I was reading about Meghan Murphy, a feminist who was banned from Twitter for the outrageous crime of saying that a man was a man! Anyhow, she actually sued them in the Californian Supreme Court. I don't understand what law would be on her side. Does anyone know? @kazenatsu, @xwsmithx, I think you're both American law-people.
California believes people have the right to express their opinions on media platforms and not be discriminated against based on belief (within a narrow range of acceptable beliefs). It's the difference between positive rights and negative rights. Some of those on the far Progressive side view "rights" as being positive rights. There is actually a chance that a judge there might order her to be unbanned. However, most likely her lawsuit will be thrown out. It's sort of one of the things she has a chance of winning because of California's wacky beliefs, but most likely will lose. Also the fact her opinion that got her banned was saying a man is a man, will not win her any sympathy from the type of progressive judge who would be most likely to see any logic in her claim that she has a right to use that specific website.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...onduct-but-will-its-ban-on-meghan-murphy-help It looks like she's trying to claim Twitter doesn't have the right to ban her because what she wrote wasn't against Twitter's rules at the time she wrote it. Thus Twitter violated a "contract" in a way. I don't see that argument holding up since the service is free and she did not pay any money to Twitter. Maybe she's trying to argue she has the right not to be arbitrarily discriminated against? Just to give you some context, California actually tried to pass a law (SB 242) that would have added use of language to the list of protected discrimination groups, but it was vetoed by the governor.
Folks have the ability to sue social media when, or where they can demonstrate an actual harm, either financial, privacy, etc. Usually, the Ts& Cs of use of the site don't allow you to sue them because they didn't like your content. However, if they lose it or are compromised, likely, they are liable for those. Also, there is a discrimination factor if you belong to a protected class at the federal level if you believe you've been treated unequally based on one of the protected classes.
Isn't it the case that anti-discrimination laws don't apply to the private sector unless it is a Public Accommodation concerning members of the public or regarding employment discrimination?
The only people who really need to be banned from Twitter are Egregious RW Trolls (who push false narratives 24/7). Donald Trump would be a good example of someone who should be banned from Twitter.
