But Murphy’s lawsuit is also the latest test of whether and how Twitter is obliged to uphold free speech, and what duties governments might have to impose that value on corporate social media. As a writer in modern media, Murphy says she needs to be on it, and her ban represents a corporation exerting control over public debate.Obviously, Twitter is a private company, so it's difficult to use law to require it to uphold free-speech values, but the lawsuit is part of the public discourse about maintaining freedom of speech in privately owned social media platforms, and there is hope of persuading private companies to respect these values whether the contract and unfair competition claims are any good or not.
“The reality, and Twitter knows this, is this is our public square.... This is where conversation happens… I can’t share my work now.... The whole situation destroys women’s rights. I don’t even see how we can uphold women’s rights if there is no cohesive definition for women,” she said, and referred to matters of wide interest she has been prevented from discussing on Twitter, such as the rights of transgender people in sports, prisons, and designated spaces for women....
Murphy’s lawsuit alleges Twitter “covertly made sweeping changes to its Hateful Conduct Policy sometime in late October 2018, banning, for the first time ‘misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.’ This new policy banned expression of a political belief and perspective held by a majority (54 per cent, according to a 2017 Pew Research poll) of the American public: that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth … (Twitter) retroactively enforced its new policy against he plaintiff in this case, Meghan Murphy.”....
Murphy seems to have gotten into trouble for a tweet directly aimed at a particular individual — taunting the person with the pronoun "he" — and that is quite different from discussing the issue of what pronouns to use and other things about transgender persons. Here's the text of Twitter's Hateful Conduct policy, which seems to be about attacks aimed at individuals that are based on gender identity, not the discussion of transgender issues generally.
Posts
115 comments:
It's illegal for a private power company like Pacific Gas & Electricity to refuse to provide electricity to a household because an occupant is a communist. Twitter should face the same laws.
Sounds like Twitter is inconsistent in their enforcement of policy. The algorithms or SJW elves tend to ban or punish conservatives.
Conservatives need their own platforms. They used to bitch about Walter Kronkite and the Times but FOx News and conservative papers, magazines, and talk radio was the answer.
Progressives hate talk radio.
Ditch Twitter and set up a conservative Twitter.
Twitter gets a bulletin board exemption from libel suits as a publisher; just take away that exemption if they discriminate based on content.
They can be a bulletin board or a publisher. Make them choose one.
Remember when the law required the POTUS to not block an individual?
"Hateful Conduct policy, which seems to be about attacks aimed at individuals"
Of course, the exclusionary application of that policy depends on the assumption that it is intrinsically "hateful"
to use a pronoun for a person that fits his or her actual sex. It's the new prog frontier: treating the recognition of reality as a form of hate.
"Twitter gets a bulletin board exemption from libel suits as a publisher; just take away that exemption if they discriminate based on content."
Things that would require me to undisplay all the comments on this blog.
this is our public square.... This is where conversation happens
How true is this though? I've never used Twitter and I don't plan on ever using it.
I wish people would refrain from vesting so much power to Jack Dorsey's nasty little minions. I wish people would just stop using the bloody thing
Perhaps if Twitter charged money per usage (as PG&E does), it would face the same 'illegality'. Albeit, Twitter does make money off your tap of AGREE, as noted in recent articles describing tech's "Surveillance Capitalism."
I know that your custom, Althouse, is to do more legal analysis than commentary, but when this case gets fully briefed and/or decided at an appellate level, I'd love to read your commentary.
In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Twitter is a private company, so it's difficult to use law to require it to uphold free-speech values
I know that constitutional rights generally only apply when there is a "state action" (some connection to the government). But there are some exceptions when a private area functions like a public forum. For example, shopping malls have become like a main street in some towns and they therefore may be required to uphold free speech.
Perhaps it can be argued that Twitter has become the most important forum where issues are debated and ideas are discussed. There really isn't an alternative forum to disseminate ideas to the same extent as you can on Twitter.
I don't have a Tweety in this Cat Fight.
It is pretty bad when even the Left hates Twitter.
But...she...he...that is a Feminist. Feminists are pretty well known for hating or finding offense with everything.
It was only a matter of time before they worked their way to Twitter
The public square principle applies to Google and Facebook as well. Conservatives fetishize corporations, which blinds them to how technology companies are on the verge of banishing conservatives and their ideas from the public sphere. Freedom of speech is upstream from freedom for corporations.
The idea that Twitter, or any other social media company, is immune to First Amendment freedoms is absurd. Those companies are utilities of the same kind as the telephone companies. Telephone companies cannot censor your communications to other people and neither can Twitter et al.
rhhardin said...
Twitter gets a bulletin board exemption from libel suits as a publisher; just take away that exemption if they discriminate based on content.
They can be a bulletin board or a publisher. Make them choose one.
Exactly.
This has been obvious since twitter took sides with facebook in the 2012 and 2016 elections.
They are choosing to moderate content. That means they are choosing to allow all of the hateful, racist and libelous stuff they don't ban.
It is really time for the anti-trust hammer to come down.
Our planet has gone raving mad. Could it be climate change?
Ernest Prole observes: It's illegal for a private power company like Pacific Gas & Electricity to refuse to provide electricity to a household because an occupant is a communist.
What about a deplorable?
transgenderism, its psychology and associated medical malpractice are this generations lobotomy.
Lots of incoming torts, suits, and monies to be awarded for the next 50 years. Perhaps that was the whole point.
Twitter will counter with an assertion that she violated their terms of service, which she agreed to abide by when she signed up. Right?
The First Amendment (aka: Free Speech) right is a guarantee of no government interference. At least that's what all the lawyers familiar with the Constitution say.
Blogger Lucid-Ideas said...
transgenderism, its psychology and associated medical malpractice are this generations lobotomy.
No, it is this generations Lysenkoism.
Murphy seems to have gotten into trouble for a tweet directly aimed at a particular individual — taunting the person with the pronoun "he" — and that is quite different from discussing the issue of what pronouns to use and other things about transgender persons.
Bullshit.
Unless you're claiming that the US Gov't can arrest anyone who says or writes "BusHitler" or "Trump is Hitler", because "talking about an individual person is different."
My preferred pronouns are "Your Majesty", "Your excellency", and "Lord and Master". You don't want to call me those? Hate Speech!
Your feelings are irrelevant, insignificant, and unimportant. If your feelings conflict with other people's freedom of speech, then your feelings lose.
Or else, the feelings of right-wing, fundamentalist evangelical Christian Trump voters trump YOUR free speech.
You are not a member of the nobility. Being a deranged nutcase who rejects biological reality does not promote you to being part of the nobility. If someone calls you he, and you don't like it? Mute them.
But if Twitter is going to be a publisher, then they are responsible for every single thing posted on Twitter. No DMCA safe harbors. They're just as subject to libel law suits, or copyright infringement lawsuits, as the NYT is for what they publish
stevew said...
Twitter will counter with an assertion that she violated their terms of service, which she agreed to abide by when she signed up. Right?
They must make a good faith effort to apply the terms of service uniformly.
There are dozens of democrat elected officials and leftist blue checks with thousands of posts calling for violence and hatred against their political opponents.
Not only that once you start moderating content you become responsible for all content you allow past the moderation.
They need to have their bulletin board exemption pulled post haste.
The internet is more like a utility than a publishing company. They have monopolies on platforms for public dialogue. And yes, they are using their power to silence ideas they don't like.
taunting the person with the pronoun "he"
So men are now so toxic that to be referred to as "he" is a taunt and an attack? Especially when the person so referred to is objectively a man?
Look, let your freak flag fly...indulge your fantasies, as long an no innocents are hurt, I don't care. But you don't have the right to force me to indulge your fantasies.
taunting the person with the pronoun "he"
"the person" That was so delicate!
Taunting a man by calling him "he". Tee hee.
I don't think people should say that Twitter's Conduct policy is "hateful" until they read the entire thing; Twitter might have imaginative excuses for claiming that it's naughty to call a man "he".
"Here's the text of Twitter's Hateful Conduct policy, which seems to be about attacks aimed at individuals that are based on gender identity, not the discussion of transgender issues generally."
It's the baseball umpire rule: don't say "you." Bad: "Your calls are all a load of horsesh*t." Good: "that call was a load of horseshit." Bad: "you are a man in a dress." Good: "so-called transgender women are really just men in dresses."
By the way, how do you directly taunt someone with a third-person pronoun? Seems like it could be difficult, grammatically speaking.
The adverse publicity may be the best weapon available. Let's all sue Twitter.
Blogger mccullough said...
Sounds like Twitter is inconsistent in their enforcement of policy. The algorithms or SJW elves tend to ban or punish conservatives.
Conservatives need their own platforms. They used to bitch about Walter Kronkite and the Times but FOx News and conservative papers, magazines, and talk radio was the answer.
Progressives hate talk radio.
Ditch Twitter and set up a conservative Twitter.
Waddya waiting for. I only want to see assholes and elbows
Taunting a man by calling him "he".
I would call him a male. He's not much of a man by the light of day, but by night he's one hell of a woman.
A deadname is the birth name of someone who has changed it.
So it is untwitterful to call a woman by her maiden name.
It's ironic that in Britain, TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical femininsts), feminists who say male-body borns aren't real women, are a substantial part of establishment feminism.
Imagine that AT&T refused to provide phone service to those advocating for civil rights in 1963. The proper response would be to pass a law making it illegal to conspire to deny the exercise of First Amendment rights.
Twitter, Google, and Facebook are AT&T.
Funny, all you bootstrap capitalistas want free stuff from Libtard tech weenies. White welfare, it's what's for dinner.
The "he" in question, not named by the Canadian paper linked, appears to be an overweight, transsexual, consulting dominatrix.
Hey, don't knock it if you ain't tried it, somebody said.
The 1st Amendment only applies if you are thrown in prison by the federal government for something you said.
We have every right to shout down paid speakers at public events so they cannot be heard and are forced to cancel the event. 1st Amendment!
-Same people
Ann Althouse said...Here's the text of Twitter's Hateful Conduct policy, which seems to be about attacks aimed at individuals that are based on gender identity, not the discussion of transgender issues generally.
And if you believe that...well actually I don't have anything, because no one really believes that. We're all sophisticated adults who understand the written policy has only a passing resemblance to the "rules" as applied (and that those rules themselves are never consistent).
Transgender is an ambiguous label in its liberal form, which selectively excludes politically congruent physical and mental (e.g. sexual) orientations from association with negative evolutionary and cultural connotations.
Howard once again cries out for mandatory Pravda, with no other platforms.
See, the "we need a conservative Twitter!" was tried. Gab.io. Google, Apple, and others banned it from their platforms. SJW's at Visa pulled the plug on Gab even being able to process payments. Various leftist run domain servers yanked them off the internet for a time.
So in reality, you cannot just make a "Conservative Twitter, facebook, etc." You also have to create a new nationwide payment processor, domain registrar, and essentially an entirely redundant internet stack because people like Howard think its great to censor speech he doesn't like.
--Vance
Twitter conflates sex and gender, and is infamous for its politically congruent choices.
Twitter is a private company, so it's difficult to use law to require it to uphold free-speech values, ...
The restaurant is a private company, so it's difficult to use law to require it to serve blacks at its lunch-counter.
Twitter takes affirmative steps to censor its platform, and as a near monopoly in its space (witness the political and social destruction of competing platforms), they cannot arbitrarily discriminate. Therefore, they need to remove references to "choice", "selection", "diversity", "feminism", "green", "clean", "=", "social justice", "intern", etc. In short, they do not have the luxury of indulging in Pro-Choice, selective and opportunistic.
I literally wrote the following tweet:
"Jonathan Yaniv is not a woman. #istandwithmeghanmurphy"
And my account was suspended for "hate speech" until I deleted the tweet. I didn't and was banned.
Gives new meaning to the term TERF** War.
**Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
All well and good. But do Progressives get in trouble for tweets that target a particular individual, and with the same consequences? That, after all, is the point.
"Gender incongruence, meanwhile, has also been moved out of mental disorders in the ICD, into sexual health conditions. The rationale being that while evidence is now clear that it is not a mental disorder, and indeed classifying it in this can cause enormous stigma for people who are transgender, there remain significant health care needs that can best be met if the condition is coded under the ICD.
For mental health conditions, ICD codes are especially important since the ICD is a diagnostic tool, and thus, these are the conditions that often garner much of the interest in the ICD."
++
The restaurant is a private company, so it's difficult to use law to require it to serve blacks at its lunch-counter.
"They" claim that a person can't control their race, therefore it shouldn't be held against them - fair enough, but they erroneously claim that people can control their political opinions, so those opinions can be held against them. I invite anyone who believes that to actually change one of their own strongly held political opinions to the opposite of what it was.
This controversy goes to the depths of progressive culture (PC). Is it a fetus or a baby? Does she evolve from conception or is she delivered by Stork? Should we defer to science or wait until it self-identifies? Should she live or should she be aborted?
Is is an actor or actress? Congressman or congresswoman? Should gendered pronouns be correlated with genotype, phenotype, or choice?
Little did Monty Python know that what they thought was satire was in reality a how-to manual.
"Conservatives need to start their own twitter! And Google, Youtube, facebook, Paypal, airlines, banks, restaurants, news media, etc."
Eventually this will be the end of women's sports. Title 9 will fall in the wake of transgenderism.
Our language also suffers. "He" and "She" become vague. If "he" and "she" are replaced with "they" precision and meaning are lost. --But perhaps that is the goal.
Is a "trans-woman" neo-male or neo-female, transitioning from masculine to feminine gender or vice versa?
Look, you already have banks and credit card companies denying service to people based on what they say on any forum. We are on the slippery slope already. Someone above mentioned power companies- believe me, it will happen that a utility somewhere will stop selling electricity to someone who runs a non-PC blog or a non-PC business of some kind.
What about a deplorable?
Good question, Captain Obvious.
I think Twitter is more like a Newspaper than a public utility. They make money from advertisers and the eyeballs that read them. Newspapers don't publish all the letters they receive. They publish Trump because doing so benefits them. He attracts more eyeballs. If they don't like your ideas, their not going to publish your stuff unless it benefits them to do so.
Credit card companies are like banks. They should be regulated like banks. No discrimination for legal customers.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
"Look, you already have banks and credit card companies denying service to people based on what they say on any forum."
"We don't serve your kind."
Twitter turned into trash a long time ago. Why do people use it?
Blogger Unknown said...
Howard once again cries out for mandatory Pravda, with no other platforms.
See, the "we need a conservative Twitter!" was tried. Gab.io. Google, Apple, and others banned it from their platforms. SJW's at Visa pulled the plug on Gab even being able to process payments. Various leftist run domain servers yanked them off the internet for a time.
So in reality, you cannot just make a "Conservative Twitter, facebook, etc." You also have to create a new nationwide payment processor, domain registrar, and essentially an entirely redundant internet stack because people like Howard think its great to censor speech he doesn't like.
--Vance
I have yet to give my opinion on the subject, Vance. Merely to make observations of hypocrisy among the fiercely free marketeers who never learned to code something worth the big bucks. Also, Vance... we are Americans, not American'ts. Minorities don't need extra help to overcome prejudice, bigotry, previous conditions of servitude, genocide, coups, raping of natural resources, endless drug wars... but Vance here needs affirmative action Twitter and Facebook so he can tell the world that God Hates Fags.
I am trying to watch my carbs. How many carbs in popcorn?
Freeman Hunt said...
Twitter turned into trash a long time ago. Why do people use it?
Some people still think twitter is just a platform for morons to give 140 character rants.
It is actually the genesis for almost all of the "news" you see/hear. Covington Catholic started with one single tweet.
Blogger FIDO said...
I am trying to watch my carbs. How many carbs in popcorn?
If you use enough butter, then the carbs will be in their proper ratio
Blogger Browndog said...
Freeman Hunt said...
Twitter turned into trash a long time ago. Why do people use it?
Some people still think twitter is just a platform for morons to give 140 character rants.
Exactly, President Trump is the perfect example.
Many apolitical people dismiss claims by conservative that they are being banned/shadow banned on social media because they would have heard about it by now...on social media.
The argument that these are private companies doesn't hold water
Maybe ten years ago it did
Today Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" of previous generations, the place where public discussion starts and is driven
Twitter holds itself out as a public square, a place where people may meet and discuss topics. It does not advertise itself as a closed private club. Truth in advertising laws would require it to thus be an open forum.
Twitter also holds itself out to be something akin to a public accommodation, such as a restaurant or lodgings. Which again would militate against content discrimination.
And it is basically a de facto monopoly, like a public utility. When Ma Bell owned everything in telecommunications, could it control what was said?
Having universally invited people to come and use its product as a public square in the market place of ideas, Twitter must accept that it cannot control content. You cannot use "free speech" as a sword to deny the free speech of others, especially to basically control the public mind. If it wants to regulate content, then it must fundamentally change, as well as break up its monopoly.
It's now an attack to use the correct words? He is a man, period, unless you all want to start referring to me by my preferred title: Lord BooBoo Foot, Commodore of the Highways. To give one person the right to force another to say particular words is totalitarian. The answer is for people to stop using these services if they don't respect constitutional rights.
I no longer use Twitter, Facebook, and a number of others for this very reason, but I have not found a way to drop Google and YouTube yet without substantially hurting myself. I'm still looking for a way out with them, but there are really no good alternatives, since we made them too big to avoid. A quality set of services that fully respects freedom of speech would and might be the next big thing.
Twitter turned into trash a long time ago. Why do people use it?
To bypass a biased media.
It's now an attack to use the correct words?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two make four.
Mark @3:57 is spot on. Twitter can be a publisher or a platform, but if it chooses to be one, it cannot enjoy the privileges and immunities of the other. It can show viewpoint discrimination, but if it does, then it is no longer immune from libel, etc. It can foster a viewpoint neutral environment (and thus be immune from such concerns), but it then loses the ability to control content.
Make them choose.
Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities.
By the way this is completely false. Research shows men are targeted online at greater rates than women. The left is simply repeating their mythology as fact. Since techies believe left = good (see: Google/James Damore) they instilled far left activists as their "safety" council with the predictable outcome.
Why stop with gender? How about species? Or better yet, genus.
Found on a Cave Wall in 3010 AD,BCA
"By pursuing freedom without limits, the human race became extinct"
Where would Trump be without Twitter?
You people are so ungrateful.
Why stop with gender? How about species? Or better yet, genus.
I suggest you look up dragonkin and wolfkind to start with.
It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
"Twitter is a private company, so it's difficult to use law to require it to uphold free-speech values,"
Suppose the phone company banned me -- took away my access to telephone communications -- because I violated one of their corporate policies? Like disparaging them?
If Twitter, Facebook, et al, are acting as publishers, let them be sued like publishers when they publish content that defames people.
Do you remember checking off on a EULA when your land line phone was installed?
Sue these bastards.
Ann Althouse said...
"Twitter gets a bulletin board exemption from libel suits as a publisher; just take away that exemption if they discriminate based on content."
Things that would require me to undisplay all the comments on this blog.
**************************
Let's sing that old Sesame Street jingle, shall we?
One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things is not the same....
Facebook Twitter Althouse
bagoh20 said...
It's now an attack to use the correct words? He is a man, period, unless you all want to start referring to me by my preferred title: Lord BooBoo Foot, Commodore of the Highways. To give one person the right to force another to say particular words is totalitarian. The answer is for people to stop using these services if they don't respect constitutional rights.
*********
But...but...don't you SEE?
You must ratify, you must support, you must bow down to...their bat-shit crazy DELUSIONS.
Lord Foot, there is trouble in sector 7. Not enough salt and de-icing supplies to go around again.
There is talk of highway robbery.
"But if Twitter is going to be a publisher, then they are responsible for every single thing posted on Twitter. No DMCA safe harbors."
DMCA (the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act") safe harbor applies to copyright infringement, not libel, defamation etc. The DMCA actually requires that the service provider take down complained-of material to qualify for the immunity from infringement suit, so it may not be best to try to analogize from the DMCA into something relating to libel.
There may be an argument, however, that by taking someone down, Twitter (or Facebook, etc.) as identified them to the world as propounding hate speech, which if not true could possibly constitute defamation against the individual. Admittedly, this is complicated by the fact that Twitter (to my knowledge) does not post a notice that an individual has been de-platformed due to hate speech (or, for that matter, does not always provides notice that they have been de-platformed at all), so it would be more like defamation-by-omission...
Is accusing Allison of hate speech not defamatory? Twitter could just describe it a a violation of the rules about dead naming. Calling it hate speech seems defamatory to me.
This was not an isolated incident. Murphy has a long history of spewing hatred at trans folk and sex workers. Good riddance.
There. Are. Four. Lights.
https://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU
If they can force you to deny reality, the can control your perception of reality.
The likes of Inga and Chuck really did "see" Kavanaugh lie under oath, they really did "see" the Covington kids make racist remarks. Because long ago, they convinced themselves they could see five lights, not four.
The pronoun wars seen silly, but I cannot convey what a pernicious evil is being attempted here. It's right out of the pages of Orwell's 1984.
Twiiter "is actually the genesis for almost all of the "news" you see/hear. Covington Catholic started with one single tweet."
The genesis for SJW witchhunts. It's the internet version of a mob with pitchforks.
@Fen:
There. Are. Four. Lights.
Didn't even have to follow the link. One of my favorite Star Trek: TNG episodes!
"Murphy has a long history of spewing hatred at trans folk and sex workers."
Explain to me why calling a man in drag a man is "hatred".
Is that what her "long history of hatred" consists of? Can you provide some examples of what you mean by "hatred" ? Other than correctly identifying someone's gender, of course.
"Didn't even have to follow the link. One of my favorite Star Trek: TNG episodes!"
:)
The final clip of that episode is most interesting. Picard admits that, when confronted with the choice between a life of ease instead of torture, he began to actually "see" that fifth light.
The genesis for SJW witchhunts. It's the internet version of a mob with pitchforks.
Agree completely, but it's also now the primary chassis of the legacy media.
Fen:
The final clip of that episode is most interesting. Picard admits that, when confronted with the choice between a life of ease instead of torture, he began to actually "see" that fifth light.
Yes, fantastic homage to 1984. How many fingers?
That episode was also the first time I saw Ronny Cox outside of Robocop and Total Recall, two favorites of mine as a kid. It was nice to see his villainous self finally redeemed.
There is an old Sam Kinison line from back in the day that comes to mind:
"Whoopi Goldberg: a nation collectively decides not to hurt someone's feelings."
If -- somewhere, somehow -- one person can get their feelings hurt then off goes the microphone.
One, two, three: sibilance, sibilance.
I am Laslo.
"Murphy has a long history of spewing hatred at trans folk and sex workers. Good riddance."
Then don't follow her. It's like Mrs' Kravits looking in the neighbors' window and then complaining about what she sees.
I like the idea that someone born with a penis can trump a female with a vagina in today's feminism.
It's almost like even women don't take women seriously.
You've come a long way, baby.
I am Laslo.
"Two Girls, One Cup" is even more feminist when one of the girls has a cock.
I am Laslo.
I guess that these people don't realize that without the freedom to say what is unacceptable to many we would still have slavery, women without the vote, and LGBT people way in the back of the closet with our corsets and petty coats.
I'd like to point out virulent sexism in the following Wikipedia entry:
"Rusty trombone is an act in which a man stands with his knees and back slightly torqued with feet at least shoulder width apart to expose his anus.[1] The "player" typically kneels behind the man and performs anilingus while reaching up beneath the testicles or around the body to manually administer rapid up and down motions of the penis, mimicking the motions of a trombone player.[1][2] The act is defined primarily by the physical orientation of the partners, the combination of anilingus with manual sexual stimulation and the resemblance of the anal sphincter to a trombone mouthpiece; however, other positions and variations are possible."
Note that they specifically state that the person with the penis and testicles is a man.
Which totally dismisses the idea of a woman with a cock getting pleasure from a rusty trombone.
Not cool, Wiki.
I am Laslo.
@Laslo Spatula:
I like the idea that someone born with a penis can trump a female with a vagina in today's feminism.
Germaine Greer learned that lesson the hard way. American periodicals have recently been screeching about so called terf, or trans-exclusionary radical feminism, among some British feminists. Once again proving Steve Sailer's thesis that the coalition of the fringes need a common hate target ("cis-het men") to keep the whole thing from descending into rabid infighting.
From Wiki:
"A facial is a sexual activity in which a man ejaculates semen onto the face of one or more sexual partners.[1] A facial is a form of non-penetrative sex, though it is generally performed after some other means of sexual stimulation, such as vaginal sex, anal sex, oral sex or masturbation. Facials are currently regularly portrayed in pornographic films and videos, often as a way to close a scene.[2]"
Again: note that it is specifically a man which ejaculates semen onto the face of the partner.
Excluding women with cocks from being capable of ejaculating semen onto the face of a partner is yet another example of Wiki's intolerance.
Shameful.
I am Laslo.
From Wiki:
"A "pearl necklace" is slang for a sexual act in which a man ejaculates semen on or near the neck, chest, or breast of another person.[1] Such ejaculation can follow mammary intercourse, fellatio, intercourse, or masturbation over the other person.[2] The term originates from the way the deposited semen resembles a necklace of translucent white pearls.[3][4]
Note again: it is specifically a man who is doing the ejaculating that results in the titular pearl necklace.
It is like women with cocks don't even matter.
I am Laslo.
I guess that these people don't realize that without the freedom to say what is unacceptable to many we would still have...women without the vote,
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Laslo, you better knock it off before you get to blumpkin, dirty sanchez, rusty trombone, or a strawberry shortcake.
@J. Farmer
Yep - I've read a few things about the TERFs. It's kinda fascinating, really, in a 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' way.
But then you realize that they are serious about it. Which makes it both funnier and sadder.
I am Laslo.
J. Farmer said... "Laslo, you better knock it off before you get to blumpkin, dirty sanchez, rusty trombone, or a strawberry shortcake."
Too late. I addressed the inequity of Wiki's Rusty Trombone at 8:03.
I am Laslo.
iowan2 said...
Only butterflies sit at rest with their wings up like that, not out flat or folded across their back like moths.
Thanks Phidippus
I have spent must of my life identifying and killing the larval form of moths, Army worms, European Corn Borer, Clover worm, Black Cut worm, Corn Ear worm, etc., and never took the time to learn the difference between moths and butterflies.
The commenters at this blog are by far the most informed group, on the entire internet.
2/13/19, 5:32 PM
And, Laslo shows up to prove it.
Laslo Spatula said........
From Wiki:
"Donkey punch is the sexual practice of inflicting blunt force trauma to the back of the head or lower back of the receiving partner during anal or vaginal sex as an attempt by the penetrating partner to induce involuntary tightening of internal or external anal sphincter muscles or vaginal passage of the receiving partner.[1][2]"
Note that Wiki mentions the deliverer of the punch as the "penetrating partner" -- no gender is specified.
So -- while a woman with a cock cannot experience a rusty trombone, or deliver a pearl necklace or facial, they CAN inflict blunt force trauma to the back of the head or lower back of the receiving partner during anal or vaginal sex.
Well done, women with cocks!
I am Laslo.
@Laslo Spatula:
Too late. I addressed the inequity of Wiki's Rusty Trombone at 8:03.
How did I miss that?! Haha.
I think one of the saddest things in the world would be getting banged from behind by a person who was born with a penis, but then had it cut off to become a woman, but now is fucking you with a strap-on cock and THEN nails you in the back of the head with a Donkey Punch.
Because then it is solely about violence, really, and not the sexual pleasure received by the tightening of the muscles induced by the punch.
It's a fucked-up world.
I am Laslo.
I posted this on my Twitter account:
"Jonathan Yaniv is not a woman. #istandwithmeghanmurphy"
I'll let you know if something happens as a result.
THEOLDMAN
Okay, maybe my 8:47 post could be sadder.
You wake up hours later from being unconscious to find the penetrating partner stole the money from your purse before leaving.
And you had shit the bed.
But that's not the part that makes it sadder.
No: what makes it sadder is the grim realization that the person who was born with a penis, but then had it cut off to become a woman, and was fucking you with a strap-on cock, is a Better Feminist Than You Are.
It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world.
I am Laslo.
born with a penis, but then had it cut off
Hopefully, his arm muscles were weakened by the hormones.
For some reason your posts have me thinking about R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket. "I bet you're the kind of guy who would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach around." I'm not sure, but I'm certain there's something transphobic in that statement.
Farmer
You wanna see a blumpkin watch CNN interview Beto.
Laslo won the Internet. The rest of you must pay Laslo to use his internet pending further notice.
J Farmer won a Best Supporting award. I cannot divulge which of Laslo's comments he best supported. ;-)
Thanks, guys. (I condemn myself for being gender exclusive.)
'That episode was also the first time I saw Ronny Cox outside of Robocop and Total Recall, two favorites of mine as a kid. It was nice to see his villainous self finally redeemed.'
Ronny Cox as Senator Kinsey was great in Stargate: SG-1. He does make a good villain, doesn't he.
Kinsey:
"Given the chance, half of all American citizens won't even vote, and the half that do vote are too stupid to know what they're doing."
O'Neill:
"Which explains how you got elected."
Karen (Hammond) of Texas ;)
"Things that would require me to undisplay all the comments on this blog."
You didn't build the Internet, you are just using it. Bake the cake.
Post a Comment