5 ms·
Why do you say that? The complaint is being made in Europe, not the USA. Europe has a great many laws about what sort of commercial services need to be offered
by lkrubner 15y ago
Why do you say that? The complaint is being made in Europe, not the USA. Europe has a great many laws about what sort of commercial services need to be offered to all, or, once having been offered, under what circumstances those services could be withdrawn. It doesn't make sense to assume that the businesses has a right to transact freely, or to hire freely, or to fire freely.
The English speaking countries (I mean those whose legal codes descend from English Common Law) tend give more freedom-of-maneuver to businesses. The differences are stark regarding the issue of hiring and firing. In a country like the USA or Canada it might make sense to ask something like "Surely Visa and Mastercard have the right to hire whomever they like?" but in a country like Germany the answer would be "Of course not." (Specifically, Germany has a law for any business with more than 50 employees that gives the union a say in who gets hired.)
Regarding the right to transact freely, even the USA has several limits. For instance, you cannot refuse to do business with someone on the basis of race. But the EU has far more regulations of this sort than the USA does.
- trevelyan 15y agoI agree. Even in the United States the right to engage in commerce is protected by the state in the requirement for all businesses and individual to accept "legal tender". It is strange to argue that this function of state is only intended to govern cash transfers. More to the point, this is a fairly transparent case where service was denied to a free speech organization without even the allegation of illegal activity on the part of the accusers. I wonder if skeptics would consider it acceptable if payment providers stopped processing donations for the Democratic Party?
- GHFigs 15y agoDefine "free speech organization".
- iamdave 15y agoI think that's a pretty obvious one, isn't it?
- GHFigs 15y agoThe fact that at least five people on Hacker News think it's wrong to even ask makes me even more certain that it was worth asking.
- trevelyan 15y agoIf you don't think Wikileaks constitutes free speech, I'd be more curious how you define it yourself.
- GHFigs 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality
- trevelyan 15y agoI'm not "asking for approval". I'm asking for your definition of free speech.
- GHFigs 15y agoI told you how I interpret "free speech organization". If that interpretation is not what you meant, I'm not surprised: that's why I asked to you define what you meant in the first place. I had thought that asking for a clarification would help me understand what you actually mean, but you seem to be fixated on starting an argument about the generality instead. No, thanks.
- fleitz 15y agoNo business is forced to accept legal tender, you're only forced to accept legal tender for the payment of debt. (eg. You can't make Amazon accept cash unless they ship you the goods before accepting payment)
- trevelyan 15y agoBusinesses in the United States are not permitted to refuse to conduct business with individuals for arbitrary reasons. Some states like California have stronger laws that require reasons for refusal to be legitimate business ones. So yes... I could absolutely take Amazon to court if they refused to sell me a book and then accept USD in payment simply because I exercised my right to free speech elsewhere.