Who Decides What Constitutes "Hate Speech?"

I'm watching Graham Linehan and Helen Staniland talking to the Communications and Digital Committee about censorship by Twitter and Facebook on the subject of freedom of expression online. It's worth seeing, so check it out.

Censorship or 'consequences?'

As Graham has been pointing out since forever, merely existing as a non-trans woman online is an invitation to batter us and make our lives a misery. The moment you mention "women's rights," you paint a target on your own back and are subject to the most outrageous abuse. At the moment, this abuse includes having the word "bigot" stamped on your e-record by every idiot ever, and your name trashed wherever you go. I was annoyed to see one of the questioners say something on the order of, "You have been banned from three platforms. Surely they had a point?"

Yeah, about that... the people who run those platforms are moving in the same circles, their reasoning is opaque, and there's no way to effectively appeal unless you'd like to take it up with America's Better Business Bureau. And that only works if the decision was taken in America.

I had in mind to write a post for International (Men Who Believe They Are) Women's Day and how male-born people are being centred therein (so shut up, bigot!) but after a slew of news in which a French feminist was egged and abused (Reddit applauded this, to no one's surprise) for the horrible crime of wanting better exit assistance for women wanting to leave the sex trade, I gave up. Everyone else was doing it for me. Basically, feminism that does not centre men without exception is not really feminism, as far as they are concerned.

So, then, back to the question: who decides what constitutes "hate speech?" If the answer is, "consensus," what if that consensus has been astroturfed by planting articles in the media, getting lobby groups into civic organisations, and basically following the Powell Memorandum playbook? And what if that consensus has been artificially created by banning people whose viewpoints don't align with those of the people running the platform?

Platform or public square

Back when I was all over TD*, I believed that since Twitter is a private business, they could do what they like with their own things. I still do, having had a bunch of trolls force me off the internet altogether for refusing to platform them while they were slandering and abusing me, even to the point of locking me out of my email account. So yes, I have a great deal of sympathy for that position. However, I also have a great deal of sympathy for the position that says, "They're unaccountable and have a hell of a lot of power over public discourse. Oh, and they're working in concert with other platforms to deny access to the public square to people who fall foul of their faux progressive beliefs," since my main account was suspended for making the statement "Transwomen are male."

I've redacted the account name because the name is not the point, the reason is. When factual reality itself is deemed transphobic, I despair. Meanwhile, an attempt to get #GrahamLinehanIsABigot is trending on Twitter, to nobody's surprise. These people are vicious. Here, for the record, are Graham's evil views: 

• Feminists are being bullied for speaking about their own and their childrens' rights
• Vulnerable children were being fast-tracked onto a medical pathway that carried severe long-term implications
• Stonewall has been providing [confusing and misleading advice] to institutions all over the UK regarding the nature of the equalities act (sic)
• Feminists, doctors, teachers, academics and writers--anyone, in fact--who questions the fashionable American orthodoxy of gender identity ideology [are being abused and silenced]
• Children's health and happiness are gambled on an ideology that makes no sense, and yet is zealously and obsessively policed by misogynistic activists on platforms that empower them
• [Stonewall] dishonestly frame[s] women standing up for their rights as an attack on trans rights
• Can anyone produce any transphobic statements by [J.K. Rowling]? You cannot, because there are none
• We are living through the misogynistic period we have ever experienced
• These platforms shape the debate and declare you untouchable when you refuse to play by their rules. The upshot is that many people presume that I am a bigot. These people also presume the same of JK Rowling and many other left-leaning, liberal and progressive women.
• A world where statements like “Men are not women” is hate speech is a world on the brink of chaos.
• Public discourse depends on the whims of a small group of men in Silicon Valley
• Gender identity ideology began in American Universities, is uncritically disseminated by the popular media, but social media companies and their users are the enforcers
• Discourse is being shaped by trans rights activists
• Women’s rights are being stripped away, our children are not safe, and we are not allowed to talk about it
  

I can confirm that the vast majority of the country, indeed the world, believes this. Don't agree? Go out and ask people at random in the street if these are reasonable statements. Go on, I can wait. So no, there is no consensus on this; some over-privileged elites have decided that this messes with their hip new religion (and their business model) and is therefore bigotry. Caught up in the heady flow of civil rights language and activism (not to mention rampant misogyny and a backlash against #MeToo), the tech bros I used to associate with are all over this and will continue to be until it affects women they know. They will either abandon them or change their ways, depending on how flexible their sexuality is and whether or not they like their women paid for or thinking for themselves. 

What can we do?

One thing this nonsense is definitely bringing out is the fact that even the most prominent, respectable people utterly refuse to think for themselves. Some of the ones that I used to think actually did turn out to be the type that latch on to an issue and cling on to it like grim death because they've invested in it. These people alienate their families, colleagues, and friends over issues that don't directly affect them because they believe they're on the right side of history. This is their chance to stand with the MLKs, etc., of the age. Except that they're crapping on women to do it.

The only thing we can do about this is to continue to speak out and to work in the background writing to the powers that be and getting our own advocacy groups into government and civic institutions. While #Superstraight is trending, it's bringing the fight to the straight white men who will not act until it's their problem. So many people are peaking right now, it's ridiculous. I'm hoping that this will force the conversation we've been trying to have for the last four years. 

Good news for now, though: a judge has ruled that the Fair Play For Women case against the Office of National Statistics can go ahead because their guidance is unlawful. A full judicial review will be held next week. 

In the interim he orders that the Guidance is amended to remove any reference to documents that can show self-declared gender identity. The words 'such as' and 'passports' must be removed with immediate effect /87

— FairPlayForWomen (@fairplaywomen) March 9, 2021

As I've been saying for years, pressure works.

*Ever since they betrayed me (and all their female readers, family members, and colleagues), I refuse to link to them or mention them by name. If they want my support, they had better earn it first with a public apology, then a repudiation of the misogyny they're currently wallowing in like pigs. Oh, and the fish rots from the head, boys.