4 ms·

That would require a court order against VC and MC, that they in turn might contest, and possibly get suspended--even if temporarily. But in Canada, bureaucrat

That would require a court order against VC and MC, that they in turn might contest, and possibly get suspended--even if temporarily. But in Canada, bureaucrat Foo talked to bureaucrat Baz, and presto--you're unbanked!

stavros 1y ago
[flagged]
- barelysapient 1y ago
  Disingenuous?! According the article, that's exactly what happened in Candada! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests. ... But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagreed, warning that the move "threatens our democracy and our civil liberties".
toyg 1y ago
The WikiLeaks experience kinda demolishes your argument.
- barelysapient 1y ago
  I'm guessing you're talking about Julian. What's interesting in this case, is that Julian refused to let himself get arrested which would have brought him to court and due process. But that's not what happened in Canada. With no due process non-violent people were unbanked, simply for protesting against the government.
  - toyg 1y ago
    > I'm guessing you're talking about Julian No. This pre-dates anything related to Julian Assange's criminal trial. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m... Simply speaking, Visa and Mastercard debanked Wikipedia because of their journalistic activities, simply because the US government did not like them, before there was any judicial process whatsoever.
nulbyte 1y ago
Banks are happy to de-bank risky customers all on their own; they don't wait for court orders.
- barelysapient 1y ago
  I'm specifically thinking about political protestors. Such as BLM. Or No Kings. Their right to political protest is protected and VC/MC isn't going to un-bank them without a court order. And since their right to protest is protected, that's unlikely to happen. Unlike Canada.

stavros 1y ago

[flagged]

barelysapient 1y ago
Disingenuous?! According the article, that's exactly what happened in Candada! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests. ... But the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagreed, warning that the move "threatens our democracy and our civil liberties".

toyg 1y ago

The WikiLeaks experience kinda demolishes your argument.

barelysapient 1y ago
I'm guessing you're talking about Julian. What's interesting in this case, is that Julian refused to let himself get arrested which would have brought him to court and due process. But that's not what happened in Canada. With no due process non-violent people were unbanked, simply for protesting against the government.
- toyg 1y ago
  > I'm guessing you're talking about Julian No. This pre-dates anything related to Julian Assange's criminal trial. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m... Simply speaking, Visa and Mastercard debanked Wikipedia because of their journalistic activities, simply because the US government did not like them, before there was any judicial process whatsoever.

nulbyte 1y ago

Banks are happy to de-bank risky customers all on their own; they don't wait for court orders.

barelysapient 1y ago
I'm specifically thinking about political protestors. Such as BLM. Or No Kings. Their right to political protest is protected and VC/MC isn't going to un-bank them without a court order. And since their right to protest is protected, that's unlikely to happen. Unlike Canada.