Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
from the plug-pulled dept
The title of this post is from Rinze, who perfectly sums up the ridiculousness of MasterCard blocking any payment systems that are working with Wikileaks from allowing people to use its card. MasterCard's excuse is even more ridiculous than Paypal, Amazon and others. Rather than drudging up some sort of "terms of service violation," MasterCard is now just making stuff up:MasterCard said it was cutting off payments because WikiLeaks is engaging in illegal activity. "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal," spokesman Chris Monteiro said.That's nice, but last we checked, for something to be found guilty of illegal activity, first they have to be charged and tried, and only after a court decides it's illegal, is it actually considered illegal. To date, Wikileaks hasn't been even charged with anything, let alone found guilty. Apparently MasterCard isn't a big believer in due process either. It's actually very unlikely that Wikileaks actually has done anything illegal. It is against the law to leak such documents but publishing those documents is still protected activity. Except to MasterCard.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, mastercard, wikileaks
Companies: mastercard, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So True. So True. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Visa..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As much as it pains me to agree with a (effing) coward, AC does bring up a valid point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If anything Mastercard is the one trying to blur those lines. They are saying they dropped Wikileaks for "legal" reasons, which is clearly not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Private business
Has he been sued in a US court or are you just making stuff up again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business
He hasn't, but this brings up a new question in the world of emerging digital currency. Doesn't it make sense that we'll need to see a series of lawsuits that will likely result in regulatory legislation on these types of companies? Credit is one thing, but with all of the advances in currency-less transactions, there needs to be some security built around how those transactions are handled and what those facilitating those transactions are allowed and not allowed to do....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business
Are you being purposely naive?
Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business
yeeeeeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private business
If Assange is charged and convicted of a crime, even subsequent to the statement, well then the truth could be MCs defense. Also, it is hard to argue that Assange/Wikileaks would not be considered a person/organization that has voluntarily put themselves out to the public. Could such a statement as "engaging in illegal activity" be considered an opinion? A legal conclusion? A fair criticism by a non-attorney?
The fact that MC failed to name the crime does not matter. It could still not be a libelous statement. Non-lawyers who speak critically about organizations that put themselves voluntarily out there, need not have accurately named the crime before any charging documents have been filed to have a defense against libel for a statement that after the fact turns out to be true. I am sure MC has many lawyers reviewing any public statements regarding this issue.
Many countries, not just the US are talking of charging Assange with a crime, not to mention, he is awaiting extradition to Sweden for a (likely bogus) crime. MC is considering Assange and Wikileaks as one in the same.
I don't believe this is a due process issue, as MC as a private business has the right to engage in business activity with whomever or whichever entity they please.
Free speech and freedom of the press have their limitations when it comes to the "protection of vital national security interests". I suppose the US may charge Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act which makes it a crime for an "unauthorized person" to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
I hate to say it but Assange has an uphill battle. He's screwed. He has pissed off one to many foreign governments for them to let this one go. Ugh.
At least the debate will continue, because it is an important one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Private business
> subsequent to the statement
Statements aren't libel if they *might* come true in the future? I call bullsh!t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This issue is with their given reason that wikilieaks is engaged in "illegal activity". This is a flat out lie. Wikilieaks has not even been charged with anything "illegal", let alone convicted. The government can't even figure out which law they could be charged under.
Does Mastercard know better? Can they point to a law on the books to back up their assertion that Wikileaks is illegal? No. So hiding behind that is a blatantly dishonest PR move. If they want to drop Wikileaks, it's well within their rights, but we don't have to sit here and accept them passing the buck and pretending its about "law" when in fact it is about them voluntarily and arbitrarily discontinuing a client's service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But what MC has done here is to allege a contractual violation without basis in fact. Wikileaks has not been convicted of a crime. It hasn't been charged. And despite all the bluster from Joe "McCarthy" Lieberman et.al., nobody has yet been able to even put up a half-convincing argument they might have committed a crime.
But let's suppose for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that they have. Then their newspaper partners, who have published the same material that Wikileaks has, have committed that same crime. Will MC be terminating its relationship with The New York Times? If not, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By giving the stated reason of "illegal activity" without there actually being illegal activity, they're opening themselves up for a breach-of-contract suit by Wikileaks. Assuming, of course, you can sue a service provider in an adhesion-contract situation. I know you can sue the crap out of an insurance company for cancelling for the wrong reason (or a reason without proof). Sounds similar to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions
Any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.
So if I'm accepting payments through Visa or Mastercard and I tweet: "Visa and Mastercard are rubbish", it is perfectly OK for them to terminate my account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps MC, PayPal, or any other private company currently being castigated should consider filing a Declaratory Judgment Action and force the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing except maybe Mike Huckabee waiting for him with a sniper rifle and a bullet with his name on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one said that Mastercard *cannot* do what they did. What we said is that the reason they have given for why they did what they did is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Severed the money flow to Wikileaks? All it takes is for one do-gooder to start accepting money through his Visa or Mastercard account. If this is a nobody I'm sure V/MC will have no qualms in terminating his account. However, if a well-known name such as Reporters without Borders, Amnesty International or let's say the Guardian or the New York Times started a temporary Wikileaks fund, would Visa/Mastercard have the cojones to cut them off?
There is one thing Visa/Mastercard have accomplished: by their own actions they have damaged the public's perception of their own brand. A number of bloggers have already identified a number of doubtful organisations V/MC have no problems handling funding for. And the unpalatable collusion between them and government is there for all to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: private business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent article by Glenn Greenwald on this matter
You can smell the stink of fear, can't you? Those in power are frightened out of their minds by this -- which is all the more reason that no matter what happens to Assange, no matter what happens to Wikileaks, this can't be stopped...short of shutting down the Internet, and even that will only work temporarily.
I'm still waiting for the New York Times, Le Monde, the Chicago Tribune, Die Welt, et.al. to step up to their responsibilities as (supposedly) journalists and get into the fight. They have money and lawyers: they should be the first to mirror Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technically...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: technically...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: technically...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you smash up someone's car in front of me, I'm perfectly free to decide you were doing something illegal and then refuse to do business with you. Everyone has that right, even companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the absence of a valid contract, sure. In the presence of a valid contract, I'm not so sure. (Of course I'm not sure, I'm not an attorney. We need an opinion from someone who is and who is appropriately familiar with contract law.)
But in this case, it's quite clear that MC is lying. Note that while they falsely alleged illegal activity, they failed to say what that illegal activity is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Using Mozilla Firefox is illegal.
See?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to state for the record..
I personally don't like the man. I feel he only does this to get attention. However, I will add, what he did I feel is morally right. I just don't like his motivation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want to state for the record..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want to state for the record..
I'm not saying there isn't still some pretty dubious stuff going on with Assange, but I'm a little tired of how the media has leapt on the "rape" bandwagon while offering almost no details.
The charges he faces and the Wikileaks question are two entirely separate issues. But the media is happy to tag every story about Wikilieaks with "founded by Julian Assange, who is wanted in connection with a rape allegation." You can't find his name more than 5 words away from the word "rape" anymore, and it's unfairly colouring people's perception of the much bigger and non-personal question of Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackmail
Er, no. Blackmail is when you threaten to release information unless you get some kind of undue benefit. Being allowed to live when you've done nothing illegal is not an undue benefit, it's a natural right....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blackmail
The fact is Assange is withholding sensitive information in exchange for his demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blackmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blackmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blackmail
Is it blackmail to threaten your children to spank them (or otherwise punish) if they misbehave? No... you expect good behavior in the first place.
So is he threatening punishment? Yup. Is it blackmail? Don’t think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackmail
I am pretty sure, if it were up to bullies like Joe Lieberman, mr. Assange would have already been iced.
Assange is right to protect himself against such risks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WikiLeaks next leak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikileaks is publishing, not stealing. Let's say it together, with meaning!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare and contrast
"Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.
The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are 'white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.'"
Now let's compare:
Wikileaks has: published documents for a few years
The Klan has: beaten, murdered, lynched, burned, raped for a century and a half.
Yet Visa and MC are happy to do business with the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compare and contrast
Awesome! What are the odds of this actually happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no company needs an excuse
Just the same as airlines can stop you from flying, if they think you have been drinking too much, or are acting in a way they do not like.
I run a business, I refuse clients all the time, I also have conditions of service, I will not provide my services unless they are willing to meet my requirements.
That might be they are required to pay me, or pay me in advance, or it might be that I just dont want to take on that person as a client..
It is not illegal for me to choose who I conduct by business with or why..
If I do not morally agree with something (like wikileaks) there is nothing stopping me from taking it upon myself, to make my company not have to deal with that thing I do not like.
Does that come as a surprise to you that companies can and do pick and choose who their clients are all the time, and that there is no legal requirement forcing a company from dealing with a specific client..
get over it. they can do what they like, and what you dont like..
Maybe you can tell wikileaks about it, and they can leak it as news..
Like the australian venom company that is supposed to be a critical facility for the US, but have not dealt with the US for well over 10 years, and makes anti-venom for Australian native snakes !!!.. (not many of them in the US BTW, in case you didn't know).
So the validity and accuracy of the material of wikileaks has now be placed into question, just as Julian's motives for leaking, and his reasons for not releasing all information, and censoring that information from us ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no company needs an excuse
Except for breaking a contract they entered in with their customer. Ask an insurance company who says "You know, I don't want to do business with you after all, so I'm not going to pay your claim". See how far that one flies.
I get what you're saying, and you're right... but you didn't factor in contractual obligations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no company needs an excuse
Yes. They can do what they like, and we might not like what they do.
WHICH IS WHY WE SPEAK UP ABOUT IT WHEN IT HAPPENS.
D'uh. A private company made a private decision that the public disagrees with, so the public takes to blogs and discussion boards and other media to question and criticize that decision.
It doesn't have to change their mind to be valuable. It's about getting the info and analysis out there. There are many people who, based on this news, need to question their relationship with Mastercard (or their plans for a future relationship) and so discussion is vital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no company needs an excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consistency
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That seems to go a bit far...
IMHO, as has been stated by other commenters, MC is a private company who can refuse, at any point, to cease doing business with any of its customers if it so chooses. The fact that my MC worked yesterday does not obligate MC to provide me service today nor tomorrow.
I don't think MC made a smart move here. But I don't see that they acted in any way outside of their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That seems to go a bit far...
If MC says that they are going to terminate a vendor contract on those grounds, I'd say that makes it the standard that they have to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
I don't think that's true. I'm quite certain that MC doesn't have to wait until a person is convicted of money laundering to cut off transactions on the card that's involved in the money laundering. They need merely suspect it. In fact, I suspect they can cut me off if they simply think I'm committing a crime.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Wikileaks shouldn't have access to credit. I'm just saying that it should be within the rights of every business to exercise whatever judgement it has on who it does business with. Businesses that are arbitrarily discriminatory will not last long in a competitive environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
Will Wikileaks sue? I have no idea. Were I them, I'd just make a very public campaign about unfair business practices by these companies and hit them where it hurts: their reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
In return for this, you get the right to stop using MC if they start doing things you don't like. What contract are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
But AFAIK, credit card companies don't operate under the terms of a fixed length contract but under terms that can be canceled by either party at any time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
Those cancellation terms are usually included... either party can request a termination of the contract. But it usually has to be done with notice. The problem here is that MC is citing a reason. If they cite a reason, it binds them to the accuracy of that reason. Otherwise, it's a breach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That seems to go a bit far...
No one's saying that MC *can't* do this. They absolutely can. What we're saying is that they're LYING about the reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
I guess I don't see the significance of this. Because hearing that a vendor is lying just doesn't strike me as that out of the ordinary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...
That said, there is still a difference between government malfeasance and private company malfeasance. I can freely withdraw my funding of the private company but I can not of government. As a result, I think reporting on government malfeasance is more important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"MasterCard blocking any payments working with Wikileaks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "MasterCard blocking any payments working with Wikileaks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "MasterCard blocking any payments working with Wikileaks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue their censoring asses
visa allows donations to KKK without a blink...but has to investigate criminal wrongdoing before allowing us to support a whistle-blowing investigative news organisation...
DataCell, who transfers credit card payments to wikileaks has already filed suit against these two hypocrits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sue their censoring asses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]