patrick.net

The SPLC has come down pretty far into the mud. It's time to block donations to the SPLC because of their activities in opposition to free speech.

Here's a link to David Horowitz's site, just to give him a little link karma (though Google, also an opponent of free speech, may well stomp on that too): https://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/

I haven't seen anything to indicate that the Freedom Center has been cut off from Visa and Mastercard; however, the letter references Robert Spencer, who is the director of Jihad Watch (which is a Freedom Center affiliate), that has been "revoked" by the credit card companies.

Wasn't it the SPLC that named Maajid Nawaz an anti-Islam extremist?
He is a Muslim reformist, and ex-Islamist militant.
Tells you who you are dealing with.

And why is it OK for a private company to ban legitimate political points, but not OK for a private company to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple?

It seems that the principle varies according to self-interest, at least according to those banning speech and demanding cakes be baked.

Patrick says

And why is it OK for a private company to ban legitimate political points, but not OK for a private company to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple?

I thought the Court ruled it was OK not to bake the cake?

Does FOX News have to allow Krugman on all of its shows then? Does Infowars have to allow Chris Cilliza to write editorials every day then? What exactly are you proposing Patrick?

Leon, do you think Mastercard and Visa, who control the vast, vast majority of CC and Debit Transactions in the United States, should be able to cut off groups because of their political stance?

LeonDurham says

What exactly are you proposing Patrick?

he is proposing that all Americans need access to the modern economy. Oligopolies/monopolies who control an entire industry SHOULD NOT be allowed to decide who gets to use their service. When there are a million cake makers, this is irrelevant. Cutting off Mastercard and Visa is downright Orwellian.

How about your perspective? Where does it end? Does the wrong political view mean you cant go to college, cant get a job, cant rent an apt, cant use electronic payment methods, cant open a bank account... where does it end?

How is this not 1930's Nazi Germany?

Exactly. If there were 3 dozen Facebooks, limited by geography and roughly the same size, it wouldn't matter.

But there aren't 36 Facebooks, limited by state, but rather 1 Facebook Globally. In many countries, businesses don't have websites, just Facebook pages.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Leon, do you think Mastercard and Visa, who control the vast, vast majority of CC and Debit Transactions in the United States, should be able to cut off groups because of their political stance?

Do you not believe in a free market? Wouldn't other companies start up to fill this unmet need in the market?


Why do you hate capitalism?

CBOEtrader says

he is proposing that all Americans need access to the modern economy. Oligopolies/monopolies who control an entire industry SHOULD NOT be allowed to decide who gets to use their service. When there are a million cake makers, this is irrelevant. Cutting off Mastercard and Visa is downright Orwellian.

How about your perspective? Where does it end? Does the wrong political view mean you cant go to college, cant get a job, cant rent an apt, cant use electronic payment methods, cant open a bank account... where does it end?

How is this not 1930's Nazi Germany?

Why do you hate capitalism too? Do you need a nanny state to tell companies how to run their businesses??

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Exactly. If there were 3 dozen Facebooks, limited by geography and roughly the same size, it wouldn't matter.

But there aren't 36 Facebooks, limited by state, but rather 1 Facebook Globally. In many countries, businesses don't have websites, just Facebook pages.

There's only 1 FOX News too. Should they be forced to air Krugman and Warren and Bernie?

LeonDurham says

There's only 1 FOX News too. Should they be forced to air Krugman and Warren and Bernie?

You want Equal Time/Fairness Doctrine back? I'm game.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

You want Equal Time/Fairness Doctrine back? I'm game.

Me too. But let's apply it to Breitbart and Infowars along with Facebook and MSNBC

Patrick says

The SPLC has come down pretty far into the mud. It's time to block donations to the SPLC because of their activities in opposition to free speech.

It's time for who to block donations to SPLC?

You or David Howowitz are free to start a movement to convince people to stop making donations to SPLC or convince MC/VIsa to cut SPLC off at any time you want. That is free speech, just like SPLC is free to start a movement against David Horowitz.

Free speech in the bill of rights only applies to government regulation. Why is that so hard for so many people to grasp.

bob2356 says

Free speech in the bill of rights only applies to government regulation. Why is that so hard for so many people to grasp.

Free Speech is an American Principle and certain businesses are prohibited from refusing service based on Speech.

This would just expand it to internet and financial Combines that control 90% of the market, like Visa/Mastercard, or Patreon, or Facebook/Youtube. Youtube controls almost all non-porn streaming video.

Good News: Mastercard backs down from Frontpagemag/David Horowtiz ban.

Their excuse? Their organization was listed on "Bloodmoney", a far Left SJW website.

Note their site exclaims they want to stop "Whtie Supremacists" but you'll notice the huge list of Anti-Islamofascist and General Conservatives. Here's a screenshot of Horowitz Freedom center.



Also listed is Faith Freedom International which is an organization of Ex-Muslims

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Free Speech is an American Principle and certain businesses are prohibited from refusing service based on Speech.

This would just expand it to internet and financial Combines that control 90% of the market, like Visa/Mastercard, or Patreon, or Facebook/Youtube. Youtube controls almost all non-porn streaming video.

Not clear on the idea of principle vs legal I see. Only businesses that have a government granted monopoly are prohibited from refusing service. Not companies that dominate the market because they are good at what they do. Youtube doesn't control 90% of the steaming market, 90% of the streaming market CHOOSES to use youtube. You have options outside of visa/mastercard people CHOOSE to use then. There isn't any constitutional protection no matter how much you try to find one.

bob2356 says

You have options outside of visa/mastercard people CHOOSE to use then.

How many non-MC, non-Visa bank cards do you own?

bob2356 says

There isn't any constitutional protection no matter how much you try to find one.

We'll see. Eventually some of these will wind up in court.

Free Speech is an American principle and courts HAVE identified political contributions as a form of free speech.

Powerful Financial Institutions shouldn't be prohibiting their users from exercising their free speech, it's Un-American.

Do you think Banks should be legally able to refuse to pay checks written to political organizations that pressure groups don't like?

bob2356 says

Youtube doesn't control 90% of the steaming market, 90% of the streaming market CHOOSES to use youtube.

Right, Standard Oil didn't control 90% of the oil market, oil consumers "chose" Standard Oil. ;)

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Powerful Financial Institutions shouldn't be prohibiting their users from exercising their free speech, it's Un-American.

This is too funny. So, remind me which side of the gay bakery you were on again?

LeonDurham says

This is too funny. So, remind me which side of the gay bakery you were on again?

I've said it over and over again in this forum - long before Trump, too.

There's a difference between a small business - to which there are scores of nearby alternatives - run by one or two people, and a massive international conglomerate.

The real hypocrisy is on the side of the Modern Hard Left: Mr. Small Fry, you must Bake the Cake though there are scores of equivalently sized businesses like yours nearby, but I the Massive Conglomerate to whom there is no equivalent alternative, can refuse to process your donation (even though I'm the middle man and neither the source nor destination, the provider or payer, in the transaction).

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

There's a difference between a small business - to which there are scores of nearby alternatives - run by one or two people, and a massive international conglomerate.

So if it was Little Debbies, you'd say they should be required to bake the cake then? What's the cutoff to where Big Brother gets to decide how you must run your business?

LeonDurham says

So if it was Little Debbies, you'd say they should be required to bake the cake then? What's the cutoff to where Big Brother gets to decide how you must run your business?

Depends. If Little Debbie controlled a third of the wedding cake market nationally, or even statewide, sure.

But I doubt Little Debbie takes orders for a single wedding cake.

More about the size and status of the company than even market share. If it's a public stock company, then they don't have the power, because their role is to make money for the investors, and it's highly unlikely that a majority of investors would agree to lose money by not engaging in a transaction. However, if sole proprietor Abdul the Jihadi Baker doesn't want to make a "Happy 70 Israel!" birthday cake,that's his privilege.

For Social Media, the solution is that open and neutral forums are not liable for the content. However, Social Media that employs "Quality Filters" or actively removes non-illegal political content would be. If you're going to police content, you're saying you're responsible for the content!

That's fair dinkum, I think.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

More about the size and status of the company than even market share. If it's a public stock company, then they don't have the power, because their role is to make money for the investors, and it's highly unlikely that a majority of investors would agree to lose money by not engaging in a transaction. However, if sole proprietor Abdul the Jihadi Baker doesn't want to make a "Happy 70 Israel!" birthday cake,that's his privilege.

So, are you saying public companies shouldn't be controlled by Big Brother then? It's not clear what you are saying here.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

For Social Media, the solution is that open and neutral forums are not liable for the content. However, Social Media that employs "Quality Filters" or actively removes non-illegal political content would be. If you're going to police content, you're saying you're responsible for the content!

That's fair dinkum, I think.

So, Pat.net should be required to allow me to post what I want without Goran filtering my posts then?

Patrick.net is not able to seriously impact your freedom of speech.

Visa is.
Facebook is.
Twitter is.
Google is.

Similarly, a small baker is not seriously violating anyone's right to decorated cakes.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

How many non-MC, non-Visa bank cards do you own?

I do have AE. I can use cash, checks, paypal, diners club, ae, wire transfers, or even barter. If some online company only takes V/MC I can easily found another that doesn't. Being lazy isn't free speech.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Free Speech is an American principle and courts HAVE identified political contributions as a form of free speech.

Powerful Financial Institutions shouldn't be prohibiting their users from exercising their free speech, it's Un-American.

Do you think Banks should be legally able to refuse to pay checks written to political organizations that pressure groups don't like?

Banks are required by law to honor checks. They are not required by law to open accounts for everyone. Actually they are required by law to not open accounts for everyone who asks. Political organizations are free to use whatever bank is willing to do business with them. Banks are free to do business with the customers they choose to do business with. Didn't the supreme court just affirm that with the gay cake thing?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Right, Standard Oil didn't control 90% of the oil market, oil consumers "chose" Standard Oil. ;)

Damn right they did. Compared to whale oil and bees wax standard oils kerosene was a godsend.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

The real hypocrisy is on the side of the Modern Hard Left: Mr. Small Fry, you must Bake the Cake though there are scores of equivalently sized businesses like yours nearby, but I the Massive Conglomerate to whom there is no equivalent alternative, can refuse to process your donation (even though I'm the middle man and neither the source nor destination, the provider or payer, in the transaction).

The real hypocrisy is pretending there are no way to "process your donation". Donations got sent long before any of these institutions existed. You can still write a check and put in an envelope with a stamp the old fashioned way.

LeonDurham says

So if it was Little Debbies, you'd say they should be required to bake the cake then? What's the cutoff to where Big Brother gets to decide how you must run your business?

There is no cut off. The same principal applies for every business. Funny how conservatives are such big believers in free markets, except when the free market does something they don't like.

If these tech companies want to pick and choose the content - they might as well be honest and classify themselves as Publishers.

They can't have it both ways and pretend to be neutral and not be held to libel laws, but somehow all their algorithms and SJW monkey monitors seem to only block Conservative content.

LeonDurham says

Do you need a nanny state to tell companies how to run their businesses??

For monopolies yes, they should be broken apart and/or forced to serve everyone.

bob2356 says

I do have AE.

Is AE a bank card?

I have never seen an AE bank card.

bob2356 says

Banks are required by law to honor checks. They are not required by law to open accounts for everyone. Actually they are required by law to not open accounts for everyone who asks. Political organizations are free to use whatever bank is willing to do business with them. Banks are free to do business with the customers they choose to do business with. Didn't the supreme court just affirm that with the gay cake thing?

This is interesting. So a paper check is one thing, but using a check card to do the same thing is something else?

Now by regulation it could be, which is pretty stupid, and the cards and checks should be the same, esp. since banks push the cards over the checks for most purchases.



bob2356 says

Damn right they did. Compared to whale oil and bees wax standard oils kerosene was a godsend.

There weren't tons of independent petroleum refiners before the Standard Oil Trust?

bob2356 says

The real hypocrisy is pretending there are no way to "process your donation". Donations got sent long before any of these institutions existed. You can still write a check and put in an envelope with a stamp the old fashioned way.

Yep, which is easier? Which is more likely to get done?

And yes, the banks and the social pressure groups know this.

Like I said, bank cards and checks should be under the same rules and regulations, since most people pay most of their bills and purchases with cards. Indeed banks push the use of cards.

socal2 says

If these tech companies want to pick and choose the content - they might as well be honest and classify themselves as Publishers.

They can't have it both ways and pretend to be neutral and not be held to libel laws, but somehow all their algorithms and SJW monkey monitors seem to only block Conservative content.

Exactly.

bob2356 says

There is no cut off. The same principal applies for every business. Funny how conservatives are such big believers in free markets, except when the free market does something they don't like.

I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate Liberal Civic Nationalist.

And yes, like Teddy Roosevelt I believe in regulating Trusts and Monopolies, along with enforcing US Values. I've also long supported any institution receiving non-trivial sums of money from the USG (say over $10,000) be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at Official Meetings (and upload to a public streaming video service) and submit a Thank You, Taxpayer letter.

So Both Tesla and the University of Michigan Feminist Studies department would probably both have to write Thank You, Taxpayer letters and recite the Pledge.

Say it, Professor Lunarwoman! Or we'll lose our $30k in grant money for your "Famous Lesbian Womyn of the Wild West" Research.

"*SIGH* Goddamn Patriarchs... this is my entitlement for centuries of oppression. I pledge allegiance ... to... ugh... the Flag...."

I, Charles Koch, do thank the US Taxpayer for the $83M in subsidies and tax breaks I received last year...

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

bob2356 says

I do have AE.

Is AE a bank card?

I have never seen an AE bank card.

If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. So tell me how do you pay for dinner differently with AE card than with Visa card?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

This is interesting. So a paper check is one thing, but using a check card to do the same thing is something else?

My "check card" aka debit card isn't Visa/MC logoed. Every bank has a plain old debit card. Not a requirement to take the visa/mc debit card, it's a choice. So if you CHOOSE to use the Visa/MC network which is a totally different private company from the bank then yes they can have their own rules. It's not the same thing to use a check as to use a visa/mc debit card. Checks don't go through the Visa/MC network. Want to keep on thrashing around trying to make 2+2 equal 5?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

And yes, like Teddy Roosevelt I believe in regulating Trusts and Monopolies, along with enforcing US Values

lol at "US Values". How ridiculous is it to assume that your values are US values? I can assure you that reciting an idiotic pledge in an act of fake patriotism is most assuredly NOT a US Value. The US was not founded on fake patriotism.


But, perhaps Two Scoops and/or Patrick can share what constitutes a monopoly in their view. What's the quantitative criteria?

bob2356 says

If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. So tell me how do you pay for dinner differently with AE card than with Visa card?

Okay, so the idea here is that Mastercard can prevent you from using your bank card to donate to an political organization they disagree with.

Given the massive difference in market penetration, why can MC tell my bank I can't use my bank card to pay for something that is totally legal?


bob2356 says

My "check card" aka debit card isn't Visa/MC logoed. Every bank has a plain old debit card. Not a requirement to take the visa/mc debit card, it's a choice. So if you CHOOSE to use the Visa/MC network which is a totally different private company from the bank then yes they can have their own rules. It's not the same thing to use a check as to use a visa/mc debit card. Checks don't go through the Visa/MC network. Want to keep on thrashing around trying to make 2+2 equal 5?

There may be laws, but 95% of the public says "I'll take a bank card" and doesn't get into the details. I've never been asked if I wanted Visa/MC or a plain bank card, and I suspect most people haven't. I just got the bank card in the mail and it had mastercard on it.

We're talking about normal processes, not finding ways "around" something.

I want to hear why MC/VISA should be allowed to decide which legal US political organizations should or shouldn't be allowed to receive donations. Why that's an American thing to do, and why that isn't chilling for free speech, which is a national civic value.

If we need a regulation to protect consumer freedom, so be it. That's the best kind of regulation, and what regulations should be about, to protect freedom and consumer rights to utilize a tool they pay for.

LeonDurham says

lol at "US Values". How ridiculous is it to assume that your values are US values? I can assure you that reciting an idiotic pledge in an act of fake patriotism is most assuredly NOT a US Value. The US was not founded on fake patriotism.

The US is certainly not centered around banks determining which payees they're going to prevent their customers from paying.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

The US is certainly not centered around banks determining which payees they're going to prevent their customers from paying.

Nobody is preventing anyone from paying whoever they want to pay. Nobody has a God given right to MC or Visa.

It's amazing what the Trump cultists believe-- Healing the sick: that's not the government's problem. Telling private companies who they MUST do business with--that IS the government's role.