A California court ruled that Twitter was within its right to ban a TERF activist from its platform for violating policies on transphobic hate speech.
In a 42-page opinion published by the First District Appellate Court on January 22, a three-judge panel found that Twitter did not violate free speech laws when it deactivated the account of Meghan Murphy for referring to trans woman Jessica Yaniv as a “man” in a series of tweets and sharing her deadname. Murphy, the former founder of the website Feminist Current, further accused Yaniv of “trying to extort money” after filing a complaint against a Canadian salon that refused to perform a Brazilian wax on her.
Twitter claimed the remarks violated policies rolled out in November 2018 that prohibited users from misgendering or deadnaming trans people and barred Murphy from the platform for life.
After Murphy brought a lawsuit against Twitter in 2019, the social media giant claimed it was protected under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which states that internet service providers cannot be held liable for the content of information shared through their services. While that law was written before the age of social media, it has since been interpreted as extending to companies like Twitter.
Writing for the court, Associate Justice Sandra L. Margulies agreed that Section 230 prevents Murphy from seeking damages from Twitter for deactivating her account. “The clear terms of Twitter’s user agreement preclude a claim for breach of contract based on the allegations of Murphy’s complaint,” she wrote.
Furthermore, the court found that Murphy’s complaint did not detail a “breach of a specific promise” but instead pertained to “attacks on Twitter’s interpretation and enforcement of its own general 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,” Marguiles added.
It’s unclear if Murphy intends to appeal the decision. She has yet to make a public statement on any of the social media platforms where she continues to be active, such as Facebook and Instagram.
This is hardly the first fallout that Murphy has experienced because of her views on transgender people. In 2015, 1,300 people signed onto a Change.org petition after Murphy described a scantily clad photograph of Laverne Cox as “a sexualized object for public consumption” in an article for the progressive news site Rabble.ca. Critics accused her of “racism” and “transmisogyny.” She eventually left the website in 2016 after it removed an article in which she was critical of Planned Parenthood’s referring to people with periods as “menstruators.”
Two years ago, hundreds of activists protested a lecture she delivered on transgender rights at the Toronto Public Library. Murphy has referred to the trans equality movement as “regressive and sexist” and claimed that “the rights of women and girls are being pushed aside to accommodate a trend.”
But should her quest for an unfettered platform to spout transphobia fail, there remain wider issues at play. Following attacks by former President Donald Trump on Section 230 over claims that it is being used by social media companies to censor Republicans, conservatives have sought to gut the law. More than two dozen proposals to amend or throw out immunity for social media companies have been filed to Congress in the past few years, even a recent reform bill filed by Democratic Senators.
Get the best of what’s queer. Sign up for them.’s weekly newsletter here.
