Now PayPal has banned Alex Jones

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/paypal-bans-alex-jones-infowars-website-conspiracy-theories-from-processing-payments

HA!

[ProudModerate2]

Good.

[eric82oslo]

What took them so long?!

This is like even worse than the way they tried to attack the federal assault weapon ban. It's so freaking obvious, and still you have insane people like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Trump excusing it for God's sake!

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

What took them so long?!

This is like even worse than the federal assault weapon ban. It's so freaking obvious, and still you have insane people like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Trump excusing it for God's sake!

Nice Alex Jones impression, needs a little work.

[eric82oslo]

What took them so long?!

This is like even worse than the federal assault weapon ban. It's so freaking obvious, and still you have insane people like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Trump excusing it for God's sake!

Nice Alex Jones impression, needs a little work.

I stand corrected. What I wanted to say was of course the complete opposite of what is said in your quote above.

[DavidB.]

Very worrying.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what Wikipedia says PayPal is.  (It's early, and I'm not into doing deeper research.)  

https://deadline.com/2018/09/paypal-cancels-alex-jones-account-in-latest-hi-tech-termination-1202469560/

Is Alex Jones laundering money through PayPal?  Is Alex Jones conducting other illegal activities through PayPal?  Is he using PayPal to commit willful fraud?  The article doesn't say anything about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alex Jones is a nut job.  That being said, PayPal isn't "social media"; it's an internet mechanism of processing payments for business purposes.  If they had a forum and Alex Jones went off the chain and they banned him, that would be one thing.  But that's not what PayPal is.  It's a FINANCIAL service, and FINANCIAL services are neutral matters.  It's not opinion and it's not art.  What's more, "hate speech", however much one may find it vile, is Constitutionally protected if it is not inciting riots or other criminal activity.  Alex Jones may, indeed, be way off the reservation with his ideas, but the First Amendment allows this, and Katzenbach v. McClung protects this, IMO.  

A financial instituion is denying an ordinary, value-neutral service that it offers to others because they don't like a man's politics.  That's what this comes down to.  Does this issue appear different in this particular frame?  Benjamin Franklin once said to a woman that the sort of nation we were was, "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."  Part of the Republic-Keeping Franklin speaks of, and part of the maintenance of individual liberties (which make our particular Republic a Good as well as a Great Republic) is the recognition that the right of people on Atlas to rant endlessly about how big a nut job or Nazi Trump has been in the last 15 minutes is directly tied up to the right of Alex Jones to utilize his First Amendment Rights and still receive full protection of the law.  I cannot believe this is legal.  If it actually is, I shudder to think how large banks could abuse this in the name of something warm and fuzzy sounding as "opposition to hate speech".

[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"?

[Hammy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what Wikipedia says PayPal is.  (It's early, and I'm not into doing deeper research.)  

https://deadline.com/2018/09/paypal-cancels-alex-jones-account-in-latest-hi-tech-termination-1202469560/

Is Alex Jones laundering money through PayPal?  Is Alex Jones conducting other illegal activities through PayPal?  Is he using PayPal to commit willful fraud?  The article doesn't say anything about that.

The last time I checked, harassment and threats/advocating such are crimes (though as a public figure he seems immune from suffering legal consequences.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what Wikipedia says PayPal is.  (It's early, and I'm not into doing deeper research.)  

https://deadline.com/2018/09/paypal-cancels-alex-jones-account-in-latest-hi-tech-termination-1202469560/

Is Alex Jones laundering money through PayPal?  Is Alex Jones conducting other illegal activities through PayPal?  Is he using PayPal to commit willful fraud?  The article doesn't say anything about that.

The last time I checked, harassment and threats/advocating such are crimes (though as a public figure he seems immune from suffering legal consequences.)

If they are, indeed, crimes he can be charged.

But he's not charged with any crimes.  PayPal is a financial institution that facilitates financial transactions.  On what basis can they deny him service? 

People here feel free to call people "criminals" who haven't been charged.  It goes on all the time.  I recognize that these people are public figures, immune from slander and libel laws, but this is dealing with people in ways that those running their keyboards here would not wish to be treated in return.  It's one reason I tune a lot of people out here; they call people names with no basis for it.

Alex Jones is a jerk, but he's a law-abiding jerk.  This is uncalled for.  And the people cheering on PayPal are the people who excoriated Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.  If this, indeed, can stand, there are a lot of folks here that owe Mr. Phillips an apology.

[IceSpear]

At least Santander will have more beer money now.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

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

[GeorgiaModerate]

PayPal's User Agreement says this under Restricted Activities:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And their Acceptable Use policy says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jones is clearly in violation of these policies, which he agreed to in order to open an account, and as such PayPal has every right to terminate his account.  This shouldn't even be in question.

[Brittain33]

If Alex Jones can have his life ruined because of some harmless horseplay with those Newtown parents, then what man will ever be able to use PayPal again?!

[Progressive Pessimist]

How will Jones' viewers purchase his snake oil online now!? They're surely boycotting the service and accusing it of being part of the global conspiracy by now.

[here2view]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what Wikipedia says PayPal is.  (It's early, and I'm not into doing deeper research.)  

https://deadline.com/2018/09/paypal-cancels-alex-jones-account-in-latest-hi-tech-termination-1202469560/

Is Alex Jones laundering money through PayPal?  Is Alex Jones conducting other illegal activities through PayPal?  Is he using PayPal to commit willful fraud?  The article doesn't say anything about that.

The last time I checked, harassment and threats/advocating such are crimes (though as a public figure he seems immune from suffering legal consequences.)

If they are, indeed, crimes he can be charged.

But he's not charged with any crimes.  PayPal is a financial institution that facilitates financial transactions.  On what basis can they deny him service? 

People here feel free to call people "criminals" who haven't been charged.  It goes on all the time.  I recognize that these people are public figures, immune from slander and libel laws, but this is dealing with people in ways that those running their keyboards here would not wish to be treated in return.  It's one reason I tune a lot of people out here; they call people names with no basis for it.

Alex Jones is a jerk, but he's a law-abiding jerk.  This is uncalled for.  And the people cheering on PayPal are the people who excoriated Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.  If this, indeed, can stand, there are a lot of folks here that owe Mr. Phillips an apology.

Good thing I agreed with the court decision regarding Phillips, so I don't give a you know what about PayPal and Alex Jones.

[Fuzzy Bear]

PayPal's User Agreement says this under Restricted Activities:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And their Acceptable Use policy says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jones is clearly in violation of these policies, which he agreed to in order to open an account, and as such PayPal has every right to terminate his account.  This shouldn't even be in question.

"Other Forms Of Intolerance".  According to who?

Can the Colorado Cake Baker substitute "immorality" for "intolerance" and not get flak for not baking particular cakes?

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?

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.

[GeorgiaModerate]

PayPal's User Agreement says this under Restricted Activities:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And their Acceptable Use policy says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jones is clearly in violation of these policies, which he agreed to in order to open an account, and as such PayPal has every right to terminate his account.  This shouldn't even be in question.

"Other Forms Of Intolerance".  According to who?

Can the Colorado Cake Baker substitute "immorality" for "intolerance" and not get flak for not baking particular cakes?

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?

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.

A key difference between PayPal and the bakery is that the Terms of Service are a contract that the user has voluntarily consented to (and in theory has read and understood, although most people don't).  I strongly doubt that the bakery has a similar contract for ongoing service.

[SteveRogers]

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.

You keep trying to draw a connection to the Colorado Cake Baker case, but you obviously weren't paying attention to the legal principles at play in that case. No, liberals do not believe that gay people have a Constitutional right to purchase a cake from a given bakery. However, we do support statutes like the one in Colorado that banned businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, just as every other state regulates discrimination on the basis of categories such as race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. The cake baker case was about whether or not a business owner's First Amendment right can trump such a state law.

There is no such law prohibiting businesses from discriminating on the basis of political ideology or the expression of hate-filled conspiracy theories, so Jones is out of luck.

"Other Forms Of Intolerance".  According to who?

Can the Colorado Cake Baker substitute "immorality" for "intolerance" and not get flak for not baking particular cakes?

No, because such a contract would likely still violate Colorado law which prohibits discrimination against gay people.

If you want anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits businesses from denying service to right-wing nutjobs, I suggest you write your legislators.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

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.

[SteveRogers]

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.

This is not a free speech issue. Alex Jones got to exercise the full range of his First Amendment rights. Now PayPal gets to do the same.

[Yellowhammer]

If it's ok for a private business to deny service based on a customer's political beliefs, then it's also ok for them to deny service based on sexuality, race, or any other factor.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

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.

This is not a free speech issue. Alex Jones got to exercise the full range of his First Amendment rights. Now PayPal gets to do the same.

I guess you agree with the Citizens United ruling then. Paypal can go F itself, luckily Jones can go elsewhere but unless charged with a crime this is tantamount to what the Chinese are doing with "social credit scores" making subclasses of people just on how anti-gov or how not PC your speech is. 

I don't want to live in that world and you won't either.

[PSOL]

If it's ok for a private business to deny service based on a customer's political beliefs, then it's also ok for them to deny service based on sexuality, race, or any other factor.

Look if you managed to get removed by a company statute that rarely gets enforced by harassing the survivors of a shooting your a whole next level of stupid.