PayPal: Limiting access to align with their corporate values

[ken_sylvania]

SPLC’s list of “hate groups” includes anti-gay-marriage organisations. And the whole point point of this is PayPal made a commitment to deplatform anyone on SPLC’s list.

Josh, that is a rather serious accusation. Do you have evidence to back it up?

The WSJ article in fact quotes PayPal as specifically stating that they do not always agree with SPLC on whether situations warrant banning individuals from PayPal's platform.

If PayPal has in fact committed to deplatform everyone on SPLC's list, please step up and provide the evidence.

If not, let me remind you that false accusations are an abomination before God.

i read this last night. i find the last sentence heavy-handed.
i agree, intentional false accusations are an “abomination before God,” but, i do not believe Josh has any intent of falsely accusing. this has not come through in his posts, no matter if i agreed with them, or appreciated his point of view.

this forum is based on informal discussion. so, while statements are often cited with sources, it’s not a requirement of informal discussion to always cite sources.

on this point, i believe i’ve read as Josh is stating, but, i have no reference at my fingertips. if i recall, and, remember, i will add it here.

certainly, there can be no mystery about how “activist” groups, special interests, formal and informal lobbies, work behind the scenes in the private sector and in government, to (bully) their interests onto the world? - both in the U.S, and in foreign countries. it’s established, this is now SOP. it’s normalized and expected. PayPal is not an exception. they are participants. SPLC has a checkered history.

not to be forgotten.
there is admitted tampering of information, even scrubbing content, censoring content, this affects search results! a person may clearly remember a speech or statement, interview, etc., but not be able to find it in an internet search. this has happened to me.

the internet is still young. “we” are still learning how to use it. witnessing abuses, etc.
it will take time to adjust. i hope adjustments will be for the better. they might not be.

in any event. i would like to see a source from Josh.
i would like to recall one i’ve seen.
if he can’t or doesn’t provide one, i’m not going to presume he is lying. or trying to harm anyone.

he is not turning in an essay for college credit here.
imho, he has the privilege of informal discussion.

I don't think either that Josh was trying to be untruthful. What I do think is that he was being careless about whether he was being truthful.
I think we Christians ought to hold ourselves to a high standard of truth. If we are stating opinion, we out to say so. If we are going to accuse someone of wrongdoing, we ought to be sure of our facts. I think it a very poor witness for us to handle the truth carelessly.

[temporal1]

ken:
I don't think either that Josh was trying to be untruthful. What I do think is that he was being careless about whether he was being truthful.

I think we Christians ought to hold ourselves to a high standard of truth. If we are stating opinion, we out to say so. If we are going to accuse someone of wrongdoing, we ought to be sure of our facts.
I think it a very poor witness for us to handle the truth carelessly.

i suppose on an informal, conversational forum like this, i presume opinions, maybe similar to newspaper “letters to the editor;” often, on this forum, sources are cited, but not always.

then, depending on whatever posting history, more or less credibility is earned - altho, i rarely question anyone’s intent on this forum. even when i strongly disagree, i don’t doubt the opinion is honest.

anyone can be mistaken. (sometimes, i long to be mistaken!)

i can’t recall when i’ve ever questioned anything you’ve posted. i highly value your input/pov/insights.
i imagine Josh would concur. i don’t believe we’re at all in disagreement.
the “abomination” reference didn’t seem to fit, that’s all. i’m not sure of Josh’s view on it.
i’m never sure of Josh’s view! i would not predict. but, i often agree with him.

thank you for your patience.

[temporal1]

Page 7:

Robert:
“There are several federal cases that did deal with this.
I can not bring them up to mind perfectly right now, but I do remember a couple of cases and I also remember the ACLU was actually on the side of the White Supremists.

I think this is why I do remember it.
This was back int he 90's or so. Been a while.”

it rings a bell for me, too. foggy.
there are odd occasions when the ACLU makes some unexpected moves.

i’m not sure if these links have been added in this thread, but, if not, a couple more OPINIONS on the PayPal-SPLC “coop.”

“PayPal Censoring Groups With Help from Leftist, Anti-Christian SPLC”
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/fe ... stian-splc

.. It's all a big cause for concern for Christians because the SPLC has taken an anti-Christian slant in recent years,
targeting mainstream groups just because they hold biblical views about sexuality and life.
CBN News has reported extensively on the SPLC's radical agenda to silence conservative Christian groups like D. James Kennedy Ministries and the Family Research Council. ..

.. The SPLC had to pay $3.375 million in a settlement last year for their efforts to condemn conservatives. The organization was faulted for including former Islamic radical turned conservative Maajiid Nawaz in its "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists."

Family Research Council Executive Vice President General Jerry Boykin once denounced the SPLC as "probably one of the most evil groups in America. They've become a money-making machine and they've become an absolute Marxist, anarchist organization."

Meanwhile, PayPal's Schulman said his philosophy is this:
“Businesses need to be a force for good in those values and issues that they believe in."

But the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a liberal nonprofit for the defense of free expression and privacy online, has continually expressed concern about major companies such as PayPal using their power to become "de facto internet censors."

"We need to be asking ourselves:
who should be deciding what kind of speech should be allowed to thrive online?
Should it be Internet users, elected officials, or the courts?
Or should it be financial intermediaries, like Visa and Mastercard?" stated an EFF spokesperson.

“In my opinion, financial institutions don't have the expertise to judge whether speech has societal value or violates the First Amendment. They shouldn't be making those decisions at all."

“Consumers Beware: PayPal has weaponized financial system with its ties to SPLC”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/paypal- ... -hard-left

.. He admitted this to the FBI. Schulman doesn’t seem to know that even the left wonders whether the SPLC has lost its way, as Politico asked.

Politico also showed that the SPLC, like PayPal, doesn’t have much of an appeal process.

Of course, the SPLC is not concerned with providing a method of appeal because their goal, as stated by their former spokesman Mark Potok, “is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them.”

The SPLC’s tactics even prompted the respected City Journal to call into question the bullying of the SPLC. ..

Thing is, PayPal’s Schulman’s WSJ statements are not “the word of God,” they haven’t even been proven in courts of law (to my knowledge) .. they’re his opinion, rather, his company’s statement, he is not an unbiased 3rd party.

[Szdfan]

Do you think banks should refuse to have customers who have ideologies that are distasteful to them? Where does this end?

But it’s ok for Christians to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples because of sincerely held religious beliefs? It’s ok for private, otherwise secular businesses owned by Christians to refuse to hire LGBTQ individuals or do business with them because they find their sexuality distasteful and sinful?

Doesn’t this work both ways?

[Szdfan]

Swiss banks don’t seem to dabble in social engineering.

Well, the Swiss banks do have plenty of experience doing business with Nazis.

The Sinister Face of 'Neutrality'

Switzerland served as a repository for Jewish capital smuggled out of Nazi Germany and the states threatened by it, and also for vast quantities of gold and other valuables plundered from Jews and others all over Europe. Right up until the end of the war, Switzerland laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen assets, including gold taken from the central banks of German-occupied Europe. At the war's end Switzerland successfully resisted Allied calls to restitute these funds, and in the Washington Agreement of 1946 the Allies contented themselves with acceptance of a mere 12% of the stolen gold.

Most of the Jews who availed themselves of the opportunity to transfer their assets failed to escape the flames of the Holocaust. While happy to accept Jewish capital, the Swiss were less happy to accept Jewish refugees (often their own depositors). It is well known that the Swiss vigorously blocked the entry of Jews attempting to flee Germany and occupied Europe.

After the war, when the survivors attempted to reclaim their assets, they were ensnared in a web of bureaucracy that refused to recognize the fact that death camp survivors, or the heirs of those who perished, could not possibly furnish customary documentation such as death certificates. Swiss banks strictly adhered to the rigid restrictions of Swiss banking law in total disregard of the special situation which had arisen out of the mass murder of the Jews of Europe.

But the Swiss enriched themselves not just from the victims of the Shoah, but also from the perpetrators. Switzerland was the favorite haven for Nazi bank accounts and safe deposit boxes, which often contained property plundered from Jews. Swiss banks did a lucrative business with the German Reichsbank and with individual Nazi officials. Symbolically, even the royalties from Hitler's Mein Kampf were deposited in a Swiss bank account.

Toward the end of the war, when other neutral states refused to purchase gold directly from Germany, Switzerland continued to carry on this highly profitable trade. That gold generally came from two sources - the gold reserves of the central banks of the occupied countries and gold taken from individuals - including gold dental fillings extracted from corpses.

[temporal1]

Well, the Swiss banks do have plenty of experience doing business with Nazis.

certainly. did you think i was implying Swiss bankers are keepers of moral high ground? i wasn’t.
from what i understand, they bank, and they are successful at it.
not free of question or scandal.

[RZehr]

Do you think banks should refuse to have customers who have ideologies that are distasteful to them? Where does this end?

But it’s ok for Christians to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples because of sincerely held religious beliefs? It’s ok for private, otherwise secular businesses owned by Christians to refuse to hire LGBTQ individuals or do business with them because they find their sexuality distasteful and sinful?

Doesn’t this work both ways?

The cake thing isn’t quite as you are presenting it here for comparison. It’s more layered than that.
I don’t think I should be required to write obscene things just because someone is willing to pay me to do so.

[Robert]

But it’s ok for Christians to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples because of sincerely held religious beliefs?

I think it is wrong not to sell them a cake. I think it is fair that the decoration should not violate the decorator's faith or ideology. I do not think a gay baker should be required to decorate a cake for Hillsboro Baptist, or a Muslim baker to decorate a cake with a pork chop. I think they do need to sell them a cake, but the decoration is "icing on the cake" figuratively and literally.

It’s ok for private, otherwise secular businesses owned by Christians to refuse to hire LGBTQ individuals or do business with them because they find their sexuality distasteful and sinful?

There are civil rights laws to keep this from happening. I am not aware of a case that this has happened. If it did,m I would say it was wrong. I think it is also just as wrong to require someone to accept, by proxy, a lifestyle they are religiously averse towards. I do not think you have to accept the idiums of Mohammad and make your wife wear a burka to be fair and tolerant of their faith. I also do not think you need to remove all pork from your diet. Yet, using your argument, you should to be inclusive.

I should also not be able to go into a convenience store and demand that I should be able to buy a car. They do not sell them to anyone. If the baker refuses a type of decoration for a LBGT couple, but would make the same rainbow cake with the same decorations for a heterosexual couple, that would be wrong. It would also be wrong for a Muslim to walk into a BBQ restaurant and demand they remove all pork.

[Szdfan]

The cake thing isn’t quite as you are presenting it here for comparison. It’s more layered than that.
I don’t think I should be required to write obscene things just because someone is willing to pay me to do so.

“Layered” Was that an intentional pun?

You’re of course correct that they’re not exactly the same thing, but I do think this thread raises the question: if commercial transactions are a form of speech and if corporations can have a moral conscience or perspective that’s protected by law (i.e. Hobby Lobby) then why should PayPal or a bank provide financial services to organizations or individuals whose missions they find (to use Josh’s word) “distasteful?” What do you see as the inherent difference between them?

[Szdfan]

But it’s ok for Christians to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples because of sincerely held religious beliefs?

I think it is wrong not to sell them a cake. I think it is fair that the decoration should not violate the decorator's faith or ideology. I do not think a gay baker should be required to decorate a cake for Hillsboro Baptist, or a Muslim baker to decorate a cake with a pork chop. I think they do need to sell them a cake, but the decoration is "icing on the cake" figuratively and literally.

It’s ok for private, otherwise secular businesses owned by Christians to refuse to hire LGBTQ individuals or do business with them because they find their sexuality distasteful and sinful?

There are civil rights laws to keep this from happening. I am not aware of a case that this has happened. If it did,m I would say it was wrong. I think it is also just as wrong to require someone to accept, by proxy, a lifestyle they are religiously averse towards. I do not think you have to accept the idiums of Mohammad and make your wife wear a burka to be fair and tolerant of their faith. I also do not think you need to remove all pork from your diet. Yet, using your argument, you should to be inclusive.

I should also not be able to go into a convenience store and demand that I should be able to buy a car. They do not sell them to anyone. If the baker refuses a type of decoration for a LBGT couple, but would make the same rainbow cake with the same decorations for a heterosexual couple, that would be wrong. It would also be wrong for a Muslim to walk into a BBQ restaurant and demand they remove all pork.

I’d have to do some searching, but I do remember there were bills in a few state legislatures (Georgia? Mississippi?) several years ago that would have protected employers or landlords for refusing to hire people or rent a place to someone on the basis of “sincerely held” religious beliefs. I don’t remember whether these bills passed or were struck down by the courts, etc.

I am not sure I understand the distinction that requiring a baker to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple means that the baker is forced to “accept, by proxy, a lifestyle they are religiously averse towards” but that requiring PayPal to provide financial services to the KKK is also not forcing them to accept, by proxy, a lifestyle or ideology they are adverse to.