PDA

View Full Version : Alex Jones Sues Paypal For Infowars Ban Over "Hate, Intolerance"




Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 08:03 PM
Alex Jones's company, Free Speech Systems, LLC, has sued PayPal for the its ban of Infowars because the controversial website "promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions."
In the complaint filed by Jones’s lawyers, Marc Randazza Legal group, they accuse PayPal of banning Infowars "for no other reason than a disagreement with the message plaintiff conveys” and call ban "unconscionable" because PayPal has never advised users that "it might ban users for off-platform activity."
“It is at this point well known that large tech companies, located primarily in Silicon Valley, are discriminating against politically conservative entities and individuals, including banning them from social media platforms such as Twitter, based solely on their political and ideological viewpoints,” Jones’ lawyers claim in the 15-page complaint (http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Infowars-PayPal-COMPLAINT.pdf).
Jones claims PayPal’s decision was based purely on “viewpoint discrimination.” He also says the decision was made based on conduct that “had nothing to do with” the PayPal platform, which purportedly violates Infowars’ contract with the payment-processing giant.
If PayPal’s decision were allowed to stand, it would set "a dangerous precedent for any person or entity with controversial views," the lawsuit alleges.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/alex-jones-sues-paypal-infowars-ban-over-hate-intolerance

Danke
10-01-2018, 08:16 PM
"Hate, Intolerance"
I Listen to AJ. "Hate, Intolerance"
give me a break.

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 08:20 PM
"Hate, Intolerance"


I Listen to AJ. "Hate, Intolerance"


give me a break.

You must be so hateful and intolerant that you don't recognize it when you hear it, your intolerance of Injuns is one example. ;)

kpitcher
10-01-2018, 08:21 PM
Paypal has a lot of restrictions to their service in the terms of use. No porn, no bitcoin, no guns, no wikileaks


https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/guns-drugs-and-timeshares-14-things-paypal-wont-let-you-buy/

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 08:39 PM
Paypal has a lot of restrictions to their service in the terms of use. No porn, no bitcoin, no guns, no wikileaks


https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/guns-drugs-and-timeshares-14-things-paypal-wont-let-you-buy/

Does one of those apply to Infowars?

kpitcher
10-01-2018, 08:46 PM
Does one of those apply to Infowars?

If you grant that info wars is actual journalism, that the conspiracy theories are breaking news, then you could group it with wikileaks.

Although I think the "PayPal bans the purchase of anything that promotes or glorifies “hate, violence, or intolerance.”" fits in with alex jones

Of course it doesn't matter what I think. They're a business, they should be able to do as they want.

UWDude
10-01-2018, 08:49 PM
Although I think the "PayPal bans the purchase of anything that promotes or glorifies “hate, violence, or intolerance.”" fits in with alex jones

LoL

Like all the Trap albums, rap albums, Hollywood movies with dudes squeezing out 100 rounds a minute into "bad guys" that you can buy with pay pal? How about all the incredibly violent video games? All the heavy metal and goth music about satanic sacrifice or rape?

How about all those DVD's that are "super hard core dungeon porn" and shit.

How about all the news services that constantly glorify and push for wars?

LoL

Losers just keep doubling down on being losers.
It's like they enjoy it or something. (martyr complexes.... don't be one of these pitiful souls, be a champion, be a hero, don't be a martyr).

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 08:54 PM
Although I think the "PayPal bans the purchase of anything that promotes or glorifies “hate, violence, or intolerance.”" fits in with alex jones
:rolleyes:



Of course it doesn't matter what I think. They're a business, they should be able to do as they want.
In violation of their contractual obligations?

r3volution 3.0
10-01-2018, 10:38 PM
Jones claims PayPal’s decision was based purely on “viewpoint discrimination.”

Poor baby

Does he want the federal government to protect him from the big bad market where people don't want to do business with him?

...maybe talk about anti-trust law

...unconscionable contracts

Fake libertarian

https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/PteU9z1VCddr8o1rd847y54URBg=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Getty_fleshout_and_flushout-187229779-56afa3a33df78cf772c6fcbc.jpg

UWDude
10-01-2018, 10:58 PM
...maybe talk about anti-trust law


Can't wait for that hammer to fall.

r3volution 3.0
10-01-2018, 11:12 PM
Can't wait for that hammer to fall.

Nothing says liberty like the state crushing a private enterprise because its competitors paid the right lobbyists it's too successful, amiright?

UWDude
10-01-2018, 11:18 PM
Nothing says liberty like the state crushing a private enterprise because its competitors paid the right lobbyists it's too successful, amiright?

Yup.

Free market fails when monopolies rule. No such thing as utopia. No such thing as free market utopia, never will be.

Also, people die when shattered into 5 pieces.

Corporations don't. Corporations are not people.

Bust out the trust buster. Break em up real good.

Wanna flick at my balls, threaten my 1st, so nobody can hear the screams when you take the second? Do the bidding of the deep state and all the foreign enemies it is entangled with?
Think I don't l know when war is coming? Think I don't know what war is? Think you fool me with your arguments that this concerted assault has to do with profits and not hidden globalist agendas? Thinking I'm a fool is a losing proposition.

Get ready to be crushed, and scattered to the winds.

In thunderous applause.

I'll be clapping too.

Why do you think the post office is in the constitution?

That was the internet of the day.

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 11:18 PM
Nothing says liberty like the state crushing a private enterprise because its competitors paid the right lobbyists it's too successful, amiright?

Nothing says rule of law like a state penalizing a company for violating its contractual obligations.

RJ Liberty
10-01-2018, 11:30 PM
Poor baby

Does he want the federal government to protect him from the big bad market where people don't want to do business with him?

...maybe talk about anti-trust law

...unconscionable contracts

Fake libertarian


:D :tears: PayPal is a private company. I can't believe we're observing Alex Jones whine about discrimination from a private company, and seeking government intervention...

(Actually, I can. I've known Alex Jones was a fake since at least back as far as his claim that he fucked over 150 girls when he was 15.)

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 11:33 PM
:D :tears: PayPal is a private company. I can't believe we're observing Alex Jones whine about discrimination from a private company, and seeking government intervention...

(Actually, I can. I've known Alex Jones was a fake since at least back as far as his claim that he $#@!ed over 150 girls when he was 15.)
Another "libertarian" who thinks private companies have a right to violate contracts. :rolleyes:

r3volution 3.0
10-01-2018, 11:38 PM
Nothing says rule of law like a state penalizing a company for violating its contractual obligations.

They violated their contract with Jones (or any other user)?

Which provision?

RJ Liberty
10-01-2018, 11:39 PM
Another "libertarian" who thinks private companies have a right to violate contracts. :rolleyes:

What do you mean, Swordsmith? Paypal's Terms of Service, which you must agree to before using them, clearly state (https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full):



PayPal suspension and termination rights PayPal, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to suspend or terminate this user agreement, access to or use of its websites, software, systems (including any networks and servers used to provide any of the PayPal services) operated by us or on our behalf or some or all of the PayPal services for any reason and at any time upon notice to you and, upon termination of this user agreement, the payment to you of any unrestricted funds held in your PayPal balance.

They can terminate services for any reason. It's in their terms of service.

r3volution 3.0
10-01-2018, 11:39 PM
:D :tears: PayPal is a private company. I can't believe we're observing Alex Jones whine about discrimination from a private company, and seeking government intervention...

(Actually, I can. I've known Alex Jones was a fake since at least back as far as his claim that he fucked over 150 girls when he was 15.)

Must be those super herbal boner pills.

Swordsmyth
10-01-2018, 11:47 PM
They violated their contract with Jones (or any other user)?

Which provision?


What do you mean, Swordsmith? Paypal's Terms of Service, which you must agree to before using them, clearly state (https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full):



They can terminate services for any reason. It's in their terms of service.


PayPal engaged in this viewpoint-based censorship despite stating that, in determining whether a user violated its acceptable use policy, it would only consider conduct actually involving the use of PayPal. PayPal’s decision to kick Plaintiff off its platform had nothing to do with such activities." While one can claim that PayPal, as a private company, has every right to ban whomever it wants, even if it results in outright discrimination, Jones disagrees and to plead his case invokes the California Unruh Civil Rights Act:
PayPal discriminated against Plaintiff based on its political viewpoints and politically conservative affiliation, thus violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. PayPal is engaged in unfair business practices by enforcing its contractual terms in an unconscionable manner, namely arbitrarily banning Plaintiff from its platform for off-platform speech despite never claiming it might ban users for off-platform activity. In doing so, it also violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff.


What is Unruh?
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”) guarantees that “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Although the Unruh Act specifically forbids business establishments from discriminating based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”, this statutorily enumerated list is illustrative, and not exhaustive, of the characteristics on which business establishments may not discriminate.

Discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology is forbidden under Unruh, as it is a personal characteristic.


So as Jones finds his business impaired as a result of the ban...

PayPal is restraining Plaintiff’s commerce because it is politically conservative and sells to a conservative audience. PayPal’s actions amount to discrimination based on political viewpoint and affiliation, which is forbidden under Unruh.


... a ban which is not justified based on the acceptable use policy:
The UA provides several examples of situations where PayPal might issue a limitation, including “[i]f we reasonably believe you have violated the Acceptable Use Policy.” None of these examples allow PayPal to issue a limitation based on off-platform activity, and all the examples are geared towards activity that involves risky, fraudulent, or illegal financial transactions.



They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

RJ Liberty
10-01-2018, 11:51 PM
Must be those super herbal boner pills.

:D

http://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1468539405947.jpg

r3volution 3.0
10-01-2018, 11:53 PM
They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

As RJ quoted:


PayPal, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to suspend or terminate this user agreement, access to or use of its websites, software, systems (including any networks and servers used to provide any of the PayPal services) operated by us or on our behalf or some or all of the PayPal services for any reason and at any time upon notice to you and, upon termination of this user agreement, the payment to you of any unrestricted funds held in your PayPal balance.

As for this:


PayPal engaged in this viewpoint-based censorship despite stating that, in determining whether a user violated its acceptable use policy, it would only consider conduct actually involving the use of PayPal. PayPal’s decision to kick Plaintiff off its platform had nothing to do with such activities." While one can claim that PayPal, as a private company, has every right to ban whomever it wants, even if it results in outright discrimination, Jones disagrees and to plead his case invokes the California Unruh Civil Rights Act:
PayPal discriminated against Plaintiff based on its political viewpoints and politically conservative affiliation, thus violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. PayPal is engaged in unfair business practices by enforcing its contractual terms in an unconscionable manner, namely arbitrarily banning Plaintiff from its platform for off-platform speech despite never claiming it might ban users for off-platform activity. In doing so, it also violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff.

What is Unruh?
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”) guarantees that “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Although the Unruh Act specifically forbids business establishments from discriminating based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”, this statutorily enumerated list is illustrative, and not exhaustive, of the characteristics on which business establishments may not discriminate.

Discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology is forbidden under Unruh, as it is a personal characteristic.

So as Jones finds his business impaired as a result of the ban...
PayPal is restraining Plaintiff’s commerce because it is politically conservative and sells to a conservative audience. PayPal’s actions amount to discrimination based on political viewpoint and affiliation, which is forbidden under Unruh.

... a ban which is not justified based on the acceptable use policy: The UA provides several examples of situations where PayPal might issue a limitation, including “[i]f we reasonably believe you have violated the Acceptable Use Policy.” None of these examples allow PayPal to issue a limitation based on off-platform activity, and all the examples are geared towards activity that involves risky, fraudulent, or illegal financial transactions.

This is not a contract dispute.

The contract is clear; Paypal acted within its rights under the contract, period.

Jones is suing under a California statute that attempts to void contracts which the State of Caliornia doesn't like.

...and under the unconscionability doctrine (which means he's asking the judge to void the contract because the judge doesn't like it).

r3volution 3.0
10-02-2018, 12:31 AM
No further defenses of the welfare baby?

Guess the cat's got his tongue..

UWDude
10-02-2018, 12:53 AM
Bust out the trust buster. Break em up real good.


Crush the banks too. Demand our 700 billion back, with interest, and even more in fines for robbing us at gunpoint in 2008. Assholes.
Break the "real estate management" cabals up too, that should have "corrected" (meaning died like the tumor they are) in 2008, along with the banks, and everyone else insured by AIG.

I know my enemies.

r3volution 3.0
10-02-2018, 01:18 AM
Crush the banks too. Demand our 700 billion back, with interest, and even more in fines for robbing us at gunpoint in 2008. Assholes.
Break the "real estate management" cabals up too, that should have "corrected" (meaning died like the tumor they are) in 2008, along with the banks, and everyone else insured by AIG.

I know my enemies.

Trump just signed an $854 billion spending bill into law.

Does this bother you at all?

UWDude
10-02-2018, 01:35 AM
Trump just signed an $854 billion spending bill into law.

Does this bother you at all?

Even better reason to crush the banks, and take our money back. We got plans for it.

Danke
10-02-2018, 06:16 AM
The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

nikcers
10-02-2018, 06:23 AM
The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

There seems to be an alternative vehicle being created to circumvent the dollar to trade with Iran. What do you think will happen if they go through with it?

jkr
10-02-2018, 07:26 AM
Nothing says liberty like the state crushing a private enterprise because its competitors paid the right lobbyists it's too successful, amiright?

YES

fuck paypal


whats more important here?

Grandmastersexsay
10-02-2018, 07:31 AM
They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

Sorry. Not a contract dispute as you framed it earlier. I don't like PayPal going after Alex Jones, but they're a private company who didn't violate any contractual obligations.

Your sense of right and wrong seems to revolve around right and left more than a guiding ideology. This isn't the only example.

CaptUSA
10-02-2018, 07:39 AM
They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

What part of, "PayPal, in its sole discretion... for any reason" do you not understand?

https://pics.me.me/bake-the-cake-emuhmemes-35369782.png

You progressives sicken me. You only care about "liberty" when it applies to your causes. You're as bad as the progressives on the left - only they're more honest about the treachery they seek to impose.

specsaregood
10-02-2018, 08:00 AM
I will never understand the desire by some to give people that don't like them, their money and business. There are plenty of competitors of paypal that would love to get the transaction fees off infowars transactions.

oyarde
10-02-2018, 08:17 AM
The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

Arrangements can be made with me to obtain real money for FRN's but that window will close one day .

CaptUSA
10-02-2018, 08:20 AM
I will never understand the desire by some to give people that don't like them, their money and business. There are plenty of competitors of paypal that would love to get the transaction fees off infowars transactions.

Right??

But this should tell you about AJ's real motivations. It has nothing to do with any fealty to principles - it's all about promotion for more $$. The PayPal thing makes it more tedious for his customers to part with their money.



(ETA: I should note that while I'm a critic of Alex Jones' methods, I do appreciate his usefulness. I've always maintained the "many paths to liberty" philosophy when it comes to these types of characters. He may not appeal to me, but he does appeal to some others. And while I don't think his contrarianism is liberty-focused, it will often times create overlaps. I'm in favor of just about anything that gets people to question authority and AJ is useful in that regard. [I just wish he'd stop at "questioning" instead of hyping false answers.])

AZJoe
10-02-2018, 08:23 AM
So ...
PayPal jumped on the left wing "declare anything they don't like as hate speech and thus ban it from their platforms" bandwagon to ban AJ's companies.
Then AJ's company sues PayPal using California's draconian leftwing statist Unruh Civil Rights Act which guarantees under California law “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" regardless of any contract language otherwise by Paypal, or whether they are private actors or not.

The irony is delicious.

Unfortunately it will be lost on the left and right. They wont defend Paypal as a private actor that can choose for itself what it wants to allow on the platform. Rather they will defend Paypal via authoritarianism of the state - i.e. we agree with Paypal's decision this time therefore the state will permit this targeted discrimination because if furthers our personal preference in running other people's lives and businesses, but reserve the right to exercise control over Paypal's actions over anything at anytime.

AZJoe
10-02-2018, 08:31 AM
Paypal has a lot of restrictions to their service ...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/guns-drugs-and-timeshares-14-things-paypal-wont-let-you-buy/

From the cover picture it seems that would include red haired, cigarette smoking, blue skinned, camo wearing women with guns.

http://img.digitaltrends.com/image/paypal-wont-let-you-buy-header-2-2-625x1000.jpg

specsaregood
10-02-2018, 10:13 AM
So ...
Then AJ's company sues PayPal using California's draconian leftwing statist Unruh Civil Rights Act which guarantees under California law “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" regardless of any contract language otherwise by Paypal, or whether they are private actors or not.


I don't get it though. AJ is not a California resident and I doubt his business is incorporated there. Paypal is incorporated in Delaware. What does CA law have to do with it?

homahr
10-02-2018, 10:33 AM
Private companies should never be prosecuted.

dannno
10-02-2018, 10:34 AM
I will never understand the desire by some to give people that don't like them, their money and business. There are plenty of competitors of paypal that would love to get the transaction fees off infowars transactions.

That concept makes a lot of sense when there are good alternatives, but sometimes there just aren't. Sometimes there is only one cake baker in town, and sometimes PayPal is the only large widely used and trusted payment service on the internet.

The idea is people would rather give their credit card info to one trusted company, PayPal, as opposed to giving it to every small website on the internet they buy stuff from.

Another company would mean they would have to give up their credit card info again to that company, which may not be as trusted as PayPal.

It would be great if a better payment service alternative came out of this, but more than likely all it will do is hurt his business.



What part of, "PayPal, in its sole discretion... for any reason" do you not understand?

https://pics.me.me/bake-the-cake-emuhmemes-35369782.png

You progressives sicken me. You only care about "liberty" when it applies to your causes. You're as bad as the progressives on the left - only they're more honest about the treachery they seek to impose.


Dude, you have to be completely fucking kidding me..

This is literally one of the ONLY websites on the internet - and the liberty movement is the only movement where you will find people who generally agree that businesses should be allowed to discriminate from a philosophical perspective.. NOBODY ELSE FUCKING BELIEVES THAT SHIT. So why do you think it is, that people in the liberty movement are the only ones suffering from discriminatory practices and not striking back legally?

Circling back, you will hear progressives going around mocking infowars saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate.. but they don't believe that, so why do they say it? They don't think businesses should be allowed to discriminate, unless it is against libertarians and small government folks. So why are they using that argument against infowars? Because infowars is right wing libertarian and that is what the progressives know they believe. So they are using their own beliefs against them, to hurt the movement, while everybody else gets to live under a different set of rules.

How about this? How about we not be fucking cucks and stand up for ourselves and be treated equally under the law? PayPal is not a fucking lowly cake baker. They are in with the banks and the banks have no doubt helped monopolize them. If any other more mainstream or leftist movement who was non-violent was getting kicked off social media or PayPal, they wouldn't be allowed to be treated that way.

We are being treated like this because they are using our beliefs to treat us as second class citizens.

If you want to be a fucking pussy, then fine, but I'm going to fight.. and of course I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but that isn't the world we live in and I'm not going to be a fucking cuck and just roll over and die. You can do that if you want.

specsaregood
10-02-2018, 10:39 AM
That concept makes a lot of sense when there are good alternatives, but sometimes there just aren't. Sometimes there is only one cake baker in town, and sometimes PayPal is the only large widely used and trusted payment service on the internet.

The idea is people would rather give their credit card info to one trusted company, PayPal, as opposed to giving it to every small website on the internet they buy stuff from.

Another company would mean they would have to give up their credit card info again to that company, which may not be as trusted as PayPal.

It would be great if a better payment service alternative came out of this, but more than likely all it will do is hurt his business.

1. it sounds like you just gave plenty of reason to NOT trust paypal. Especially for Jones target audience.
2. so your position is to make it harder for a competitor to get an opening to compete.

CaptUSA
10-02-2018, 10:52 AM
Dude, you have to be completely fucking kidding me...

Uh oh... Looks like I triggered another snowflake. :mouthopen:

Hilarious hearing a Trump supporter talking about someone else being cucked. But let me get this straight, you think because some people use the F'd up laws as a battering ram to get what they want from other people, that we should be doing the same? So instead of fighting against that system, we should use the "laws" to get as much from other people as we can? Who cares about you as long as I get mine? And somehow that puts you on a higher moral ground than your opponents?!

Maybe this is just AJ's 42D chess move to get the progressives to allow businesses to discriminate and it doesn't have anything to do with making it easier for people to buy dick pills?

homahr
10-02-2018, 10:59 AM
Uh oh... Looks like I triggered another snowflake. :mouthopen:



It's funny when little bitches get triggered.

Ender
10-02-2018, 11:05 AM
That concept makes a lot of sense when there are good alternatives, but sometimes there just aren't. Sometimes there is only one cake baker in town, and sometimes PayPal is the only large widely used and trusted payment service on the internet.


A lot of people I know use: https://venmo.com

There are other decent options for internet money usage.

dannno
10-02-2018, 11:14 AM
1. it sounds like you just gave plenty of reason to NOT trust paypal. Especially for Jones target audience.
2. so your position is to make it harder for a competitor to get an opening to compete.

I don't know what the answer is.. I doubt that if AJ doesn't sue PayPal that some how some new payment system is going to rise up from the ashes and both companies will thrive and dominate from the whole incident.. although if that is the path they choose to take I would be just as supportive and wish them the best.. more than likely what will happen is AJ is just going to lose a bunch of money. That's why he is doing what he is doing.

What I know is there is a war going on, and allowing businesses to discriminate is probably #5,876 on the list of things I would like to see get accomplished. There is A LOT MORE at stake here. We could go a long way, have a relatively free society with free market money, almost no taxes or regulations, no foreign wars and still have laws against discriminating against people based on race, religion, etc.. because that is probably going to be one of the most difficult laws to remove.. Rand tried talking about that one a long time ago and dropped it like a hot potato.

The point is, it is stupid, and cuckworthy, to stand on this principle while we fall into a hot bed of lava. It is cuckworthy to let the left pull this kind of crap, while they say things like that it is ok for businesses to discriminate against libertarians, but nobody else, and that we should accept that because it is our principle.

It's like how the British used to fight the American Revolutionaries standing in a line while the Revolutionaries hid behind trees, kneeled down and used more advance warfare tactics. Let's not be the British.

dannno
10-02-2018, 11:19 AM
A lot of people I know use: https://venmo.com

There are other decent options for internet money usage.

PayPal owns Venmo.

Swordsmyth
10-02-2018, 11:57 AM
Sorry. Not a contract dispute as you framed it earlier. I don't like PayPal going after Alex Jones, but they're a private company who didn't violate any contractual obligations.

Your sense of right and wrong seems to revolve around right and left more than a guiding ideology. This isn't the only example.


What part of, "PayPal, in its sole discretion... for any reason" do you not understand?

https://pics.me.me/bake-the-cake-emuhmemes-35369782.png

You progressives sicken me. You only care about "liberty" when it applies to your causes. You're as bad as the progressives on the left - only they're more honest about the treachery they seek to impose.
It's called equal protection under the law, if someone wants to change the law I will support them, that includes a judge ruling the law unconstitutional in this lawsuit.

If AJ loses this lawsuit because the law is overturned that will be a better outcome than if he wins.

The other issue at stake here is that Paypal lies and claims they don't ban people based on behavior that didn't involve their services, businesses don't get to run around claiming one thing and doing another, that is fraud and libertarians aren't supposed to support fraud.

Swordsmyth
10-02-2018, 12:00 PM
I don't get it though. AJ is not a California resident and I doubt his business is incorporated there. Paypal is incorporated in Delaware. What does CA law have to do with it?
That is a good question, I would have to guess that AJ's business is incorporated in California.

specsaregood
10-02-2018, 12:13 PM
That is a good question, I would have to guess that AJ's business is incorporated in California.

BBB says he is incorporated in TX.
https://www.bbb.org/us/tx/austin/profile/trade-publications/infowars-0825-57166


BBB says paypal is incorporated in DE.
https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/san-jose/profile/payment-processing-services/paypal-inc-1216-210387

Swordsmyth
10-02-2018, 12:23 PM
BBB says he is incorporated in TX.
https://www.bbb.org/us/tx/austin/profile/trade-publications/infowars-0825-57166


BBB says paypal is incorporated in DE.
https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/san-jose/profile/payment-processing-services/paypal-inc-1216-210387

Then I don't see how California law is relevant, he must be trying to claim that their business relations take place in California but that doesn't make much sense.

Ender
10-02-2018, 12:40 PM
PayPal owns Venmo.

Interesting- thanks for the info.

Wonder why people have such a hard time sending from Venmo to PP. :confused:

Here's a list of other sites:
https://www.best10merchantservices.com/?utm_source=google&kw=merchant%20services&c=265443055619&t=search&p=&m=b&adpos=1o1&dev=c&devmod=&mobval=0&network=g&campaignid=172584040&adgroupid=57288548111&targetid=kwd-296410343480&interest=&physical=9029718&feedid=&a=262&ts=UnificationMS&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxc2ilLPo3QIVhNdkCh1C6AYxEAMYASAA EgJUIPD_BwE

kpitcher
10-02-2018, 01:00 PM
A lot of people I know use: https://venmo.com

There are other decent options for internet money usage.

Money movement is now easier than a few years ago.

Square is great for businesses and credit cards
Venmo , dwolla, zelle all come to mind for simple paypal style popular apps
Then you also have crypto would could be used

AZJoe
10-02-2018, 05:51 PM
I don't get it though. AJ is not a California resident and I doubt his business is incorporated there. Paypal is incorporated in Delaware. What does CA law have to do with it?

Probably because Paypal placed its headquarters in San Jose. Paypal Headquarters 2211 N. 1st St. San Jose, CA 95131