might be useful (including GC events - I'm sure I booked through them for WPUK back in the day). Finding out whether the person who pulled the plug actually understood your content or made a knee jerk decision based on something else would be useful.

Eventbrite are sneaky fuckers, though, advertising their services under a co.uk website, then using contractual terms governed by US laws. Most ordinary users will not be aware of this. Exposing this itself to the wider public would be a good thing.

Anyway, Spero is right. If it is the case that overseas companies can discriminate against groups of people with protected characteristics, that is something that needs to be addressed. What would prevent them from discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation or disability or race? It is the thin edge of a very nasty wedge.

Hi

Book launches are not rocket launches @Discovereads

Hope that helps.