Alex Jones Sues Paypal For Infowars Ban Over "Hate, Intolerance"

[Swordsmyth]

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.
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-...te-intolerance

[Danke]

"Hate, Intolerance"

I Listen to AJ. "Hate, Intolerance"

give me a break.

[Swordsmyth]

"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]

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/gu...t-let-you-buy/

[Swordsmyth]

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/gu...t-let-you-buy/

Does one of those apply to Infowars?

[kpitcher]

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]

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 $#@!.

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]

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.

In violation of their contractual obligations?

[r3volution 3.0]

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

[UWDude]

...maybe talk about anti-trust law

Can't wait for that hammer to fall.

[r3volution 3.0]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.)

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

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]

Another "libertarian" who thinks private companies have a right to violate contracts.

What do you mean, Swordsmith? Paypal's Terms of Service, which you must agree to before using them, clearly state:

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]

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.)

Must be those super herbal boner pills.

[Swordsmyth]

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:



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]

Must be those super herbal boner pills.

[r3volution 3.0]

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]

No further defenses of the welfare baby?

Guess the cat's got his tongue..

[UWDude]

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. $#@!s.
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]

Crush the banks too. Demand our 700 billion back, with interest, and even more in fines for robbing us at gunpoint in 2008. $#@!s.
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]

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]

The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

[nikcers]

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]

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

YES

$#@! paypal


whats more important here?

[Grandmastersexsay]

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]

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?



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.