Reason Suggests DoJ Closing Porn Stars' Bank Accounts 548
MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) writes "In a recent story on reason.com it was reported that the DoJ is closing down the bank accounts of porn stars. Not knowing the site I googled around and found another site, the Guardian. The story does not end there. It turns out that this is part of a larger scheme (ironically) called Operation Choke Point. Also reported in a Washington Post article that downplays the practice. According to Cryptocoin news. There are thirty industries the DoJ is now targeteting: Ammunition Sales; Cable Box De-scramblers; Coin Dealers; Credit Card Schemes; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Debt Consolidation Scams; Drug Paraphernalia; Escort Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Get Rich Products; Government Grants; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Lottery Sales; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Ponzi Schemes; Pornography; Pyramid-Type Sales; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales; and Travel Clubs. But more can be added. (I notice alcohol sales is not on the list)." The Reason article stops short of saying that Choke Point is proven to be the reason for the account closures, but it seems very plausible.
Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the way to fascism. Just look at historic precedents. Very, very alarming.
It also means the DoJ is not concerned with "the law" anymore, but just does what those in power want. Not that "the law" was worth a lot before.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the way to fascism. Just look at historic precedents. Very, very alarming.
It also means the DoJ is not concerned with "the law" anymore, but just does what those in power want. Not that "the law" was worth a lot before.
Time to leave.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. But where to?
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Funny)
Well, for me personally, Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
Next step: Rename it into "Department of Love"...
Re: (Score:3)
I read if before posting. Did you? At the very least you did not understand any of the implications.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Informative)
There are no implications: everything from the summary to the circle of links is speculation. noone knows anything for sure, but that hasnt stopped wild theories based on other wild theories based on a WSJ article.
DoJ is encouraging banks to close bank accounts of risky actors. We have no reason at this point to believe that means "kill all pornstar bank accounts", especially since there are apparently only 2 or 3 porn stars experiencing this. Strangely enough none of them are big names. Its almost like someones trying to create a story where there is none.
Re:How risky? (Score:4, Informative)
Porn stars are risky because porn sales are risky, and porn companies have trouble maintaining merchant accounts for credit card processing. This leads to a high rate of "personal" accounts being used as business accounts, and then used to open merchant accounts; often with misleading or erroneous service types listed.
It is simply a fact that all sorts of "adult" companies have a high rate of charge-backs. This puts the companies involved under pressure and difficulty, so all sorts of related fraud and non-compliance with terms happens. Being associated with this sort of "high risk" industry makes it more likely that a bank will have some sort of related problem with your account.
Personally, I would like to see a government-run bank that only offered deposit accounts and checking services; nothing else. With account numbers that can't be used to sign up to merchant services or anything like that. That way everybody would have access to a basic banking services provider of last resort.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Chilling if true. I can't see evidence that this is happening except for this web site which merely asserts it is happening. Even the guardian article isn't saying accounts are being closed, only that they're sending regulators after businesses that are flagged by the banks. Maybe banks themselves are denying accounts to some people but the connection to DOJ is slippery.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Informative)
As with most stories on Slashdot these days, it's bullshit meant to make you scared and angry.
prosecutors are investigating whether third-party processors that route payments for merchants through banks are ignoring signs of fraud to rake in fees from transactions.
They're not trying to shut down porn -- what possible motive could they even have for that? They're trying to stop disreputable businesses from effectively robbing people a few nickels at a time. If innocent companies are getting caught in the crossfire, then the DOJ needs to do its job better. But quit hyperventilating. This is not some evil government plot to wipe out all of the fireworks stores and dating services in the country.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
There are legal ways to shutdown companies that are breaking the law. They involve judges and due process and an adversarial system, not extra-legal requests from the DOJ to the payment processors. An order to seize property or force a business closure can be appealed and overturned. What's their recourse here? Sue the payment provider? Sue the DOJ? Can't. No business, no money. This *is* horrible. If they are investigating, they should complete their investigation, and then ask a judge to do something, or have someone arrested.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Interesting)
Really. Then how do you explain their closing Teagan Presley's personal account, [dailymail.co.uk] and her husband's account?
The only business I have with Chase is a single credit card account. I'll be closing that as soon my next payment on it clears. I'm also going to be thinking very hard about finding a European bank to move my money into.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
Theyre not. The speculation is that banks are doing it voluntarily at the encouragement of the DoJ, but even that is a huge leap based on hysterical speculation by Reason based on hysterical speculation by vice which is based on a "maybe...?" article on WSJ.
Noone knows, we only have a handful of pornstars who have lost bank accounts, and some guessing about what "operation chokepoint is".
This is stupid trollbait, and everyone here is falling for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course its not legal.
But how stupid are you to believe they are actually doing this based on a slashdot summary, of an article that speculates ... based on the speculation of another article, based on the speculation in another article, based on the speculation of yet another article?
I'm not kidding, go read them, its literally speculation 4 or 5 levels deep with pretty much nothing but correlation to back it up, and the number of correlated items is so low that no one in their right mind would jump to t
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution is a whitelist of powers the government has, not a blacklist of powers it doesn't. Where in the constitution does it say that the government can arbitrarily seize bank accounts for little to no reason, or seize bank accounts because the person has an occupation that they simply don't like?
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something that needs repeated frequently.
A lot of people think that the Bill of Rights is a white list. That's actually as wrong as you could possibly be. It is the Constitution in general as it relates to the powers of the federal government that is the whitelist.
This is why the Obamacare mandate is illegal and your state's care insurance mandate is not.
The Bill of Rights is just the short list of rights that should not be infringed by government. It's the really important ones much like the 10 Commandments.
Re: (Score:3)
Judicial Review [wikipedia.org] is an implicit power. I believe it is an important power that should be enumerated and limited in scope, but it is not.
Re: (Score:3)
The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court.
Oh yeah? Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Article VI + Article III = judicial review (Score:5, Insightful)
How the US Constitution works ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction. Here in Australia ...
The construction of the US government was based on competing centers of power. That power would be split between the federal government and the various state governments, and that within the federal government the power would be split between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The basic idea was to have checks and balances between the federal and the state and within the federal itself.
The constitution does this by enumerating the powers and authorities of the various components of the federal government and then it explicitly states that all other powers and authorities are the domain of the state governments.
The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.
In other words the power of the federal government is limited by an enumerated list of power and authority granted to the federal government and the power of the state governments is limited, plus the power of the federal government is further limited, by an enumerated list of rights and privileges granted to individual citizens.
Re:How the US Constitution works ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress can only make laws for things it is specifically authorized to make by the US Constitution. It's true that Congress has been trying hard to find bizarre arguments for extending that power through various acrobatic interpretations of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, the principle remains: Congress has limited and enumerated powers and cannot simply make arbitrary laws.
This is one interpretation of the constitution, known as the Federalist view. Jefferson was the founding father who was the foremost proponent of this view, and it went out of favor during his presidency, when he made the Louisiana Purchase, which is not authorized by the constitution.
Jefferson was going to show that the country could be governed, he could handle emergencies while following that view of the constitution. He failed, and ever since it's not clear that such a view is even realistic.
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why anyone needs to tell a bank what you do for a living. If it's a personal account and you're not doing business through the account why should it be any business of the banks?
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pretty chilling honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't Misunderstand Me... (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the things on DoJ's "Laundry List" of so-called "high financial risk" businesses are historically not high-risk AT ALL.
Like ammunition and firearms. Far from being "high-risk": manufacturers and retailers have historically been both large and long-lived. There is an ammunition manufacturer not all that far from here and they have been in business for 60 years. And the vast majority of ammunition is sold through major sporting-goods franchises, not mom-and-pop shops. Same with firearms.
Further, where people DO engage in small-scale ammunition or firearms sales or manufacturing, it is often a perfectly legitimate, specialty product. I know somebody who made and sold custom cartridges, and I have also met a guy who makes firearms. All perfectly legit and legal.
So pardon me for saying so, and I don't want to be misunderstood as being some kind of right-wing nut or anything, but it kind of looks like some things on this list are in fact Obama agenda items. Which is illegal.
Re:Don't Misunderstand Me... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is "high risk of what?"
The answer is credit card fraud. That's what the DOJ is trying to go after here. If you google online ammo suppliers, you get a bunch of sites that look like they haven't been updated since '98. I have no doubt that the companies are perfectly reputable. But they might not have the tightest security when it comes to detecting fraudulent transactions.
No one is saying that they're engaged in anything illegal. No one is saying they're unstable, fly-by-night businesses. What the DOJ seems to think is that the payment processing companies they do business with might be turning a blind eye to fraud in order to make more money.
Re:Don't Misunderstand Me... (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is "high risk of what?"
The answer is credit card fraud.
they might not have the tightest security when it comes to detecting fraudulent transactions
If this was true, then it should be the industry that goes after the company not the DOJ.. PCI-DSS is extremely clear on what the company needs to do to be able to process credit cards. If they are getting ripped off or that company is by action enabling fraud to happen then that company is liable for the charges and fees.
Trust me i've gone through PCI-DSS certification, and it isn't easy.. but it is extremely clear what the ramifications are for failure.
Re: (Score:3)
Ehh, maybe so. Maybe the industry asked the DOJ for support. Maybe the DOJ didn't think the industry was handling it well and wanted to step in. Maybe they're wrong to do so. I don't know.
What I do know, is that a lot of people here seem to think that this is part of Obama's super-secret conspiracy to eradicate porn and fireworks and dating websites. And that's absolutely bonkers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as someone who runs an online-business classified as high-risk and has spent years dealing with problems with credit-card processing and banks. High-risk was traditionally meant to refer to businesses with a high-risk of fraud (or charge-backs) but over-time has broadened to include industries that are not accepted by the powers that be and who want to marginalize those businesses by making business increasingly difficult to conduct. If you can not accept credit-cards in this day an age, good lu
The Truth about Obama + Cable Descramblers (Score:3, Funny)
Just one more way he didn't keep his promises!
Re:Don't Misunderstand Me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd believe you if you had just removed "Obama and company". The push towards greater fascism has been a bipartisan effort in our new millenium.
Re:Don't Misunderstand Me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ron Paul was a good candidate, and would have been a good no-BS leader. Not perfect, but good.
Gary Johnson was a fiscal and popular success in New Mexico. Hell, he was even liked by Democrats. He was a good candidate too.
What will it take before people realize that a third party vote is not a "wasted vote"? On the contrary, it's one of the few viable answers we have left.
Well Played, DOJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pepper the list with plenty of "industries" that the vast majority of people would dearly love to see destroyed, such as pyramid schemes, racist trash and payday loans, but shut down plenty of useful-but-intimidating-to-those-in-power businesses as well.
Legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure why merely doing business in the Ammunition Sales; Coin Dealers; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Pornography; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales and Travel Clubs industries or combination thereof should automatically flag ones activies as "questionable". What happened to innocent until proven guilty??
Re:Legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing. You're still innocent before the law. It's just that the law no longer rules.
If it was just the banks that would be one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I reject the excuse that it's all optional on the part of the banks. Having Big Brother breathing down your neck and Strongly Suggesting that you do something is absolutely inappropriate, and I'd love to see Washington, DC held accountable for this in some way.
Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, it is clearly not optional on the part of the banks. This has a very chilling effect on activities where the regs can't actually prosecute for wrongdoing. If they could, they would, and they wouldn't be going this route. This sort of tactic is contrary to the principles of a free society. Banks will "choose" to decline to do business with certain people and companies if they feel they will get sued or have to spend a fortune on a governmental investigation. If there is truly evidence of illegal activities, authorities should go after the people allegedly engaged in those activities, not the banks. But in these cases, often times the activities are not really illegal, even if they are activities not loved by everyone in society. Because the government can't prosecute, should it be allowed to strong-arm banks into doing the dirty work? What does that sort of logic lead to, especially when things like banking are akin to breathing in modern society.
There are plenty of nefarious behaviors going on at banks that regulators would be wise to oversee, but this is a case of overstepping IMO. Regulators are forcing discrimination. Is it okay for banks to be choosy based on certain parameters (I don't like your business because it's porn and I think porn is ruining our society) and not others (I don't like your business because it supports, say, charter schools, and I the bank president happen to think charter schools are ruining our society)? That's discrimination. At the very same time, regulators would bring proceedings against these very same banks for refusing to do business with certain people/organizations just because they choose to.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
"PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC) received a subpoena regarding the return rate for its payment-processor clients from the U.S. Department of Justice. The department’s consumer protection unit is seeking information “for certain merchant and payment processor customers with whom PNC has a depository relationship,” the Pittsburgh-based bank said today in a regulatory filing. “We believe that the subpoena is intended to determine whether, and to what extent, PNC may have facilitated fraud committed by third-parties against consumers.” "
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I personally know people who got audited because of contributions to the IRS watch list. And they love to claim that it was a coordinated political attack against the right wing.
It wasn't.
When "non profit" groups form that are closely aligned with or have explicit anti-government agendas (particularly against the IRS, tax code, and the claimed illegality of personal income tax) then it's a no brainer place to look for those skirting the law.
No one was intimidated, their tax reporting was just flagged for th
BTC (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.
Cash (Score:3)
Wait, so they want more of these industries to be cash based and perhaps un/under-report income tax??? I know plenty of people who have been moving more toward cash in the past several years, but it seems counter-intuitive the government would want to track less.
But seriously, how will this decrease fraud?
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, so they want more of these industries to be cash based and perhaps un/under-report income tax???
Yes. That way they can come crashing down and get the businesses totally shut down instead of just economically neutered.
Moron idea... (Score:3)
Drive porn to the black market... That will probably work as well as the war against drugs...
Porn stars and not investment firms (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that investment firms cost the government HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bailouts, can they really argue that porn stars are "risky"?
So, uhh, DOJ guys (Score:5, Insightful)
High risk (Score:4, Insightful)
Porn? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
As if our weekly fun news didn't have enough material for its "US SPECIAL" corner...
What is it with the US and Porn? I've never seen a country so obsessed about it, and quite frankly any time some sort of report about some sort of sexual freak show or paraphilia, you may rest assured it's about the US.
Kinda reinforces my theory that the road to sexual perversion is repressing it.
Re:Porn? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... to be honest, no, I can't think of a country right now where it is so terribly easy to ruffle feathers. Seriously, some of the crap that gets people all fired up in the US would not even make people turn their head in any other country.
Religion? Hell, even in ITALY you can't get people so worked up over it.
Creationism? Please, anyone mentioning it anywhere outside the US would be looked at as if he's some kind of idiot for believing in that fairy tale.
Guns? Yeah, have 'em or don't. Next... not so in the US, "from my dead, cold hands"... are you nuts? Who gives a shit about a gun?
Clinton's blowjob. So he had a blowjob... "But he lied!" Erh... DUH, he's a politician! "But ... TO CONGRESS!" So he lied to a bunch of other politicians... "UNDER OATH!" Yeah, we got that part, again, HE IS A POLITICIAN. He lies. That what he does. Get over it. Fuck, he was still 10 times a better prez than anything we had or anything that came after.
And let me not start about people pointedly pointing out that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. That always gives me the giggles, considering that it's a cleptocratic plutocracy, at best.
Banks Don't Like It Either (Score:5, Informative)
Frank Keating, former governor of Oklahoma and FBI agent who is now head of the American Banker's Association came out against Choke Point in a WSJ op-ed a week ago.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com]
When you become a banker, no one issues you a badge, nor are you fitted for a judicial robe. So why is the Justice Department telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges? Justice's new probe, known as "Operation Choke Point," is asking banks to identify customers who may be breaking the law or simply doing something government officials don't like. Banks must then "choke off" those customers' access to financial services, shutting down their accounts.
Justice launched the effort in early 2013 as a policy initiative of the president's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulatory agencies. Though details are scant—much of the investigation has been conducted in secret—the probe aims to crack down on fraud in the payments system by focusing on banks that service online payday lenders and other services deemed suspicious by the government....
nice bank you have there... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nice bank you have there. Wouldn't it be a shame if we had to shut you down and audit you and your best customers for the next six months?"
"Now, here is a list of people we think you better not do business with. Any questions?"
Hard to verify (Score:3)
I found two non-fringe or slightly suspect news links: EFF.org [eff.org]. The article completes the circle back to sites like reason.com and The Guardian. The other is CNBC.com [cnbc.com]. It links to entertainment sites like Perez Hilton. Not the sort of thing you expect to find when a secret government operation like this is uncovered.
What I don't see, is anything linking directly to information about the DOJ's Operation Chokepoint. The list of targets is a bit broad and the tactics are a little suspect. You wouldn't think of a far left liberal like Obama as someone who is anti-porn. We'll have to watch this and see how things develop. Maybe someone will find a few hard government generated facts and write up a 2600 article?
Re:Hard to verify (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is far left in what world?
USA World. Its another planet altogether.
how many people work in porn? (Score:3)
thousands? are all of their accounts being closed?
there are probably hundreds of porn stars at any time being that they go through girls like baseballs at a game. plus all the people behind the scenes.
is there suddenly a stop to all porn production? because that's what would happen if people can't get paid or companies lose access to banking
this has already been debunked (Score:5, Informative)
google it
chase closed a few accounts
the porn people went on twitter and a lot of their friends closed their chase accounts in protest
in reality it was a few accounts
Still an assault on due process - no? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many accounts does it take? How is it legal to even close one?
If the government can get away with this, where does it stop? Close the bank of accounts of political rivals? Close the bank accounts of those who write unflattering articles about Obama?
Seems to me that this action sets a dangerous precedent.
Re:really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are a threat to national purity, and if you disagree, you can go to one of the soon-to-be-opened concentration camps!
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:really??? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Closing the bank accounts of gainfully employed citizens just because they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?
How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany? (Screw Godwin's law. This is a perfectly legitimate comparison.)
Re:really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?
No, it's tortious interference with business relationships.
Re: really??? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Modern Neo-Nazis have very little in common with the German Nazis of the 1930s.)
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)
You heard it here first: Sex workers not being able to keep their money in a bank is worse than the Holocaust.
It's first a step to the left, and then a jump to the right.
Fascism is not the Holocaust. It is the road to it. The U.S. government considers itself far enough above the law to kill people with drones without due process, to detain them for decades in Guantanamo for decades without due process, to torture people to death for fun (the CIA report shows that torture was used lethally and systematically regardless of whether the "justifying" information was already given either by the victim or other means), to extort from people their right to a jury trial ("plea deal"), to record the communication of everybody in the world including the own populace for fun and extortion.
Destroying the existence of people you don't like for some reason is quite in line with what Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the years leading up to the Reichskristallnacht. And the U.S. shows no sign of mitigating sanity in its current course.
The main difference is that there is not a single NSdAP against splintered small parties they suppress, but rather a right and a far right wing of it handing off power to each other and having rigged the political system long ago to a degree where voting has become pointless.
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the problem is more the fact you're even on the scale, rather than where on the scale you are.
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:4, Informative)
And that is a problem. It makes sure people do not climb out of poverty, or at least makes it a lot harder. After all, cannot have people participating in normal society that the government deems "undesirables". Next steps: forbid them to work, then concentration camps, then gas chambers. National purity must be maintained at all cost!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Imagine your live without a bank account or the ability to drive or travel by air.
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the DoJ isnt actually closing bank accounts?
If you had read the article you would see that it is speculating that a handful of porn star's bank account closures are maybe due to DoJ pressure. Theyre making this leap because of a vice.com article which speculates that the closures are because they are porn stars. Vice makes this gigantic leap because of a WSJ article (conveniently paywalled) which speculates that Operation Chokepoint is targetting porn.
Thats a whole bunch of speculation on a ridiculous assertion. A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base. The idea is stupid, the speculation is stupid, and Reason/Vice are remarkably stupid websites. Slashdot is even worse for being dumb enough to link to the flamebait.
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:5, Interesting)
A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn
Liberals aren't anti-porn? Seriously? You really wanna go there [thedailybeast.com]?
Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)
She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.
“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle.”
Liberals have no problem going after porn. They just frame it differently than Conservatives. They're upholding women's rights (except of course for the right of women to consent to star in pornography) rather than Christian morals.
If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.
Re: (Score:3)
If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.
It's not so much hypocritical, it's just that the left favors collective rights over individual rights. So where the right would favor an individual's right to join or not join a union, the left favors a union's right to force individuals to become members.
Banning pornography is like forcing women to join a union. By restricting supply it artificially increases the value of naked women and as a result causes men to spend more on it. As a result they're hoping to increase the sexual value of the average m
3 times SCOTUS struck down Clinton's anti-porn law (Score:3)
That's the claim from some on the democrats. Probably some of the same democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. In fact, over the last 20 years, there have been three major anti-porn laws, all eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. All three were signed by Bill Clinton.
Not only do the liberals pander to to the extremist feminists by going after porn, they keep at it, never giving up when the Supreme Court tells them over and over again "no, you can't do that. You're violating the first amen
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a so called "wingnut" republican, and this story isnt even a little believable. The day Obama administration goes after porn sites is the day the tea party embraces obamacare.
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be under the impression that conservatives dislike porn, and liberals love it. Fact is, both sides love it. It's just that more conservatives claim to be against it, because, you know, god.
Re: (Score:3)
They "embraced" a preliminary version of something that was somewhat similar to "Obamacare". That's not the same as embracing Obamacare.
Fact is that Republicans universally rejected Obamacare and that it was exclusively designed and implemented by Democrats. Democrats are the only ones responsible for it.
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of citizens, the Constitution enumerates the (very limited) powers of the federal government.
So, since the Constitution has "zero mention" of a governmental power to take away people's bank accounts, the federal government does not have that power.
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:5, Informative)
The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more.
Or at least, it's supposed to. The foundation is there.
Check out 18 U.S.C. 242: "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law".
While many people think this is "just" a discrimination statute, a careful reading of the law shows that it applies to ALL Constitutional and natural rights.
And government employees are not immune. Not even the President. (In fact, this statute was specifically intended to prevent government abuse.) The maximum penalty is life in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Communist revolution is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Ammo sales were a particular no no.
Private gun ownership was fairly common in the Soviet Union, at about 10 guns per 100 people, and is still common in Russia today. Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.
Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denie
Re:Communist revolution is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. Sound familiar?
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too. I recall reading an account by a former US officer who had accepted the surrender of a German unit. He told the German commander to collect all weapons and deposit them at the town hall. Among the weapons collected were numerous civilian rifles and shotguns collected from the town residents. The US commander told the German commander he only meant the military weapons and that the civilian weapons should be set aside so that their owners could come to the town hall to claim their property and have it returned to them.
Re:Communist revolution is needed (Score:4, Informative)
It's easier to just convince gun owners that whoever is the target of tyranny is their enemy too. This is how the US government got away rounding up US citizens and putting them in internment camps.
Oh, also convince them that "we" respect your rights (as we're collecting all your phone calls) and "they" are trying to take your guns away (even though they're not). That shit always works.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement.
Obama could never be mistaken for Adolf Hitler. Hitler could rally crowds and command respect/fear on the global stage. Poor Mr. Hapless no longer seems able to do the former and was never able to do the latter.
Re:Communist revolution is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia today may be better in this regard, but when I lived in USSR, I did not know a single person, who owned a weapon — even martial arts were frowned upon by the officials and what studios existed, were underground. Today in the US quite a few of my acquaintances have firearms — and my five year-old attends a karate class twice a week.
So, as they say, Citation needed...
Re:Communist revolution is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.
Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle. But between the two sides, especially 2nd amendment folks you'll find them being the ones who don't actually take to the militarization of police. While many left wing people do, and left wing groups. Going as far as pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. So you were saying?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit regional I think, and mostly aligns with opinions on other issues. I've spent some time living in the southwest, and there is generally strong pro-police sentiment among conservative gun-owners in states like Arizona (and parts of Texas), largely due to their views on illegal immigration. If anything the prevailing sentiment in those areas is that the cops should be more militarized, fleets of drones with missiles and everything, and should be given more police-state-style powers to stop anyone a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There really isn't an American Left... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, I think the current Administration (e.g. Obama's) is doing the best he can. I doubt I could do any better. But given the current state of America there's no chance in hell you'll see a real left...
Re: (Score:3)
So where are all of those NRA protests against wholesale warrantless wiretapping?
Re: (Score:3)
see any of the industry boards, where victims (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want more confirmation, see any of the message boards dedicated to the affected industries. There you'll find the victims discussing what to do.
In some of these industries, like porn, one closure affects many, many people. All those free porn sites are financed by the ads they run for a comparatively small number of large pay site networks. Many of them don't expect to get paid this month because their sponsor's account has been shut down in the last few days. The affect is similar to, but not as big, as shutting down PayPal's accounts - it affects not only PayPal, but anyone who relies on PayPal for their business. There are also hosting companies and other service providers who make their living providing services to all the smaller sites. When the sponsor can't pay the small sites, the small sites can't pay their hosting bill. Anything that affects a couple of the large sponsors ripples through the industry.
Re:Right to a Bank Account (Score:4, Informative)
Which is fine: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [wikipedia.org]
"General welfare" clause. It is the Silly Putty [wikipedia.org] of the Constitution: it can morph into any shape and justify any law or government action, even if other parts of the Constitution are at odds with it.