Transaction Denied: Big Finance's Power to Punish Speech

Description

WARNING: The author is pro-sodomy ("gay", "LGBTQ+" 'rights'), prostitution ("sex worker"), and pornography. "Erotica" is trash that shouldn't be published, ∵ it doesn't appeal to the intellect, but to what is base/perverted in man's (fallen) human nature; cf. Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos §15:

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

But should the financial industry censor? St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II q. 62 a. 5 ad 2 would seem to say it shouldn't, as it would interefer with non-unlawful giving:

a man gives unlawfully, through giving for an unlawful purpose, albeit the giving itself is not unlawful (non sit illicita), as when a woman receives payment for fornication: wherefore she may keep what she has received [and is thus not bound to restitution].

The only 📖 on financial censorship I've been able to find (∃ 📚 on related concept of sanctions already).

It doesn't mention "anti-semitism" (might be good the author didn't) nor older cases (e.g. Hitler historian David Irving's or E. Michael Jones's) of financial censorship, but it does have a § on bitcoin ₿ (ch. 7 "Can Cryptocurrency Be a Practical Tool Against Censorship?", ref:11.1 ff.).

Exposes how companies like Visa, Chase, PayPal, Bank of America, and Mastercard use their power to silence dissenting voices and hurt democracy through the practice of financial censorship

Civil liberties activist Rainey Reitman introduces readers to the concept of “financial censorship”—a form of privatized censorship where banks and payment intermediaries act as censors in ways the government couldn’t do directly without violating the First Amendment. Reitman examines financial companies and the role they have played in policing speech, as well as the laws and corporate policies that have enabled this form of censorship.

Weaving together over a decade of research with interviews and narratives from those personally impacted by financial censorship, Reitman reveals how financial exclusion has become a tool to pressure marginalized voices into silence.

From the executive director of a voting rights nonprofit to a teacher of Iranian poetry, to adult content creators and the cannabis community, Reitman uplifts the voices of those who have been targeted by these powerful institutions. She uses their stories as a launching point to explore larger issues about who should have the power to censor in a democratic society.

Insightful and fresh, Transaction Denied exposes this new and alarming form of censorship and offers a path forward by advocating for communities affected by financial exclusion and calling for more transparency of our financial systems.

Rainey Reitman

Rainey is an experienced digital rights advocate who has blogged about financial exclusion and its impact on speech for over ten years.

She currently serves as president of the board of Freedom of the Press Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of journalists. She also serves as a board member for the Filecoin Foundation for the Decentralized Web, and runs a strategy and retreat consulting service for mission-driven organizations called Groundwork Strategy. Rainey worked for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) for 11 years, first as their Activism Director and then as their Chief Program Officer. She also co-founded and served for six years as a steering committee for the Chelsea Manning Support Network.

Note that this is an independent research project unaffiliated with the above organizations.