PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books

[Strypi]

I used to be conservative...and not once did I think that we needed to censor anything....nor did any other conservatives. They don't want the government involved in their lives to that point. The ones who seem to want to tell others what to think and say are the liberals. On the liberal side was where I ALWAYS seem to hear the phrase, "there ought to be a law" when someone does something that others don't agree with. Just sayin...

The stupidity is continuing. We are now able to be converted to a police state very easily, rights thrown out the window. A law was created so that you can be taken into custody and kept, indefinitely, with no attorney, etc...and it passed! Look up the new laws created this last year. You'll be amazed! Makes this Paypal business PALE in comparison! Censorship is the least of our worries.

Now, Paypal making this statement and choice- well, let's just look at that for a minute. Paypal is not a government entity. They don't get their funding from taxes. I believe that they should be allowed to determine what sorts of transactions that they will support. This has nothing to do with rights. If you walked into my nail salon a few years ago, you'd have to abide by my rules, and that is how it should be. Paypal is saying the same thing. Corporations are not democracies. They get to make the rules, and your rights have nothing to do with it. Your rights come into play when you are dealing with police, or other governmental entities. If you don't like how a company is ran, you have the ability (not the right) to spend your money elsewhere.

Since Paypal says that I am too obscene to use their service for transactions...I don't need to use them! I have a credit card, I have a debit card, Google checkout...hell, some companies are setting it up so you can charge online purchases to your cell phone...there are many other options for me than to use Paypal.

[Thorne]

I used to be conservative...and not once did I think that we needed to censor anything....nor did any other conservatives. They don't want the government involved in their lives to that point. The ones who seem to want to tell others what to think and say are the liberals.

Is it the "liberals" in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and elsewhere trying to force creationism back into the schools? Is it the "liberals" who are making it impossible for a woman to make her own health decisions? Is it "liberals" who are behind the anti-blasphemy laws that are starting to pop up all over the place? No, I didn't think so. Just look at the current crop of Republican candidates. Yeah, they want smaller government. Except for those parts that will force others to do as they say, believe as they say, think as they say.

Look up the new laws created this last year. You'll be amazed!

But who made up these laws? The conservative Congress, unless I miss my guess.

Since Paypal says that I am too obscene to use their service for transactions...I don't need to use them! I have a credit card, I have a debit card, Google checkout...hell, some companies are setting it up so you can charge online purchases to your cell phone...there are many other options for me than to use Paypal.

My sentiments exactly. (See my comment above.) Until big business gets to the point where they can legislate what and where we purchase items, we can control them with our wallets. But if the pro-big business Congress has their way, that time may not be so far off.

[Strypi]

Is it the "liberals" in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and elsewhere trying to force creationism back into the schools? Is it the "liberals" who are making it impossible for a woman to make her own health decisions? Is it "liberals" who are behind the anti-blasphemy laws that are starting to pop up all over the place? No, I didn't think so. Just look at the current crop of Republican candidates. Yeah, they want smaller government. Except for those parts that will force others to do as they say, believe as they say, think as they say.


But who made up these laws? The conservative Congress, unless I miss my guess.


My sentiments exactly. (See my comment above.) Until big business gets to the point where they can legislate what and where we purchase items, we can control them with our wallets. But if the pro-big business Congress has their way, that time may not be so far off.

I know it was Obama's camp that set the fire for the ripping away of our rights with the new detention laws.

And yes, I said porn, but I meant that as written/spoken, as well as any other form of expression...

And the conservatives with their school policies...well, it's no different than liberals who made laws all over the US that I can't discipline my children as I choose! Yet,we can kill babies all day long, and I have to pay for another woman's choice to do so with my tax dollars! I have no problem with her making that choice, but I shouldn't have to pay...but I do. Neither side is better than the other, and the evils are greater as the game contiues.

The point is that our rights are only rights in the bill. When dealing with private enterprise, we don't have rights. We have a choice.

[Thorne]

Yet,we can kill babies all day long,

Oh please. Really? That old hobgoblin? They aren't babies until they're born. They aren't even viable until late into the pregnancy. Before that they are little more than a parasite within the mother. And it's HER right to decide what to do with it.

and I have to pay for another woman's choice to do so with my tax dollars! I have no problem with her making that choice, but I shouldn't have to pay...but I do.

No, you don't! Federal law prohibits using tax dollars for abortions. Nationwide. What you DO have to pay your tax dollars for is for those women who are unable to have abortions, because of draconian laws, having to go on welfare and food stamps to feed those kids they really don't want. Costs one HELL of a lot more, per kid, than an abortion, too.

Neither side is better than the other, and the evils are greater as the game contiues.

Agreed, both sides are equally bad. The evils come from a totally different direction, in my view.

[lucy]

You're right about Paypal being a privately owned corporation who has the right to set up their own rules. You're wrong about having choices, because Paypal is doing now what plastic money has done already a couple of months ago.

They're not doing this because they don't want to make a buck. They're doing this because they're pissing their pants for being accused to promote nonconsensual sex and violence.

Me, I don't blame religion. I blame American (rather hypocrite) morals. I'm afraid that once again Europeans are daft enough to follow suit.

[thir]

Now, Paypal making this statement and choice- well, let's just look at that for a minute. Paypal is not a government entity. They don't get their funding from taxes. I believe that they should be allowed to determine what sorts of transactions that they will support. This has nothing to do with rights. If you walked into my nail salon a few years ago, you'd have to abide by my rules, and that is how it should be. Paypal is saying the same thing. Corporations are not democracies. They get to make the rules, and your rights have nothing to do with it. Your rights come into play when you are dealing with police, or other governmental entities. If you don't like how a company is ran, you have the ability (not the right) to spend your money elsewhere.

I've thinking about this...and I believe there are several issues here. One: A business is not a state in the state, and there is a limit to what you can decide. A business has its own rules, but must also abide by the rules of the state. For instance, if you have an amusement park, you cannot decide what the people should wear who are using it, unless it were a safety issue. If you have a nail salon, you cannot say for instance that you will only serve customers if they are over 1.65 m tall, because that would be discriminating.

The second issue is whether or not it is reasonable to take the role of thought police because you have a business. Would it, for instance, be reasonable if a baker demanded that people say a short prayer upon entering his shop? Would it be reasonable if a hair-dresser wanted every customer to swear that they had never voted for the republicans? If you import stuff from China, should you only sell to customers who are pro-life/free-choice, in favour of lower taxes/more taxes, or want more military/less military?

As I see it, and as a general principle, if you sell a service or goods, your are in the busines of selling service or goods, you are not in the busness of converting people to your ideas.

[Thorne]

As I see it, and as a general principle, if you sell a service or goods, your are in the busines of selling service or goods, you are not in the busness of converting people to your ideas.

I would have to say that it depends on whether you are a publicly owned corporation or a privately owned company. A publicly owned company has many more restrictions on it, naturally, since anyone can purchase stock in it. But a privately owned company? I think they have a little more leeway. And of course, any company can refuse to do business with someone if they have a valid reason for doing so. Forcing your morals down someone else's throat, though, is NOT a valid reason.

[lucy]

As I see it, and as a general principle, if you sell a service or goods, your are in the busines of selling service or goods, you are not in the busness of converting people to your ideas.

Now that's just plain wrong. Every privately owned business is free to sell or not sell a service or product, provided they abide the corresponding laws.
I work in the publishing business. The main topic of the journal we produce is human powered mobility. The fact that we don't publish articles about Porsche's newest version of the Cayenne has nothing to do with wanting to convert anyone to our ideas of how traffic in modern cities should work, but it has a lot to do with what we chose to write about.
And in that choice we are (almost) completely free.

Paypal has this choice, too, of course. They also have to take into account that people won't like their decision, which apparently they didn't.

[thir]

Now that's just plain wrong. Every privately owned business is free to sell or not sell a service or product, provided they abide the corresponding laws.

Sure. That is what I said.

I work in the publishing business. The main topic of the journal we produce is human powered mobility. The fact that we don't publish articles about Porsche's newest version of the Cayenne has nothing to do with wanting to convert anyone to our ideas of how traffic in modern cities should work, but it has a lot to do with what we chose to write about.
And in that choice we are (almost) completely free.

You publish magazines, which people can choose to buy or not. But you do not, if I understand you correctly, use your publishing business to try to impose othernon-related ideas on people, for example, if they buy your magazine they must refrain from/adhere to something completely different. As I understand it, you sell your mag with no strings attached.

What pay pal did was to sell a service - how to pay for things to buy - while at the same time trying to use this service to interfere with what you can buy, which is none of their business.