Section 230 Upheld: Court Rules Twitter May Ban Anti-Trans Writer

LOS ANGELES—In the latest victory for Section 230 — the 1996 law that protects free speech on the internet — a California state appeals court has ruled that the social media platform Twitter has the right to ban users from the platform for violating its policies over the content of their tweets. The court ruled that Section 230, which protects platforms from legal liability over the content of user posts, also allows those platforms to remove those posts or even terminate user accounts if they violate the site’s policies. Section 230 has withstood numerous court challenges in the past several years, leading to repeated attempts by Congress to weaken or eliminate it. The law is of particular importance to the adult industry, which often comes under attack from would-be censors, and without Section 230 protections risks being removed from internet service providers, hosting services and platforms. The latest ruling was handed down January 22 by the California First District Court of Appeal, in a 2019 lawsuit brought by feminist writer Meghan Murphy, founder of the site Feminist Current. Twitter had removed several of Murphy’s tweets for violating its policies against hate speech. In the tweets, Murphy referred to a transgender woman — a political activist with whom Murphy was engaged in a feud — as “male” and “a man.”  In one tweet, she asked “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?”  When Twitter’s removed of her anti-transgender tweets, Murphy responded by tweeting dircetly at Twitter management, writing, “This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE . . . .” Twitter finally suspended Murphy’s account on a permanent basis after she posted tweets accusing a transgender woman of attempting to extort money from beauty salons that refused to perform a Brazlian waxing procedure on her, because she had male genitals. Murphy responded with a lawsuit accusing Twitter of breach of contract and unfair business competition. In its own reply to her suit, Twitter claims that Section 230 gave it the right to ban users from the platform. In its January opinion, the court held that Twitter was, in fact, protected by Section 230 on all three conditions required for immunity from liability under the law. First, the court said, Twitter met the definition of an “interactive computer service,” which is the category to which Section 230 applies.  Second, the court cited previous cases in which courts ruled that “typical publisher behavior,” such as decisions about which content to include or not include on its site, is immune from lawsuits. And finally, the court said, Murphy’s posts were “information provided by another information content provider,” not by Twitter itself — and Twitter was allowed to remove them with full protection from Section 230. Murphy claimed that Section 230’s protections did not apply, because Twitter had broken a contractual promise to her. But the court rejected that claim, too, saying that Twitter’s stated policy of allowing “everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers,” was not, in fact, a promise that the site would not remove posts that violated its policies. “Because Murphy has not alleged Twitter ever made a specific representation directly to her or others that they would not remove content from their platform or deny access to their accounts, but rather expressly reserved the right to remove content, including content they determine is harassing or intolerable, and suspend or terminate accounts ‘for any or no reason’ in its terms of service, Murphy cannot plead reasonable reliance on the alleged promises as a matter of law,” write Associate Justice Sandra L. Margulies, in the court’s decision. Photo By Photo Mix / Pixabay