Now PayPal has banned Alex Jones

[Brittain33]

If it's ok for a private business to deny service based on a customer's political beliefs

Do you think what Alex Jones has done to those Newtown parents constitutes "political beliefs"? Let's not make the mistake of calling this huckster a conservative.

[Yellowhammer]

If it's ok for a private business to deny service based on a customer's political beliefs

Do you think what Alex Jones has done to those Newtown parents constitutes "political beliefs"? Let's not make the mistake of calling this huckster a conservative.

Yes

[Santander]

Very worrying.

[DavidB.]

Very worrying.

You're worried about the blacklisting of a guy who spouts conspiracy theories about "the Jews"?

The internet essentially functions as the public space these days, except that we are forced to operate on the "premises" of big multinational tech companies. But just like it should be possible for somebody to spout Alex Jones' nonsense on the streets, it should be possible to do this on the internet as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Very worrying.

You're worried about the blacklisting of a guy who spouts conspiracy theories about "the Jews"?

The internet essentially functions as the public space these days, except that we are forced to operate on the "premises" of big multinational tech companies. But just like it should be possible for somebody to spout Alex Jones' nonsense on the streets, it should be possible to do this on the internet as well.

And he still can. He just can't use PayPal to sell his snake oil products anymore.

(And there are TONS of other payment processors. PayPal isn't even close to a monopoly.)

[Santander]

And he still can. He just can't use PayPal to sell his snake oil products anymore.

(And there are TONS of other payment processors. PayPal isn't even close to a monopoly.)

I buy his products. Even liberal media has conceded that his supplements are genuine, i.e. not snake oil. Obvious, there is a large markup, but NPR tote bags have large markups, too.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I for one don't like this. There's a difference between spreading hate on a media platform and using a payment processor as part of one's business IMO.

[IndustrialJustice]

Every red avatar: wtf, I love multinational corporations and capitalism now??!!

LOL the left is all about hypocrisy on free speech and who they want to have it. Some of the right too, but it's not as blatant. I don't see any conservatives saying that socialists have to be silent, maybe a few joking that they be thrown from helicopters Pinochet-style...but that's about it.

lol

[Progressive Pessimist]

I for one don't like this. There's a difference between spreading hate on a media platform and using a payment processor as part of one's business IMO.

The issue isn't so much his speech as much as it is violating the website's terms and conditions. That's always been the case with these bans. It's also the case as it relates to anything anyone does on nearly any website.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is only liberal PayPal allowed to dictate terms?  Indeed, are they Constitutionally permitted to make this exclusion for a business whose purpose is simply a conduit for money and payments?

Um, of course. PayPal is a private business. The Constitution forbids discrimination by governments. Obviously there's no Constitutional right to PayPal's services. What are you even talking about?

Atlas Liberals seem to believe that the Constitutional Rights of persons are dependent on whether THEY think a person is, or is not an HP.  Of course Jones is an HP. Our Constitutional Rights are only as good as the Constitutional Rights of the HPs of this world.

Again, there's no Constitutional right at issue here. The government is not limiting Alex Jones's freedom of expression. PayPal is.

I was thinking the same thing.
Fuzzy seems to do this time after time. He pulls things out of the air, tries to change the main topic and fails miserably as to the true debate at hand.
Ugggg.

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Do people have the Constitutional Right to do business?  Is utilizing a service to transmit payments to fund one's business any less of a right than sitting for a meal?  The establishments I've mentioned all hat their "terms of service" and part of those terms is that you had to be white.  Does it make it OK to ban Alex Jones from PayPal merely for the Terms of Service if those terms don't affect the standing of the provider of the service in any way?

[SteveRogers]

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Again, no, there was not. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. What part of this are you not getting?

Businesses cannot deny service on the basis of race because there is a law that makes it illegal to deny service on the basis of race (and sex, religion, age, disability, etc.). There is no such law that prohibits a business from cutting ties with peddlers of hate-filled propaganda. If you're arguing for the creation of such a law, then make that argument. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No one seems to care that PayPal also bans porn sites from using its services, which is also First Amendment protected.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Again, no, there was not. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. What part of this are you not getting?

Businesses cannot deny service on the basis of race because there is a law that makes it illegal to deny service on the basis of race (and sex, religion, age, disability, etc.). There is no such law that prohibits a business from cutting ties with peddlers of hate-filled propaganda. If you're arguing for the creation of such a law, then make that argument. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Why should businesses be able to deny service because of political views?

The highlighted quote is an example of ridiculousness here, not because Alex Jones is a bastion of tolerance and reasonableness, but because of the simple question of WHERE DOES IT STOP?   Today, the peddlers of hate-filled propaganda are Alex Jones.  Who will it be tomorrow?  Evangelical Churches who use PayPal to collect contributions and tithes?  Organizations affiliated with the pro-life movement?  Organizations supportive of building Trump's wall?  Zionist organizations that support the state of Israel?  And who decides where it stops?  Who decides who is "hate-filled"?  Because it's easy for me to see people apply this to Evangelical Christians over the issue.  What would you say if PayPal stopped allowing Muslim organizations to use it on grounds of "intolerance"?  Would that be OK?

You have no principle here.  You have only likes and dislikes.  Shut down people you disagree with, while defending the rights of people you agree with, even when the issue is the same in both cases.  (And people wonder where the "whatabutery" comes from.)  Here's the principle:  Can a business not provide a value-neutral service to a paying customer solely because of whom he/she is and/or what belief's he/she espouses?

OK, we cut off Alex Jones' PayPal.  Why can't we cut off his internet service?  After all he's using it to be hateful, yada, yada, yada?  Yes, there are many ordinary bills that have to be paid by snail mail these days, but why should he even have Comcast service; he'll use it for no good.  Why can't we stop him from using his bank card to pay over the phone; the money is only going to fund his hateful enterprises.  If PayPal can cut him off, why can't Chase Bank (or whomever he banks with)?  Indeed, why should Ford (or Chevy or Toyota) refuse to service his automobile; after all, it's not a life necessity, and he can use public transportation.  Indeed, why can't he be barred from the NYC subway; he's so hateful, the sight of him would be offensive to all the other riders?

Where does this stop?

If you can't say where this stops, you either (A) haven't thought through the issue, or (B) don't care about principle.  Doing business, doing ordinary business in a free society, is an act that ought to be value-neutral.  PayPal does one thing; it's a conduit for payments.  Alex Jones does nothing illegal with his PayPal account.  Where does it stop?  

[Fuzzy Bear]

No one seems to care that PayPal also bans porn sites from using its services, which is also First Amendment protected.

Porn sites are different; they expose PayPal to legal liability, especially if minors access the porn.  To say nothing if one of these sites are involved in child pornography.

Those are different issues; porn potentially exposes PayPal to involvement in illegal activity in ways that political websites don't.

[SteveRogers]

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Again, no, there was not. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. What part of this are you not getting?

Businesses cannot deny service on the basis of race because there is a law that makes it illegal to deny service on the basis of race (and sex, religion, age, disability, etc.). There is no such law that prohibits a business from cutting ties with peddlers of hate-filled propaganda. If you're arguing for the creation of such a law, then make that argument. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Why should businesses be able to deny service because of political views?

The highlighted quote is an example of ridiculousness here, not because Alex Jones is a bastion of tolerance and reasonableness, but because of the simple question of WHERE DOES IT STOP?   Today, the peddlers of hate-filled propaganda are Alex Jones.  Who will it be tomorrow?  Evangelical Churches who use PayPal to collect contributions and tithes?  Organizations affiliated with the pro-life movement?  Organizations supportive of building Trump's wall?  Zionist organizations that support the state of Israel?  And who decides where it stops?  Who decides who is "hate-filled"?  Because it's easy for me to see people apply this to Evangelical Christians over the issue.  What would you say if PayPal stopped allowing Muslim organizations to use it on grounds of "intolerance"?  Would that be OK?

You have no principle here.  You have only likes and dislikes.  Shut down people you disagree with, while defending the rights of people you agree with, even when the issue is the same in both cases.  (And people wonder where the "whatabutery" comes from.)  Here's the principle:  Can a business not provide a value-neutral service to a paying customer solely because of whom he/she is and/or what belief's he/she espouses?

OK, we cut off Alex Jones' PayPal.  Why can't we cut off his internet service?  After all he's using it to be hateful, yada, yada, yada?  Yes, there are many ordinary bills that have to be paid by snail mail these days, but why should he even have Comcast service; he'll use it for no good.  Why can't we stop him from using his bank card to pay over the phone; the money is only going to fund his hateful enterprises.  If PayPal can cut him off, why can't Chase Bank (or whomever he banks with)?  Indeed, why should Ford (or Chevy or Toyota) refuse to service his automobile; after all, it's not a life necessity, and he can use public transportation.  Indeed, why can't he be barred from the NYC subway; he's so hateful, the sight of him would be offensive to all the other riders?

Where does this stop?

If you can't say where this stops, you either (A) haven't thought through the issue, or (B) don't care about principle.  Doing business, doing ordinary business in a free society, is an act that ought to be value-neutral.  PayPal does one thing; it's a conduit for payments.  Alex Jones does nothing illegal with his PayPal account.  Where does it stop?  

I thought you believed in the free market. It seems like conservatives only believe in that when a business wants to discriminate against gays or kneeling football players.

Businesses like PayPal should be allowed to deny services to Alex Jones because, right or wrong, those businesses have their own First Amendment rights that are no more or less important than Alex Jones’s First Amendment rights. They have a right to protect their brand by associating or not associating with specific individuals as they see fit. Clearly they don’t want their logo appearing anywhere on Alex Jones’s website. I can’t say I blame them.

I do think there should be legal limits on the rights of private businesses to discriminate against customers. I support the civil rights act, and I support the extension of anti-discrimination protections to certain other vulnerable groups. But if you add the category of “political beliefs” to that list, then you are saying a business can literally never choose who they associate with. Where does THAT principle end? If I own a restaurant, should I really be required to serve my worst enemy if he walks in the door? Do you really think a business shouldn’t have any First Amendment rights whatsoever?

Certainly there are public utilities that must be legally required to take ALL paying customers. Obviously the water company can’t decide to cut ties with Alex Jones. And we may very well be at a point where internet service providers need to be regulated accordingly. But other than that, the exercise of free speech can and should be subject to social consequences.

[Grassroots]

"Yay! That mean man with the unpopular, uninformed, ignorant political beliefs is gone now!..."

Jesus, 1984 people!?!?!?

[Fuzzy Bear]

"Yay! That mean man with the unpopular, uninformed, ignorant political beliefs is gone now!..."

Jesus, 1984 people!?!?!?

Aren't they all siding with the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop?