During the pandemic, I used Twitter to network with other teachers during the COVID-19 chaos. I made many good connections and had a generally positive experience.
At the same time, I discovered an account called “Back Off Scotland” that was campaigning for buffer zones outside abortion clinics. While I avoid my loved ones and undergo constant lateral flow tests for the safety of my family and students, so-called “pro-life” activists selfishly ignore the rules and harass women outside hospitals. I was doing
Outraged, I became a passionate supporter of the Back Off Scotland campaign, sharing petitions and public consultations on social media platforms.
Read more: Subscribe to the nation’s top journalism with our subscriber-only newsletter
Twitter is something I’ve found particularly useful during this time. The anti-abortion group behind the protests, 40 Days for Life, had openly advertised the vigil and encouraged as many people as possible to attend.
There didn’t seem to be much media interest, so I headed to the hospital with a few friends and found a large group of people holding anti-abortion placards, just like the previous year. We filmed the crowd on our phones, posted the video on Twitter, and hoped for the best. By the next day, the video was featured in national media, and then-Prime Minister Humza Yousaf also condemned the protesters.
Being vocal about being pro-choice online has brought an onslaught of abuse. Some of the worst comments suggested that I should be raped, tortured, and set on fire. But one account got even more sinister.
Anonymous users were obsessed with me and other pro-abortion women. This account constantly shared our photos, names, and workplaces. This is a classic intimidation tactic. I immediately blocked the account, but noticed that I was receiving a large number of replies to the invisible comments. This account was commenting on my post from behind a block.
Even the worst trolls usually move on to another target after being blocked, but this one is different. This behavior continued for months. When I reported it to Twitter, I was told that there was no violation of the rules.
When the buffer zone bill was finally passed, a news thread popped up on my Facebook feed. In the comments, I found a man being abusive towards women, posting very specific comments, memes, and even his trademark blood emoji. I quickly realized that I had discovered an online harasser.
I knew he was monitoring my account daily, so I thought if I dropped hints that I knew who he was, he would stop. That wasn’t the case.
So I decided to do what he had been doing to me for months and posted his name and photo.
Imagine my surprise when I received an email from Twitter informing me that my account was locked for violating its rules and that I needed to delete my Tweets to regain access. There seems to be one rule for men who harass women and another for women who fight back.
People ask me, “Why should I quit Twitter?” But that’s not the answer. It cannot be considered right that women and people from minority groups are forced offline and denied the opportunity to participate in a platform that has proven to be so helpful in campaigning for change.
If Elon Musk truly believed in free speech, he would not allow trolls to intimidate individuals into self-censorship. I am proud to support the Buffer Zone campaign and to have played a small part in this landmark legislation that will be part of Scottish women’s history.
With Mr. Musk seemingly happy to monetize abusive content, the only solution is to force social media companies to follow the rules of civilized society, or else, as Brazil recently banned Twitter. The idea seems to be to enact a law that forces them to face the consequences.
It’s time for Twitter to be held accountable – and the result will be more freedom of speech.
