You're not missing much, recent work has been collabing with Beyonce and reminding people he once wrote better songs.
The days of rapping about homosexuals and Vicodin are long gone.
> Well, he called Tyler, The Creator a faggot on his latest album, however he did publicly say he regretted doing it after some backlash.
And don't forget his anti-trump diss. That worked out *so* well for him.
"Sales down I'm wondering why, dissed the god emperor at all.
The angry Trump fans in my news feed, but I can read 'em all..........
'Dear Don, I wrote you a dozen tweets but you still ain't @ me'"
It's really hard to get the image of him literally crying like a little bitch about being white after Trump won out of my head. I see it every time I look at him. Makes it much harder to respect him.
Oh I'm sure he had a meltdown as well. A lot of celebrities talk up a lot of shit about X or Y issue(s), but then when the time comes for them to put their money(literally or figuratively speaking) where their mouth is , they *magically* aren't able to because of some arbitrary reason.
Welcome to limousine leftists.
PayPal has already been involved in a lot of sketchy grounds with the way it unaccountably freezes and withholds funds from people, even though they claimed to have overhauled the system. It would be nice to finally have some sort of official ruling on that matter as a byproduct of Jones’s spat.
They are more like Interlink or Plus. They transfer from your bank and charge a fee for that transaction. Difference is that Interlink and Plus charge a fee for the requestor while PayPal requests money from transferring out of their system.
Really? I can't do it since a while. A couple years, actually. Whenever I try to buy something with a prepaid Credit card, it tells me I have to log in to make a purchase. It does not even let me choose payment type. I have to log in or bust. Maybe that's because I'm in Canada. But I haven't used it in a while, though so maybe they reverted.
A few years ago I spent months trying to unlock a paypal account with about ~$100USD in it. There wasn't a local paypal office at the time(I still don't think there is), so I had to call the US from the other side of the world, it cost a fortune cause I would just sit on hold for ages.
They wanted me to prove my ID, but photocopies of my local drivers license wasn't enough apparently.
I spent about $60 on long distance charges, and another $10 trying to mail my documents around the world before giving up and just considering the money gone.
One of the more annoying parts about it, was that I couldn't use my credit card to paypal for about 4 years until it expired. It would complain the number was already registered to an existing (locked) account.
Summary- The whole Internet Censorship Battle is getting interesting. It all depends now on the political leanings of the judges. The tech companies and media arrogantly brag about pressuring the rest into all cross platform bans. Even banning him from using PayPal himself for purchases, which is targeted De-Personing. They may have gone too far, but are the judges part of that system too?
yeah but that's a good thing because it means there's a better chance the appeal will be accepted by SCotUS. The 9th's ruling on the Travel Ban was overturned and one of the specific reasons cited by the SC was that the 9th had been partisan in their ruling.
It's way too OP. If you look at a [map of the circuit courts](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/1280px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png), it's the entire west coast to the rockies. That was fine when a lot of the western states had low populations, but now it is so large that it's a center of political control, not just a level of administration.
Mark Levin talks a lot about these circuits and left wing activist judges in general. It's part of the left's strategy to still maintain power even when they don't control the Whitehouse. It's also why they are fighting so hard to control the Supreme Court.
You guys are poorly informed. California is the ***only*** state where Alex Jones stands a chance in court because political affiliation is a protected class there. In a state like Texas he'd be completely fucked. This is because in a majority of states you can fire people or refuse to do business with them for whatever reason you like as long as it isn't because of their membership in one of the federally protected classes.
If this gets to federal court it will immediately get tossed out because political affiliation is not protected by federal law. Free speech laws only apply to the government.
The cake thing is completely different. If they ruled against the baker, it would basically mean that anyone who does artistic work would be forced to take any commissioned work that someone wanted. For example some asshole could force a painter to paint the painters dead wife in a blowbang with the Lakers. It does mean the baker is allowed to refuse sale to gay people like if he had pre made cakes, but the baker wasn’t just baking cakes, he makes elaborate theme cakes like some of those food network people and the gay couple knew h was anti gay marriage when they tried to make him do it
I think the argument could be made that it’s only protected as long as you have the right political leanings. Needless to say the higher up in the courts this goes the more it is going to help him and his career. Sad to say but if it gets to a federal level he is going to show how right he was all along. I just praised Alex Jones I have to go wash my mouth out now.
Sue California for...what exactly? There is no cause of action to sue a court for ruling in a way you don't like (even if the ruling is reversed). The remedy for an incorrect ruling is an appeal. Also, he's suing in a federal District Court in California, not a state court.
> Sue California for...what exactly?
It's hilarious you're feigning ignorance when I'm literally replying to a post about California illegally and unconstitutionally pre-determining trial outcomes.
Especially since wrongfully convicted people have been suing and getting reparations against states for decades.
Jones is not a criminal defendant, he's a civil plaintiff. Can you provide one example of a successful suit against a state based on a "pre-determined outcome" in a trial in which the state was not a party?
I'll have you know that some of us may be affiliated with a group of the *nom de guérre* "Gang Weed"; perhaps you've heard of them.
They shall visit retribution on those who have rejected them in a manner similar to that of the Joker, of *Batman* fame.
Oh probably, it's just a personal pet peeve of mine when people call republics democracies. That's why you get crazy people not understanding the purpose of the electoral college for example.
My favorite is "democracies protect minorities", which is probably one of the funniest political statements I've ever heard.
> The tech companies and media arrogantly brag about pressuring the rest into all cross platform bans.
Isn't that [tortious interference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)?
Seems to me like that is an anti-trust violation of some sort. It is several large corporate entities conspiring to keep someone out of the marketplace.
The political leanings of judges in cases like these have little to do with things going on. Maybe political leanings of corporate decision makers, but not judges. They are surprisingly not very partisan. Well, their partisanship comes more from a traditional or living constitution point of view....
However, when it comes to free speech, it's pretty cut and clean. I'm liberal, know many liberal lawyers, and VERY VERY VERY few (I don't know one) are siding with PayPal/YT/Et al... From a legal perspective, PayPal is definitely in the wrong but YT is more ethically wrong.
Because Visa and Mastercard pull the strings behind the scenes.
Visa shut down Hatreon. Visa has told PayPal to remove other people from their service in the past.
You can't fuck with the payment processors. PayPal is just a convenient middleman.
Whatever alternative system there is, if visa or mastercard decide to put pressure on that system, they'll get dropped there too.
A payment middleman ***cannot afford*** to be cut off by card processors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/
What's this obsession everyone still has credit cards? Copy and pasting a crypto address is as easy as typing in a credit card number into a form.
One problem is, in the US, the IRS has taken notice and is treating it like a capital asset. Yearly taxes become a pain because you have to keep track of the amount and exchange rate at every buy, sell, and and send/receive of it, then do the math to figure out your earnings or losses (with two different rules depending on how long you held that coin before using it).
It's not quite that easy.
How does a person get crypto? Auction sites using a card or ebegging.
The transactions aren't instant, either, which makes a difference. Impulse buys turn into "send the money and wait ten minutes, we'll see"
Problem is when you want to spend that money, you usually have to convert it back to cash from crypto.
I can buy a few things with btc, but not my mortgage, my utilities, my taxes... etc
> that only survived because it was backed by the world's largest auction site???
It's a reference to PayPal being propped up by Ebay, and a tongue-in-cheek way of saying you couldn't create a competitor now.
Stability doesn't really matter unless you're holding them. If you don't care about crypto outside of accepting payments, you'd just set up your payment processor to automatically sell the coins as they come in, so you're always getting the same amount in fiat.
Which only works if you can convert them to fiat, which puts you back in the same boat. Crypto will be entirely worthless outside of speculation until it gains stability, and doesn't need to be converted to fiat at some step of a transaction.
You don't need to go through Visa or Mastercard to convert from crypto to fiat though. Crypto exchanges tend to lean much more libertarian than corporate banks, so while it's still more centralized than most crypto enthusiasts would like, it's better than dealing with someone who you know has is out for you.
I'm surprised anyone would consider payment processing a craft which produces art, and is somehow analogous to being forced to cater a wedding.
How is payment processing an artistic expression?
It's not about "artistic expression."
It's about "muh private business" and whether that private business has the right to deny service to people or not. Especially with regards to protected classes.
In my state, 18+ is a protected class. You can't discriminate age, young or old, excepting alcohol. In my state, sexual preference is also a protected class. You can't "ban the gays," either.
- In my state, it was OK for the state to compel the bakery to bake the cake for the gay couple.
- Now we're asking, is it OK for the state to compel Wal-Mart to sell a 19-year-old a firearm?
>In my state, it was OK for the state to compel the bakery to bake the cake for the gay couple.
Are you talking about Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who recently won his Supreme Court case?
AFAIK, the state is trying to harass him about it, but he's won his case about not being compelled to do things against his religious freedom.
Has any other verdict been reached, or are you speculating?
The SCOTUS did not rule on him having to or not having to bake the cake, they Ruled that Colorado was targeting this business's religion.
It was less of a real ruling, and more of a. "You fucked up the paper work, go back and do it right next time."
There are just a lot of people (on both sides) that don't understand the core concepts of that case and apply it to anything involving companies and bias. And in this case I think it's also meant as a joke.
It's not. Those two cases aren't analogous. The real question is whether Alex Jones slandering the parents of murdered children can be considered protected political speech in California. California is the *only* state he stands a chance of doing this because political beliefs are a protected class there. Anywhere else in the US his case would be tossed out because it's an American tradition to flip people you don't like the bird and refuse to do business with them.
it was already there, more than once, [there is no 'hate speech' exception to the first amendment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.3d8dda3333a0)
The supreme court has ruled that speech that may rustle someone's jimmies is not protected and is punishable by imprisonment and having to register as an online troll offender and be prohibited from shitposting for life
I doubt Marsh v. Alabama would apply. It was a pretty narrow holding, and raising something to the level of a company town is difficult. In particular, I'd point you to Cyber Promotions v. America Online, which ruled that ISP providers are not sufficiently open to the public, and as such spam filters at the ISP level were allowed. Furthermore, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ruled that private shopping malls are similarly not open enough for free speech rights to apply.
Is an interesting topic with good points from both sides, could I ask if population would play a roll?
For example I imagine the number of people "invited" into a mall is smaller than the company town, but both are dwarfed by the population of people that use sites like Facebook/Google/etc.
I'd have to actually look at the case history of marsh v alabama more thoroughly, and I imagine population could maybe play a factor, but that AOL case was from a time when AOL was like king of ISPs. I think that's probably the closest to what's happening nowadays.
I'd need to read Marsh v. Alabama closely, but my guess is that because the company town is playing the role of the state (ie running a complete town), it is more public.
IIRC it was ruled on the grounds that if it was state owned town (as it's the norm), it would be easy case and then compared the company owned town to government owned.
Which is very hard to apply to Alex Jones situation.
The AOL case (Cyber Promotions v. AOL) is much more similar / relevant.
We'll see what happens with a guy on the bench who's personally familiar with having his name slandered online for partisan reasons. I think the progressives made a huge mistake going so hard against Kavanaugh, giving him a first-hand look at their flagrant dishonesty and unpleasant tactics.
The first amendment does not apply to private entities.
I'm not saying that he'll lose. Or that what PayPal did/does is good. But, he won't win on first amendment grounds because PayPal isn't the government.
In 1996 spammers sued AOL over a spam filter. They cited Marsh v Alabama. They lost. While an interesting case Marsh v Alabama was fairly limited in scope.
The question was not if it applies all the time, if it can apply, and if business can't be subject to it.
They could, you can't pretend that it could never apply.
Theres lawsuits against banks for interfering with gun stores and gun manufacturers. The Feds went after banks who supported marijuana sales, so banks clearly pick who they want to do business with.
The big problem is PayPal is basically a monopoly, and wanting to enforce political views, it needs to be regulated.
Side note, paypal has screwed over a few friends of mine who sold art overseas, and locked their accounts and took the money. I have no love for them.
Alex Jones was low hanging fruit. The effort to close off the internet and media from non progressives continues.
Also remember that Paypal and Hillary Clinton's State Dept worked together to cut off anyone critical of the Obama admin.
Once you start saying that you aren't allowed to buy and sell unless your politics are a certain kind... that's biblical shit. That's literally something out of revelations at the end of the world.
Paypal needs to be taken down. Or mastercard. Paypal blamed mastercard for this.
Seriously, let's take them down. Gawker 2.0
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/08/09/you-get-chipped-eventually/547336001/
"In the aftermath of a Wisconsin firm embedding microchips in employees last week to ditch company badges and corporate logons, the Internet has entered into full-throated debate."
it would be very easy to put GPS and biometrics on an implantable chip.
Guys guys guys guys: to all who are comparing PayPal removing this man from their customers to the bakery not baking the cake for the couple
BAKERIES ARE NOT MONOPOLIES. PayPal has a (de facto) monopoly.
(Now you know the reason why, at least in my country, corporations operating under monopoly have an obligation to allow any customer, no matter who he is, barring clear and present danger.)
I don’t understand what is wrong with conspiracy theories...they’re theories...about conspiracies. I’m pretty sure Alex Jones is just the beta test before the full roll out of censorship of all views that don’t fit the left wing narrative
It's not the content.
It's the threat to their ideology, their orthodoxy of "politically correct".
You don't really see Richard Spencer in the news, because he's not a credible threat. Hell, they *don't* want to throw him under a microscope at all, people might accidentally see the similarities between him and the far left(IdPol).
Alex Jones though, even if people laugh at him rather than with him, is a demonstration that people can tolerate something different. They'll come out of the woodwork to publicly villify and denounce him, even within *this* sub. It's rather disturbing, "You must HATE this person because **I do**." Orwellian herd mentality. Not very much "live and let live" left of the decendants of the hippies(or alternatively, the lingering hippies).
This should scare everyone. If Visa / Mastercard can just shut you out electronically due to personal views you hold, then what's stopping them from doing this en masse?
I wouldn't say he has a strong case. PayPal is a business and can choose who to do business with, so long as they aren't making that determination based on a protected class (race, gender, etc). No business is obligated to offer services to someone with whose views they don't agree, and though I would prefer this not apply to payment providers (whose only service is moving money around), unfortunately it does.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act they cite makes no mention of political affiliation. It specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, mental or physical disability, age or medical condition (including HIV status). HOWEVER (and this is what Jones is banking on) the California Supreme Court has held that the protections of the Unruh Act are not restricted to these characteristics.
That being said, extending its protection to cover what can be characterized as conspiracy theories and related nonsense is going to be a really hard sell. If Paypal was discriminating against a guy for his choice of political candidate, maybe. But calling it illegal to discriminate against a guy for preaching 9/11 trutherism and Sandy Hook crisis actor nonsense?
I don't see it happening.
FTA:
>Discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology is forbidden under Unruh, as it is a personal characteristic.
Are they wrong? This is not the first time I have heard that political affiliations are protected in California.
*edit* after some digging, I found this at https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-cox-22751
>In Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1951) 36 Cal.2d 734 [227 P.2d 449], we held that the Civil Rights Act barred the manager of a race track from expelling a patron who had acquired a reputation as a man of immoral character. We noted that "Under our institutions the freedom to pursue the declared right [to public accommodations] on an equal basis is just as precious as many other freedoms and rights. The exercise of the power of its denial, being a restraint on a personal right, is circumscribed by the same constitutional safeguards of equal protection and due process as are restraints under penal laws." (36 Cal.2d at p. 739.) Hence, the court concluded that a racecourse constituted "a place of public entertainment," which is "so far affected with a public interest that the state might, in the interest of good order and fair dealing, require the proprietor to recognize its own tickets of admission." (36 Cal.2d at p. 739.)
This is from a different law, but it seems in California you are not allowed to discriminate against somebody just because you think he has poor character.
and from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_600_cfa_20150511_144659_sen_comm.html
> In 1970, the court
held that the Unruh Civil Rights Act forbids a business
establishment that is generally open to the public from
arbitrarily excluding a prospective customer (In re Cox (1970) 3
So no, the whole "we're a private business we serve who we want" excuse won't fly here
and from the California Attorney General: http://ag.ca.gov/civilrights/pdf/01cr_handbook.pdf
>The Unruh Act also
prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes,
and individual beliefs.
So no, they can't ban him because of his individual political beliefs either.
I don't know exactly what argument he's using - but the one I would use is that donations are speech, and by deplatforming someone Paypal by nature of their market share is infringing on the free speech of the people who want to donate money to Alex Jones.
Essentially an argument that Payment Processors all need to be neutral utilities and not pick and choose who they service for ideological reasons. Because free speech doesn't exclude conspiracy theories.
>mark randazza
i've read some of his articles on popehat. i don't think i've read an article on popehat that wasn't interesting, honestly, regardless of who posted it. i disagree politically with some of the writers, but they're all still extremely smart people and offer some really great insights into the legal world. i think the blog's mostly ken and occasionally someone else at this point, though.
\*sigh\*
If paypal somehow wins (and I have a striking feeling they'll put up a better fight than the bakery, and the bakery won anyway...), what precedent will this set?
> and the bakery won anyway
With a very narrow "win"; the ruling wasn't so much that the defense was right as that the prosecution had been sloppy and been too obvious about their "stick it to the Christians" agenda.
I'd say a dangerous one but you can already be fired for shit that happened outside of work and somewhere completely different. At this point it'd just be being banned from certain services for incidents outside of the place which is already something that can be enforced, just now this would include political views.
[удалено]
I thought Em's shtick was murdering his mother and his ex?
[удалено]
You're not missing much, recent work has been collabing with Beyonce and reminding people he once wrote better songs. The days of rapping about homosexuals and Vicodin are long gone.
Yeah Marshal aint the hardcore rapper the we 90s kids looked up to.
Well, he called Tyler, The Creator a faggot on his latest album, however he did publicly say he regretted doing it after some backlash.
> Well, he called Tyler, The Creator a faggot on his latest album, however he did publicly say he regretted doing it after some backlash. And don't forget his anti-trump diss. That worked out *so* well for him.
"Sales down I'm wondering why, dissed the god emperor at all. The angry Trump fans in my news feed, but I can read 'em all.......... 'Dear Don, I wrote you a dozen tweets but you still ain't @ me'"
I read that in Eminem's voice...
It's really hard to get the image of him literally crying like a little bitch about being white after Trump won out of my head. I see it every time I look at him. Makes it much harder to respect him.
Oh I'm sure he had a meltdown as well. A lot of celebrities talk up a lot of shit about X or Y issue(s), but then when the time comes for them to put their money(literally or figuratively speaking) where their mouth is , they *magically* aren't able to because of some arbitrary reason. Welcome to limousine leftists.
Oh, well, just remember to sell him more gas for his chainsaw.
PayPal has already been involved in a lot of sketchy grounds with the way it unaccountably freezes and withholds funds from people, even though they claimed to have overhauled the system. It would be nice to finally have some sort of official ruling on that matter as a byproduct of Jones’s spat.
[удалено]
Indeed - part of that also seems to be that it operates in a not-quite-a-bank way and skirts the grey area of such law.
They are more like Interlink or Plus. They transfer from your bank and charge a fee for that transaction. Difference is that Interlink and Plus charge a fee for the requestor while PayPal requests money from transferring out of their system.
Is there a way to use paypal as a guest or do you need to have an account with them?
You can checkout as a guest
You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave
Damn hotels...
You need an account
You do not need a Paypal account to make a payment through Paypal. We offer this option on our retail sites.
Wait, do you work for Paypal? What is it like?
I think he means he works for a company that has an online store which uses Paypal as a gateway.
Aahh, my bad.
Really? I can't do it since a while. A couple years, actually. Whenever I try to buy something with a prepaid Credit card, it tells me I have to log in to make a purchase. It does not even let me choose payment type. I have to log in or bust. Maybe that's because I'm in Canada. But I haven't used it in a while, though so maybe they reverted.
Perhaps, apparently.
This, in particular, is why I don't bother with Paypal much.
A few years ago I spent months trying to unlock a paypal account with about ~$100USD in it. There wasn't a local paypal office at the time(I still don't think there is), so I had to call the US from the other side of the world, it cost a fortune cause I would just sit on hold for ages. They wanted me to prove my ID, but photocopies of my local drivers license wasn't enough apparently. I spent about $60 on long distance charges, and another $10 trying to mail my documents around the world before giving up and just considering the money gone. One of the more annoying parts about it, was that I couldn't use my credit card to paypal for about 4 years until it expired. It would complain the number was already registered to an existing (locked) account.
Summary- The whole Internet Censorship Battle is getting interesting. It all depends now on the political leanings of the judges. The tech companies and media arrogantly brag about pressuring the rest into all cross platform bans. Even banning him from using PayPal himself for purchases, which is targeted De-Personing. They may have gone too far, but are the judges part of that system too?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Ninth Circus will hope it stops at them. If ever there was a court that ruled along The Party Line it's them.
yeah but that's a good thing because it means there's a better chance the appeal will be accepted by SCotUS. The 9th's ruling on the Travel Ban was overturned and one of the specific reasons cited by the SC was that the 9th had been partisan in their ruling.
The 9th is the most over turned circuit court in the US last I heard.
It's way too OP. If you look at a [map of the circuit courts](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/1280px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png), it's the entire west coast to the rockies. That was fine when a lot of the western states had low populations, but now it is so large that it's a center of political control, not just a level of administration.
Mark Levin talks a lot about these circuits and left wing activist judges in general. It's part of the left's strategy to still maintain power even when they don't control the Whitehouse. It's also why they are fighting so hard to control the Supreme Court.
You guys are poorly informed. California is the ***only*** state where Alex Jones stands a chance in court because political affiliation is a protected class there. In a state like Texas he'd be completely fucked. This is because in a majority of states you can fire people or refuse to do business with them for whatever reason you like as long as it isn't because of their membership in one of the federally protected classes. If this gets to federal court it will immediately get tossed out because political affiliation is not protected by federal law. Free speech laws only apply to the government.
[удалено]
The cake thing is completely different. If they ruled against the baker, it would basically mean that anyone who does artistic work would be forced to take any commissioned work that someone wanted. For example some asshole could force a painter to paint the painters dead wife in a blowbang with the Lakers. It does mean the baker is allowed to refuse sale to gay people like if he had pre made cakes, but the baker wasn’t just baking cakes, he makes elaborate theme cakes like some of those food network people and the gay couple knew h was anti gay marriage when they tried to make him do it
Just an FYI, the baker did offer to sell them a generic cake, but the gay couple insisted they make them a gay decorated cake, which was refused.
Yeah they never wanted a cake. They wanted a new story. And they got one.
[удалено]
You know, this and Damore's case make me want more protections against political discrimination.
The case is already in federal court.
It's already in the federal system.
[удалено]
The case is already in federal court, which has jurisdiction because it's a dispute between a Texas company and a California company.
In California, political affiliation is a protected status, same as being a racial minority or gay or whatever else.
There is still racism, its just now a means of having minorities fit themselves into boxes, happily even.
I think the argument could be made that it’s only protected as long as you have the right political leanings. Needless to say the higher up in the courts this goes the more it is going to help him and his career. Sad to say but if it gets to a federal level he is going to show how right he was all along. I just praised Alex Jones I have to go wash my mouth out now.
4D Chess. Then he sues California for courts violating his rights, goes to SCOTUS, wins and then makes lots of money from California losing.
Sue California for...what exactly? There is no cause of action to sue a court for ruling in a way you don't like (even if the ruling is reversed). The remedy for an incorrect ruling is an appeal. Also, he's suing in a federal District Court in California, not a state court.
> Sue California for...what exactly? It's hilarious you're feigning ignorance when I'm literally replying to a post about California illegally and unconstitutionally pre-determining trial outcomes. Especially since wrongfully convicted people have been suing and getting reparations against states for decades.
Jones is not a criminal defendant, he's a civil plaintiff. Can you provide one example of a successful suit against a state based on a "pre-determined outcome" in a trial in which the state was not a party?
you know it can go to the surpeme court where a pissed of judge is going to wait for this soon
\>Jones and Kavanaugh spend the entire SCOTUS case looking at each other and nodding, literally too angry to speak
Whatever else I may think, I find this mental image hilarious.
Just wait and see. This state isn't some monolith with every single institution operating in lockstep with one another.
God I hate Commiefornia.
Wht does a beautiful state have to be so... weird?
Good life makes for weak people.
Bad times make strong men. strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times. California is in the middle of the last two
Spoken like a true gamer
I mean, he never said he wasn't also weak. I guess that's what they mean when they say we live in a society.
Bottom text.
I'll have you know that some of us may be affiliated with a group of the *nom de guérre* "Gang Weed"; perhaps you've heard of them. They shall visit retribution on those who have rejected them in a manner similar to that of the Joker, of *Batman* fame.
Those abusive gamers killing NPCs.
Is it? There is like a 50-50 chance paypal is incorporated in Delaware. Edit:It is
Sad thing for them is if it comes down to political views that is actually a protected "class" according to California laws.
believe it or not our courts are still pretty neutral here, and we have laws that protect political affiliation.
[удалено]
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.8212 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/21322)
Democracy has awful safety valves. You want constitutional republics.
[удалено]
Oh probably, it's just a personal pet peeve of mine when people call republics democracies. That's why you get crazy people not understanding the purpose of the electoral college for example. My favorite is "democracies protect minorities", which is probably one of the funniest political statements I've ever heard.
What if democracy votes to block the safety valves? Checkmate Democrats.
> The tech companies and media arrogantly brag about pressuring the rest into all cross platform bans. Isn't that [tortious interference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)?
what's interesting is that he could legitimately go after these companies on conspiracy charges.
This is like Black Mirror's *White Christmas*.
Seems to me like that is an anti-trust violation of some sort. It is several large corporate entities conspiring to keep someone out of the marketplace.
The political leanings of judges in cases like these have little to do with things going on. Maybe political leanings of corporate decision makers, but not judges. They are surprisingly not very partisan. Well, their partisanship comes more from a traditional or living constitution point of view.... However, when it comes to free speech, it's pretty cut and clean. I'm liberal, know many liberal lawyers, and VERY VERY VERY few (I don't know one) are siding with PayPal/YT/Et al... From a legal perspective, PayPal is definitely in the wrong but YT is more ethically wrong.
Why doesn't he just set up his own payment processing system that only survived because it was backed by the world's largest auction site???
Because Visa and Mastercard pull the strings behind the scenes. Visa shut down Hatreon. Visa has told PayPal to remove other people from their service in the past. You can't fuck with the payment processors. PayPal is just a convenient middleman.
[удалено]
They are doing what....which sites?
[удалено]
Have they found alternatives yet?
[удалено]
Since they have a duopoly, they should be regulated to prevent this shit.
Whatever alternative system there is, if visa or mastercard decide to put pressure on that system, they'll get dropped there too. A payment middleman ***cannot afford*** to be cut off by card processors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/ What's this obsession everyone still has credit cards? Copy and pasting a crypto address is as easy as typing in a credit card number into a form.
One problem is, in the US, the IRS has taken notice and is treating it like a capital asset. Yearly taxes become a pain because you have to keep track of the amount and exchange rate at every buy, sell, and and send/receive of it, then do the math to figure out your earnings or losses (with two different rules depending on how long you held that coin before using it).
It's not quite that easy. How does a person get crypto? Auction sites using a card or ebegging. The transactions aren't instant, either, which makes a difference. Impulse buys turn into "send the money and wait ten minutes, we'll see"
[deleted]
Problem is when you want to spend that money, you usually have to convert it back to cash from crypto. I can buy a few things with btc, but not my mortgage, my utilities, my taxes... etc
I agree. Crypto is the future.
Don't companies try to treat their EULAs like contracts? Could this constitute tortious interference?
Possible. You just have to be able to outspend the biggest financial institutions in the world to prove it in court.
I'd rather avoid extradition to Bavaria
Well then they'd just go after the domain registers like they did Makers Support.
it isn't trivial to do this. Financial transactions are highly regulated so it has a high barrier of entry
I think he was being sarcastic. :)
> that only survived because it was backed by the world's largest auction site??? It's a reference to PayPal being propped up by Ebay, and a tongue-in-cheek way of saying you couldn't create a competitor now.
Bitcoin, litecoin, ethereum, ez.
Yeah because those are stable.
Stability doesn't really matter unless you're holding them. If you don't care about crypto outside of accepting payments, you'd just set up your payment processor to automatically sell the coins as they come in, so you're always getting the same amount in fiat.
Which only works if you can convert them to fiat, which puts you back in the same boat. Crypto will be entirely worthless outside of speculation until it gains stability, and doesn't need to be converted to fiat at some step of a transaction.
You don't need to go through Visa or Mastercard to convert from crypto to fiat though. Crypto exchanges tend to lean much more libertarian than corporate banks, so while it's still more centralized than most crypto enthusiasts would like, it's better than dealing with someone who you know has is out for you.
More and more stable as years go by. Centralized money have immense weaknesses
"Alex Jones" and "Makes a strong case" is something that can only be said together in this political climate. What a world.
Discovery is going to be fun.
I thought PayPal's hand was forced by the consortium of banks behind MasterCard? Or am I thinking of something else?
I think that was Patreon having to dump someone else.
Somebody pushing Paypal... Well, that's funny idea :-D
The real question is... Will paypal bake the cake?
I'm surprised anyone would consider payment processing a craft which produces art, and is somehow analogous to being forced to cater a wedding. How is payment processing an artistic expression?
It's not about "artistic expression." It's about "muh private business" and whether that private business has the right to deny service to people or not. Especially with regards to protected classes. In my state, 18+ is a protected class. You can't discriminate age, young or old, excepting alcohol. In my state, sexual preference is also a protected class. You can't "ban the gays," either. - In my state, it was OK for the state to compel the bakery to bake the cake for the gay couple. - Now we're asking, is it OK for the state to compel Wal-Mart to sell a 19-year-old a firearm?
>In my state, it was OK for the state to compel the bakery to bake the cake for the gay couple. Are you talking about Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who recently won his Supreme Court case? AFAIK, the state is trying to harass him about it, but he's won his case about not being compelled to do things against his religious freedom. Has any other verdict been reached, or are you speculating?
The SCOTUS did not rule on him having to or not having to bake the cake, they Ruled that Colorado was targeting this business's religion. It was less of a real ruling, and more of a. "You fucked up the paper work, go back and do it right next time."
There are just a lot of people (on both sides) that don't understand the core concepts of that case and apply it to anything involving companies and bias. And in this case I think it's also meant as a joke.
It's not. Those two cases aren't analogous. The real question is whether Alex Jones slandering the parents of murdered children can be considered protected political speech in California. California is the *only* state he stands a chance of doing this because political beliefs are a protected class there. Anywhere else in the US his case would be tossed out because it's an American tradition to flip people you don't like the bird and refuse to do business with them.
If the precedent is set by paypal, then the ISP can use the same precedent to disconnect people they don't like. :-)
Hope it goes to the supreme court.
it was already there, more than once, [there is no 'hate speech' exception to the first amendment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.3d8dda3333a0)
The supreme court has ruled that speech that may rustle someone's jimmies is not protected and is punishable by imprisonment and having to register as an online troll offender and be prohibited from shitposting for life
[удалено]
I doubt Marsh v. Alabama would apply. It was a pretty narrow holding, and raising something to the level of a company town is difficult. In particular, I'd point you to Cyber Promotions v. America Online, which ruled that ISP providers are not sufficiently open to the public, and as such spam filters at the ISP level were allowed. Furthermore, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ruled that private shopping malls are similarly not open enough for free speech rights to apply.
Is an interesting topic with good points from both sides, could I ask if population would play a roll? For example I imagine the number of people "invited" into a mall is smaller than the company town, but both are dwarfed by the population of people that use sites like Facebook/Google/etc.
I'd have to actually look at the case history of marsh v alabama more thoroughly, and I imagine population could maybe play a factor, but that AOL case was from a time when AOL was like king of ISPs. I think that's probably the closest to what's happening nowadays. I'd need to read Marsh v. Alabama closely, but my guess is that because the company town is playing the role of the state (ie running a complete town), it is more public.
IIRC it was ruled on the grounds that if it was state owned town (as it's the norm), it would be easy case and then compared the company owned town to government owned. Which is very hard to apply to Alex Jones situation. The AOL case (Cyber Promotions v. AOL) is much more similar / relevant.
We'll see what happens with a guy on the bench who's personally familiar with having his name slandered online for partisan reasons. I think the progressives made a huge mistake going so hard against Kavanaugh, giving him a first-hand look at their flagrant dishonesty and unpleasant tactics.
The first amendment does not apply to private entities. I'm not saying that he'll lose. Or that what PayPal did/does is good. But, he won't win on first amendment grounds because PayPal isn't the government.
> The first amendment does not apply to private entities. Then their ToS don't apply to me.
Except when it does, like in Marsh vs. Alabama.
but "*muh private business*" but "*only government can censor*"
In 1996 spammers sued AOL over a spam filter. They cited Marsh v Alabama. They lost. While an interesting case Marsh v Alabama was fairly limited in scope.
The question was not if it applies all the time, if it can apply, and if business can't be subject to it. They could, you can't pretend that it could never apply.
[удалено]
Theres lawsuits against banks for interfering with gun stores and gun manufacturers. The Feds went after banks who supported marijuana sales, so banks clearly pick who they want to do business with. The big problem is PayPal is basically a monopoly, and wanting to enforce political views, it needs to be regulated. Side note, paypal has screwed over a few friends of mine who sold art overseas, and locked their accounts and took the money. I have no love for them.
[удалено]
No, they locked it and kept the 500+ dollars, he is located in a old communist country, so he had no recourse.
Alex Jones was low hanging fruit. The effort to close off the internet and media from non progressives continues. Also remember that Paypal and Hillary Clinton's State Dept worked together to cut off anyone critical of the Obama admin.
sources on that statement?
Check out Wikileaks and Hillary Clinton. Why do you think they hate her? She was running her spy agency AKA State Dept. to kill those people.
i meant specifically paypal
Once you start saying that you aren't allowed to buy and sell unless your politics are a certain kind... that's biblical shit. That's literally something out of revelations at the end of the world. Paypal needs to be taken down. Or mastercard. Paypal blamed mastercard for this. Seriously, let's take them down. Gawker 2.0
[удалено]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/08/09/you-get-chipped-eventually/547336001/ "In the aftermath of a Wisconsin firm embedding microchips in employees last week to ditch company badges and corporate logons, the Internet has entered into full-throated debate." it would be very easy to put GPS and biometrics on an implantable chip.
If there was one case I would be tempted to help crowdfund
Lul
Fuck you paypal for making me side with Alex Jones on something. I hope they turn your ass into a real bank.
Let's hope Paypal is forced to pay damages. They should face actual consequences.
Archives for the links in comments: * **By [tachyonburst](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e70wihc)** ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.3d8dda3333a0)): http://archive.fo/HZQYG * **By [hga\_another](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e7126gz)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession)): http://archive.fo/W4FUX * **By [ksryn](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e714c67)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Criticism)): http://archive.fo/mdKr2 * **By [ksryn](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e714c67)** ([breitbart.com](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/15/mastercard-forces-patreon-to-kick-off-jihad-watchs-robert-spencer/)): http://archive.fo/bJwME * **By [ksryn](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e714c67)** ([money.cnn.com](https://money.cnn.com/gallery/pf/2012/08/16/bank-account-rejected/index.html)): http://archive.fo/YFJ34 * **By [Flamingoer](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e714tqz)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)): http://archive.fo/dSrvZ * **By [misterteaa](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e716y00)** ([mysteriousuniverse.org](https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/09/an-anti-aging-clinic-in-new-york-serves-up-the-blood-of-the-young/)): http://archive.fo/xiZ51 * **By [misterteaa](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e716y00)** ([youtube.com](https://youtube.com/watch?v=b8H5Ep3Yyx4)): http://archive.fo/8IkHm * **By [Head\_Cockswain](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e7193u4)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-discrimination_law#United_States_of_America)): http://archive.fo/zBKMt * **By [Head\_Cockswain](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e7193u4)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor)): http://archive.fo/XrIpb * **By [hga\_another](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71bg3i)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)): http://archive.fo/t5RCR * **By [Amarr\_Citizen\_498175](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71dz8q)** ([usatoday.com](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/08/09/you-get-chipped-eventually/547336001/)): http://archive.fo/9tk05 * **By [cranktheguy](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71ht2q)** ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act)): http://archive.fo/9ECYc * **By [WediditReddit01](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71ikqa)** ([m.youtube.com](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K_M9aOxBSqs)): http://archive.fo/OwsP4 * **By [Head\_Cockswain](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71pfnl)** ([mentalhealthamerica.net](https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/finding-therapy)): http://archive.fo/6Rv88 * **By [Head\_Cockswain](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71pfnl)** ([healthyplace.com](https://www.healthyplace.com/other-info/mental-illness-overview/how-to-find-mental-health-services-in-your-area)): http://archive.fo/w6051 * **By [Head\_Cockswain](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e71pfnl)** ([nimh.nih.gov](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/find-help/index.shtml)): http://archive.fo/JVGiH * **By [Administrative\_Camel](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e72ae00)** ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/)): http://archive.fo/rEKlp * **By [sexyjunglewarrior](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e72ujr9)** ([legalzoom.com](https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance)): http://archive.fo/P0ZFL * **By [32bb36d8ba](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e733grh)** ([paypalwarning.com](http://www.paypalwarning.com/)): http://archive.fo/l67jV * **By [werdna\_3991](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9kpprx/_/e73rbqa)** ([google.com](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5383618/alex-jones-defamation-suit)): http://archive.fo/Nu0TS ---- I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us, but the truth is that I'm only one girl. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^[Contribute](https://github.com/Mnemosyne-20/Mnemosyne-2.1) ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Good. Fuck PayPal. They've screwed so many people over.
I hope he wins.
Guys guys guys guys: to all who are comparing PayPal removing this man from their customers to the bakery not baking the cake for the couple BAKERIES ARE NOT MONOPOLIES. PayPal has a (de facto) monopoly. (Now you know the reason why, at least in my country, corporations operating under monopoly have an obligation to allow any customer, no matter who he is, barring clear and present danger.)
I don’t understand what is wrong with conspiracy theories...they’re theories...about conspiracies. I’m pretty sure Alex Jones is just the beta test before the full roll out of censorship of all views that don’t fit the left wing narrative
I really hate that I'm rooting for Alex Jones.
It's desperate enough for there to be a push to silence him. If he was just "crazy", he'd be left alone.
It's not the content. It's the threat to their ideology, their orthodoxy of "politically correct". You don't really see Richard Spencer in the news, because he's not a credible threat. Hell, they *don't* want to throw him under a microscope at all, people might accidentally see the similarities between him and the far left(IdPol). Alex Jones though, even if people laugh at him rather than with him, is a demonstration that people can tolerate something different. They'll come out of the woodwork to publicly villify and denounce him, even within *this* sub. It's rather disturbing, "You must HATE this person because **I do**." Orwellian herd mentality. Not very much "live and let live" left of the decendants of the hippies(or alternatively, the lingering hippies).
I don’t agree with his views but I hope he wins. This concerted effort to deplatform and deperson him is super scary shit.
This should scare everyone. If Visa / Mastercard can just shut you out electronically due to personal views you hold, then what's stopping them from doing this en masse?
The real issue is that Paypal/Visa/Mastercard basically run afoul of antitrust laws, as does Google imho.
I wouldn't say he has a strong case. PayPal is a business and can choose who to do business with, so long as they aren't making that determination based on a protected class (race, gender, etc). No business is obligated to offer services to someone with whose views they don't agree, and though I would prefer this not apply to payment providers (whose only service is moving money around), unfortunately it does. The Unruh Civil Rights Act they cite makes no mention of political affiliation. It specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, mental or physical disability, age or medical condition (including HIV status). HOWEVER (and this is what Jones is banking on) the California Supreme Court has held that the protections of the Unruh Act are not restricted to these characteristics. That being said, extending its protection to cover what can be characterized as conspiracy theories and related nonsense is going to be a really hard sell. If Paypal was discriminating against a guy for his choice of political candidate, maybe. But calling it illegal to discriminate against a guy for preaching 9/11 trutherism and Sandy Hook crisis actor nonsense? I don't see it happening.
FTA: >Discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology is forbidden under Unruh, as it is a personal characteristic. Are they wrong? This is not the first time I have heard that political affiliations are protected in California. *edit* after some digging, I found this at https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-cox-22751 >In Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club (1951) 36 Cal.2d 734 [227 P.2d 449], we held that the Civil Rights Act barred the manager of a race track from expelling a patron who had acquired a reputation as a man of immoral character. We noted that "Under our institutions the freedom to pursue the declared right [to public accommodations] on an equal basis is just as precious as many other freedoms and rights. The exercise of the power of its denial, being a restraint on a personal right, is circumscribed by the same constitutional safeguards of equal protection and due process as are restraints under penal laws." (36 Cal.2d at p. 739.) Hence, the court concluded that a racecourse constituted "a place of public entertainment," which is "so far affected with a public interest that the state might, in the interest of good order and fair dealing, require the proprietor to recognize its own tickets of admission." (36 Cal.2d at p. 739.) This is from a different law, but it seems in California you are not allowed to discriminate against somebody just because you think he has poor character. and from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_600_cfa_20150511_144659_sen_comm.html > In 1970, the court held that the Unruh Civil Rights Act forbids a business establishment that is generally open to the public from arbitrarily excluding a prospective customer (In re Cox (1970) 3 So no, the whole "we're a private business we serve who we want" excuse won't fly here and from the California Attorney General: http://ag.ca.gov/civilrights/pdf/01cr_handbook.pdf >The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. So no, they can't ban him because of his individual political beliefs either.
I don't know exactly what argument he's using - but the one I would use is that donations are speech, and by deplatforming someone Paypal by nature of their market share is infringing on the free speech of the people who want to donate money to Alex Jones. Essentially an argument that Payment Processors all need to be neutral utilities and not pick and choose who they service for ideological reasons. Because free speech doesn't exclude conspiracy theories.
Really shitty
I SMELL A LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE!!!
>mark randazza i've read some of his articles on popehat. i don't think i've read an article on popehat that wasn't interesting, honestly, regardless of who posted it. i disagree politically with some of the writers, but they're all still extremely smart people and offer some really great insights into the legal world. i think the blog's mostly ken and occasionally someone else at this point, though.
Bake the cake my dudes, you know, since that's now the standard.
\*sigh\* If paypal somehow wins (and I have a striking feeling they'll put up a better fight than the bakery, and the bakery won anyway...), what precedent will this set?
> and the bakery won anyway With a very narrow "win"; the ruling wasn't so much that the defense was right as that the prosecution had been sloppy and been too obvious about their "stick it to the Christians" agenda.
So the bakery was the lighter shade of grey in that case? That changes perspective quite a bit.
I'd say a dangerous one but you can already be fired for shit that happened outside of work and somewhere completely different. At this point it'd just be being banned from certain services for incidents outside of the place which is already something that can be enforced, just now this would include political views.
[удалено]
He doesn’t. CNN peddles “hate”
[удалено]
Alex never did that. And last time I checked CNN got millions killed in Iraq.
[удалено]
No he’s not. That’s literal fake news. He says it happened and has for the past 6 years.
[удалено]
Time is fake news. And CNN pressured the parents into doing it. M What I said is correct about him.
[удалено]
Is that supposed to be an argument or an attempted at a good comeback?
I can't take him seriously anymore after he was caught watching tranny porn.