Had Twitter let it be known

Julie Bindel on Meghan Murphy’s lawsuit against Twitter:

‘Twitter would never have attracted the hundreds of millions of users it boasts today had Twitter let it be known that it would arbitrarily ban users who did not agree with the political and social views of its management or impose sweeping new policies banning the expression of widely-held viewpoints and perspectives on public issues,’ Murphy’s lawyers submitted.

That’s a good point. (This is why people pay lawyers.) Twitter certainly didn’t make clear from the outset that it would be doing that.

As I wrote at the time of her ban, Murphy, who, like me, is constantly de-platformed, attacked and vilified for daring to question the Orwellian madness of the transgender Taliban, is a target of vicious trans activists. Murphy had the gall to tweet about Jonathan Yaniv, who had demanded large payoffs from several female beauticians because they had refused to wax his scrotum. Yaniv, who claims to be female, had booked in for a Brazilian wax, a process done on women who wish to wear extremely skimpy bikini bottoms and not flash any pubic hair. Murphy’s crime?  She referred to Yaniv as, ahem, a man.

The lifetime ban from Twitter has come as a significant blow to Murphy. The freelancer relied on Twitter as a platform to promote her writing and online magazine, Feminist Current, and had painstakingly built up close to 25,000 followers, so the ban has affected her income, as well as her reputation…

And this is for saying that a man is a man. I still have trouble believing that we are required, often on pain of arrest or banishment or both, to say men are women if they “identify as” such. I have trouble believing it and I have trouble understanding how so many people manage to ignore the alarming implications of requiring others to affirm falsehoods.

6 Responses to “Had Twitter let it be known”