international attention? Outside of the 'blogosphere', TheGoogle said there were a couple of mainstream references... both opinion pieces appearing in the NYT and Guardian. But... both of those opinion pieces speak more to the U.S. 1st amendment & what the twitter change to their rules/policy (vis-avis banning for targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals) means in that context. The Murphy mention is little more than an example reference. In regards free-speech the NYT opinion piece speaks of trans persons viewing the twitter ban as a promotion of free-speech... that they'll speak up more if their existence isn't being questioned.
Uhhh, depending on perspective:
Everyone understands that it's Twitter's right to ban Murphy if they wish.
However it's also being pointed out that it casts doubt on Twitter's claim of political neutrality. I haven't read the NY Times piece you mention, but your summary seems to indicate they think that Twitter can create more free speech by putting their thumb on one side of the scale. If that's what's happening here, that certainly contradicts what Jack Dorsey told the US Congress a couple of months ago.
It's also being pointed out how little it took for Murphy to get banned from a platform that is absolutely rife with hate speech and threats of violence.
Twitter's official position is that Murphy was banned for "misgendering" "JY"... this is a person who still identifies themselves as Jonathan and presents themselves with a look that looks more or less like Jared from Subway, but Murphy was banned for referring to them as "him".
Trans activists claim that misgendering someone is real violence, so Murphy's ban would be justified in their eyes. Meanwhile trans people talk about literal violence on Twitter with impunity.
-k