Government Presents Its Arguments For Warrantless Cellphone Searches, Thinks Officer Discretion Will Prevent Abuse

Chase Bank Slutshames Their Adult Performer Customers

from the which-of-them-is-more-dirty? dept

Wed, Apr 30th 2014 7:43am — Timothy Geigner

Porn. It's what the internet is for, as they say. Also, it's very hard for some people to avoid. Entire governments, too. But what about the little people with big parts that make all this wonderfully ubiquitous smut possible? It's easy to forget about the hard (ahem) working individuals that make these small businesses and big industry spurt out their wares like (insert grossest applicable analogy here). And now it's apparently difficult for those mostly-young laborers to get paid, since some banks seem to have adopted a rather convenient moral code when it comes to who can open accounts with their institutions.

Chase Bank has reportedly sent out letters to hundreds of porn stars notifying them that their accounts would be closed on May 11. Teagan Presley confirmed to XBIZ that her personal account was one of the ones shut down.

“I got a letter and it was like please cancel all transactions, please fix your automatic pay account and make sure everything’s taken care of by May 11,” Presley told XBIZ. “I called them and they told me that because I am, I guess, public and am recognizable in the adult business, they’re closing my account. Even though I don’t use my account, it’s my personal account that I’ve had since I was 18, when it was Washington Mutual before Chase bought them out.”

In other words, Chase Bank is slutshaming adult performers and closing their personal accounts, whether those accounts are associated with the adult businesses in question or not. It's apparently something of a morality play. That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America, but I'd say it's an interesting move by the same bank that has, among other transgressions: financed the Nazis, engaged in fictitious trades, wrongfully foreclosed on active US soldiers, financed other Nazis, bankrupted American towns through changes in their debt-rate programs, violated the Sherman Act, refused to return funds to Jewish families that were victims of those same Nazis they financed, lied to people trying to finance automobiles, and financed the damned Nazis. To invoke a morality clause with all of that on one's resume would be a bit like having Donald Sterling fire an employee for being racist.

Unfortunately, because the banking industry appears to have rules all its own, it's unclear whether anything can be done about this kind of blatant discriminatory policy.

Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi told XBIZ that Chase and other banks have “notoriously closed adult accounts or people in the industry’s accounts, but nothing like this.”

Whether legal recourse for those whose accounts were nixed is plausible — and, if so, which path is optimal — remains unclear, given that the situation is novel and that banks generally have the prerogative to do business with who they choose (yes, that often means flagrant discrimination).

And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well. That would mean they need to be paying far greater repercussions for their transgressions than the wrist-slapping they've experienced thus far.

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: adult film stars, bank accounts, morality, porn
Companies: chase bank, jpmorgan chase

117 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 7:51am

Times are changing
"And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well."

I am not sure that is true anymore. The recent story of the bakery that did not want to make the wedding cake for the gay couple says that you cannot make that choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: Times are changing
  In that case, the bakery violated non-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a cake for gay customers.
  
  The bakery opened itself to the public. It had to play by the same rules (i.e. follow the same laws) as all other public accomodations. It did not and got smacked down for its discrimination as a result.
  
  There exists no law that prohibits a business from discriminating against customers on the basis of said customers' choice of career.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GeneralEmergency (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re: Times are changing
    .
    
    So if I were a Gay porn star, Chase would not have been able to close my banking account?
    
    Do have have any clue how absurd this "sexuality based discrimination" argument sounds to rational ears?
    
    .
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Times are changing
      Chase couldn't legally close your account because of your sexual orientation (so long as you lived in a state with proper non-discrimination laws).
      
      Chase could legally close your account because you did porn and it doesn't want to associate with porn stars. Whether you starred in straight or gay porn doesn�t much matter.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re: Times are changing
    "There exists no law that prohibits a business from discriminating against customers on the basis of said customers' choice of career."
    
    Only until a judge says otherwise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Times are changing
      That's the problem with the American people. They let judges, courts, and government determine their lives and choices. "Well, the court said...and we can't go against that". Bull. They can, but they're just too yellow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Times are changing
        "They let judges, courts, and government determine their lives and choices."
        
        Yeah, some do, but a large (and increasing) number of people don't at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Times are changing
    What about "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - S. T. Stone, 1 May 2014 @ 2:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Times are changing
      Public accomodations must all play by the same rules in regards to non-discrimination laws.
      
      If you open a hotel in an area where laws prevent you from discriminating against gay people, you must either allow gay people to rent rooms or prepare to pay fines for flaunting the law.
      
      And besides, civil rights laws such as non-discrimination ordinainces don't exist for minorities. They exist to remind the majority that minorities count as people and deserve all the same protections of law.
      
      A business owner could refuse service to anyone, sure. But making a pattern out of refusing specific groups of people won't help when it comes to legal matters. Neither will admitting to discrimination under the guise of �freedom of religion�. When your doors open to the public, you either serve the whole public or you face the consequences.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gay Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:29am
  
  Re: Times are changing
  Not really the same thing.. being gay (or straight) is not the same as being a porn star: one's an identity and the other is an occupation.
  
  Turning away business based solely on one's identity (man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, and inexplicably/weirdly, religious affiliation) is increasingly illegal. Turning away business based on one's occupation or business (e.g. Western Union not accepting business from adult industry, this) remains legal (and entirely dumb).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Times are changing
  Perhaps Chase should keep a closer eye on its executives then. After all, if it wants to hold itself up as a moral paragon (HA!, then it must abide by its own policies.
  
  Oh, wait...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:01am

Time for an SOS campaign.
Support Our Sluts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:42am
  
  Re:
  SOSOBS - Support our sons of bitches.
  
  Seriously, what a bunch of hypocrites. I'm glad I don't bank with them. If we spread the word and encourage everyone else to move their accounts, perhaps they'll change their censorious ways.
  
  To be honest, I'm down with people choosing who they will or won't serve*, but these are lying, conniving, Nazi-lovin', hypocritical douchebag people and they need to be called on it.
  
  *Where there's enough competition so it's their loss. "Freedom" to me means the freedom to be a jerk � but not to be allowed to get away with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:06am

"So if I were a Gay porn star, Chase would not have been able to close my banking account?"

No, they could still close the account due to you being a porn star, just not for being gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:12am

Credit Unions?
The less people use the standard banking system and move to credit unions, the better. These mega rich for profit banks have got to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Credit Unions?
  Still need to stop the government from supporting the failed bank system, but yes, a mass exodus to credit unions would be a great start.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: Credit Unions?
  The less people use the standard banking system and move to Bitcoin, the better. These mega rich for profit banks have got to go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Credit Unions?
    This is the general public we are talking about trying to convince to move. Baby steps will likely need to be taken.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:14am

Stretching it much?
That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America

Love how to try to link Christians to this move and then name all sorts of things the bank has done that is not Christian in the least. Seems like you have taken a page right out of the left wing playbook. Fortunately the whole name calling by the left is starting to lose its impact. Seems if you cry wolf enough, people start ignoring you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: Stretching it much?
  Er, I meant conservative in terms of moral values, not politics. Swing and a miss....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re: Stretching it much?
    Yes, I know that, you bash conservatives and Christians every chance you get. Notice I didn't even mention conservatives in my statement? Almost feel bad for you that you allow something you don't even believe in to stick in your craw so much. But that is how it goes for bigots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Some antimalwareguy, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
      You don't need to be a Christian to be conservative hack or have you been living under a rock for the last decade?
      
      Deflect much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        No deflection here, he mentioned conservatives and religious people and based on his past writings we know he means Christians.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Psst. Other religions can have conservative leanings, and Christians can have liberal leanings.
        
        You would do well to strengthen your arguments before you make them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Sorry your reading comprehension is lacking, but notice I said that his swipe at "conservatives and religious people" is a thinly veiled reference to Christians as can be surmised by his frequent comments about them in his articles and comments to his articles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        �Conservatives and religious people� exist as two separate groups. One can exist without the other. That doesn�t make his comment on those two groups (one with an actual basis in reality, considering how often members of both groups tend to demonize pornography) bigoted. It merely points out the reality that members of those groups might now respect Chase for de-linking itself from porn (in a roundabout way).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Yes, so they will suddenly admire Chase and move their accounts there while ignoring all the other things Chase has done and/or is doing? You and Tim are trying to make a link that doesn't exist due to your own bigoted views.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Yes, so they will suddenly admire Chase and move their accounts there while ignoring all the other things Chase has done and/or is doing?
        
        Such a thing happening lies within the realm of possibility. Never underestimate people and their ability to rationalize.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Let me see if I understand you...Tim is bigoted because Chase bank is doing something that would appear to appeal to conservatives/Christians (who typically would side against anything porn-related)?
        
        I'd imagine the same rationalization that allows them to believe a magical man lives in the sky allows for that conclusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        "I'd imagine the same rationalization that allows them to believe a magical man lives in the sky allows for that conclusion."
        
        "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clark
        
        Do tell, where is that line drawn?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        The line is drawn when someone posts a quote that does NOTHING to detract from my statement, yet thinks it does.
        
        If I need further explaining: a quote from Arthur Clark doesn't change the fact that Christians basically believe in a magical man in the sky.
        
        If you don't like the analogy, then feel free to change your story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Wow, way to completely and utterly miss the point. I would explain it, but you obviously have no intellect capable of encompassing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Ummm, I'm an atheist...if you think some quote is going to make me rethink my lack of beliefs, then I think it's YOU that have missed the point.
        
        But again, feel free to dispute anything I said about believing in a magical man in the sky...funny how you mention lack of intellect while promoting a belief that has ZERO foundation in science.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        "Ummm, I'm an atheist...if you think some quote is going to make me rethink my lack of beliefs, then I think it's YOU that have missed the point.
        
        But again, feel free to dispute anything I said about believing in a magical man in the sky...funny how you mention lack of intellect while promoting a belief that has ZERO foundation in science."
        
        I'm not doing any such thing. I'm asking a valid question. Where is the line between "super advanced tech" and "magical man in the sky?" But you go right on ahead with your foaming anti-god screed, missing the point entirely, as you seem to have your agenda fixed in attacking anything that might even be slightly related to religion at the expense of any reason, arguments, or conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Where is the line between "super advanced tech" and "magical man in the sky?"
        
        The ability to PROVE what you're seeing is real.
        
        Protip: Don't discuss religion AND use the words "reason" "arguments" or "conversation" - religion allows for NONE of these.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        James Jensen (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        "Protip: Don't discuss religion AND use the words "reason" "arguments" or "conversation" - religion allows for NONE of these."
        
        This would come as quite a surprise to Thomas Aquinas. You may have heard of him: he wrote some fairly lengthy books about religion that were full of arguments and reasoning.
        
        Protip: Don't tell people discussing a topic what they can and can't say about it when you don't know what you're talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 5:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Wow...another "thinker" who fell for the "if I have someone to quote, it must make my argument sound.."
        
        Aquinas, like many Christian "philosophers" STARTS with God, and bases any further thoughts on that premise. That's not an argument, has no basis in reason, and steers the conversation based on a faulty premise.
        
        Bertrand Russell: Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.
        
        Seems like you were in such a hurry to quote him, that you fell for his argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        That contrast and question makes no sense whatsoever on two counts. First, there is no evidence of any kind of magic (or sufficiently advanced technology) being in play in the first place. So the contrast is really comparing two things that only exist in people's imaginations.
        
        Second, the implication you're making with that contrast is that God is not, in fact, magical and is just a being who is using incredibly advanced technology. In which case he's not actually a god at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Victim much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Baron von Robber, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        I have no problem pointing out that most conservative Christians are notorious hypocrites.
        
        As a disputed quote that I like, "I like Christ, I don't like Christians. So many Christians are so unlike Christ" - Gandhi
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        So you're attacking him based on your mind-reading skills rather than what he actually said. Good to know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
      "Yes, I know that, you bash conservatives and Christians every chance you get."
      
      Well, I have a lot of chances, since I'm married to a wonderful Catholic woman, who doesn't seem to think that's true....
      
      "Notice I didn't even mention conservatives in my statement?"
      
      Um, you said I was leftwing, indicating I was attacking the right wing. But, ooooooh, you so got me? Mmmm, no....
      
      "Almost feel bad for you that you allow something you don't even believe in to stick in your craw so much."
      
      Interesting. Since you seem to know, please tell me exactly what it is that I believe?
      
      "But that is how it goes for bigots."
      
      What have I said that's bigoted?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Its your pattern of attack on Christians that indicates you are a bigot. I have been reading this blog for several years and used to really enjoy it. In fact, I have come about 180 degrees since reading here and have greatly revised my views of patent and copyright law. But constantly reading articles, most especially yours, that take swipes at Christians and linking them to things where no links exist is tiring and it shows your true colors.
        
        Please, by all means, continue but you do realize you are no better than the people you claim to be against and for the very same reasons why you claim to be against them. You are only a hypocrite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Yes, because conservatives and religious groups (Christian or otherwise) have never once decried pornography or its �supporters�.
        
        Not once.
        
        Ever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Sure they have, but there was nothing in this article to indicate they have done that here. So linking them to this in some made up way is just his bigoted attack on them.
        
        By the way, what would you say about your daughter saying she wants to be a porn start or move to Nevada and become a legal prostitute? It is all well and good to talk a big game, but let your daughter attempt this and that conversation will go completely differently. Careful, your hypocrisy is showing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Ah, the old �what would you say in this situation� trick. The last gasp of a dying argument.
        
        You felt offended at a tiny implication that conservatives and religious groups like companies that don't link themselves to porn. You blew a single comment way out of proportion. You would probably do well to examine your own biases and your own hypocrisy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Ah, not answering the question, the last gasp of a lost argument. Decry a group for your dislike of their stance against these things while disproving of your loved ones participating in these things. Hypocrisy proven.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Decry a group for your dislike of their stance against these things while disproving of your loved ones participating in these things.
        
        I don�t decry conservatives or religious groups for disliking porn. Let �em. Their position doesn�t matter to me unless they try to criminalize porn.
        
        And I didn�t say if I�d approve of my loved ones participating in porn because I don�t need to say if I would. That has nothing to do with the fact that a not-zero number of conservatives and members of religious groups often disapprove of porn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        And I didn�t say if I�d approve of my loved ones participating in porn because I don�t need to say if I would.
        
        Of course you didn't answer the question because we already know the answer. So it makes you no different, except the hypocrisy part, than the religious groups.
        
        That has nothing to do with the fact that a not-zero number of conservatives and members of religious groups often disapprove of porn.
        
        And a non-zero number of liberals, non-religious, etc disapprove as well. But we didn't see them linked in here, did we? Which was my whole point which you seem to completely miss.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Of course you didn't answer the question because we already know the answer.
        
        I don�t see how you know. You don�t know me on a personal level and I never said what I felt on the subject. Unless you have psychic powers, you can�t know based on my refusal to answer your hypothetical.
        
        And a non-zero number of liberals, non-religious, etc disapprove as well. But we didn't see them linked in here, did we?
        
        I hear about conservatives and religious groups decrying porn all the time (up to and including the desire to ban/criminalize all porn). I don't hear as much about liberals and agnostics/atheists doing the same. I know people in the latter situation exist, but those people don�t often try to enforce their disapproval of porn on others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dc, 16 May 2014 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        You should know by now that you can never win an argument against a conservative. They just keep throwing back more and more nonsensical arguments at you, ad infinitum. They have perfected the art of living within their own little anti-reality, fact-free force field that has no room whatsoever for any kind of rational discussion. I would just quit responding with rational responses before the poor guy has an aneurysm trying to come up with his next ridiculous point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        "Ah, not answering the question, the last gasp of a lost argument."
        
        Shit, man, welcome to Techdirt. You just described nearly every AC and detractor here. They almost never have an actual *argument*, just complaints, ad homs, strawmen, bad analogies, and personal attacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PRMan, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Right. This article is like saying that a restaurant is adding fried chicken to the menu and Dark Helmet making a thinly-veiled comment to "for people of a more colorful persuasion" (ie blacks).
        
        He does it all the time (about conservative Christians) and I agree it's tiresome.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        He split them up, as they are separate but overlapping groups. If he'd wanted to directly malign them, I'm sure he'd have been very specific.
        
        Also, beams in eyes and all that. When Religious or Conservative types stop judging others, they can complain about being judged themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        I'm basically conservative, PRMan. However, the Far Right has managed to take control of the conservative narrative and have positioned themselves and their views as actual conservatism, as opposed to radical right-wing authoritarianism, which it is.
        
        Therefore, since I know that he's actually referring to Far Right authoritarians, not to moderates like me, I'm not offended. Unless you're of the "What War On Women?" persuasion (which I doubt), there's no reason for you to be offended.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Actually he doesn't attack Christians. He once called me his "favourite Christian on the internet".
        
        He attacks people who misunderstand what Christianity is about.
        
        In this case the relevant text is from St Matthew's Gospel Ch 5:
        
        "44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
        
        45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
        
        46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?"
        
        Clearly implying that regardless of how much you may disapprove of what someone does denying service to them is not an option.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Thanks, Richard, and you are indeed my favorite Christian on the internet, next to my wife.
        
        I'll further note that I didn't mention Christians at all in the article. My, the opportunistically offended sure are crazy....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Yep. *Buys you a beer*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Baron von Robber, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Not Christians, just twits like you who for some unknown reason, call yourself Christians (as if you actually represent them as a whole. Clue: you don't)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        I hope you treat your wife with more respect than you do your religious readership. I can about bet you make snide comments to her constantly about her religious beliefs all the while feeling smug that you are somehow better than the religous nutjobs.. That kind of mental abuse is not funny, its not clever, its not witty, its cruel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        Oh, yes, I abuse my wife all the time. Nice smear job, there, chief.
        
        And my wife is a talented, intelligent, moral and religious person. If I were making snide comments and "abusing" her mentally, she'd first kick my ass in an argument and then leave me, as she should in that scenario.
        
        Fortunately, not all of us that have a version of faith are as ignorant and morally repugnant as you. It would taint all people of faith if we were. We are not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        And you need to treat the rest of humanity with some respect. Even Jesus had more compassion for prostitutes than you do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Trails (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        You've clearly been holding a lot of this in for quite a while. Do you need a hug?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        "But that is how it goes for bigots."
        
        What have I said that's bigoted?"
        
        You said something that disagreed with his worldview. That makes you a de facto bigot, especially on the internet. Just be glad he didn't Godwin you as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?
        > Well, I have a lot of chances, since I'm married to a wonderful Catholic woman
        
        He said "bash" not... oh, forget it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Stretching it much?
    You fool, politics and morality are on the same, single dimension.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PeriSoft, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: Stretching it much?
  Hey, they just said 'conservative / religious factions', not Christians. They could have been referring to anybody.
  
  It's not Techdirt's problem that you automatically associate intolerance and hypocritical self-righteousness with Christians. And that strikes me as quite a prejudiced and unfair view; if I were Christian I'd be quite offended!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: Stretching it much?
  I'm pretty sensitive to anti-Christian sentiment. I get annoyed when I try to disown bad actors and have the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy thrown at me for it.
  
  I don't buy that because using it is an appeal to authority and a genetic fallacy. It also assumes a low bar for entry, but that's another issue. However, Tim didn't mention Christians. Not even once. So don't get your panties in a wad.
  
  There's a multiplicity of conservative-minded religious groups in America, many of which are not Christian and many of which are politically active. You might find yourself rubbing shoulders with them at an anti-porn rally, or something, one day.
  
  The funny thing is, it's likely that many of the most apparently hardcore people there will turn out to bet the most frequent users of some very nasty stuff. Seriously, don't get me started on right wing hypocrisy. As the Liberals say, "Don't like it, don't use it." I don't always agree with them but I think that's fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:14am

For an organization that did business with Nazis, you'd think that they wouldn't care where their money was coming from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:19am

How could you turn away a customer so hot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zip, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:19am

odd legal quirk
Something I've never understood is how prostitution can be illegal -- unless it it being filmed. However, this "rule" seems to work both ways, depending on the situation. Filming a not-illegal act between consenting minors is a crime (as teenage "sexters" have surprisingly discovered) but with adult prostitutes, the exact opposite happens.

But then maybe the difference between what's legal and what's illegal depends, as usual, on who is throwing money at politicians, judges, and lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: odd legal quirk
  Something I've never understood is how prostitution can be illegal -- unless it it being filmed.
  
  Doesn�t prostitution have only one �paid� party (the prostitute), whereas porn producers pay all participants?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re: odd legal quirk
    The guys usually get paid with pussy
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: odd legal quirk
  From what I've heard, supposedly paying people to have sex in porn videos is legal as long as the person paying isn't one of the people having sex. Otherwise it's suddenly prostitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re: odd legal quirk
    ...and if they are jerking-off....Prostitution again?
    
    Don't forget, one in the hand is worth two in the bush!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zip, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: odd legal quirk
    "From what I've heard, supposedly paying people to have sex in porn videos is legal as long as the person paying isn't one of the people having sex. Otherwise it's suddenly prostitution."
    
    Jenna Jameson got away with it. She owned the production company, signed the paychecks, as well as fornicated with the people she paid in a quid-pro-quo arrangement. That would seem to fit the very definition of "prostitution" -- unless maybe women can't legally be charged as "johns"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:26am

How is it shaming?
Wouldn't shaming require this to be done in public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someantimalwareguy, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:29am

erm...screw chase...
...and take your business elsewhere. I am certain there is another bank out there who would be more than happy to...ah...service your needs at a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:34am
  
  Re: erm...screw chase...
  Was that pun in your title intended? (:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christenson, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:31am

Motivation -- Where is Chase going next? China?
Look, you've got a bunch of amoral whatevers running the bank...which *ought* to be declared a place of public accomodation...calling morality of a rather peculiar form.

Remind me to keep my sex life and toys completely separate from my bank!

So what might they achieve by this? Are there really a bunch of Christian wingnuts that are suddenly going to do business with them? Quick, someone show me I'm wrong! But China *IS* busy having a porn crackdown...so this looks awful good to the chinese...or the saudis...or a big republican, like the next president of the US? who is it being buttered up for the big kill???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buster (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:43am

Husband orgies and un-well known "stars"
My first thought was Chase is trying to come off as a squeaky clean family oriented bank.

Then I thought "Who's really out there researching bank account information and says 'oh no porn stars use this bank, my husband might walk in there and end up in an orgy.'" I mean, REALLY??

My final thought was "I guess the girls in porns who STILL have their Chase accounts and DIDN'T obtain these letters are realizing how unknown they actually are"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Husband orgies and un-well known "stars"
  oh no porn stars use this bank, my husband might walk in there and end up in an orgy
  
  You, sir, have just come up with a plot idea for a new film.
  
  I would suggest "Chaste" as the name of the bank.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 5:01am
    
    Re: Re: Husband orgies and un-well known "stars"
    "Hi, I'm here to open an account. ;>"
    *BOW CHICKA BOW WOW*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:52am

I haven't seen any news of porn producers having their accounts shut down yet. I'm assuming that is because they actually have some money in theirs.

My plan to take the high morality road would not be to add another hardship to the people most likely to have been exploited by the porn industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:18am

How do they know?
How on earth does Chase know whether or not someone is an adult performer? I assume performers would not be opening accounts under their stage name. Is there some division of Chase where the employees watch massive amounts of porn trying to recognize their customers, and if so, can I get a job there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Un (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re: How do they know?
  All three porn stars stupid enough to go into business using their real name deserve to be abruptly kicked from the ethical pinnacle that is JPMorgan Chase's branch of the International Money Fuckery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:20am

Hah, if it happens here it'll be a judicial shitstorm. Prejudice is a no-go from the start for the law. The best they could try is to deny serving those customers based on something wrong they did to the institution (ie: not paying their debt on time and things like that) but for working in the porn industry? Hell no, not a valid excuse for a public place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  "Prejudice is a no-go from the start for the law."
  
  That's not actually true. Certain, specifically listed types of prejudice is no-go (race, religion, gender, etc.) but anything that's not in the list is perfectly legal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeeAitch (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 4:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Certain, specifically listed types of prejudice is no-go (race, religion, gender, etc.) but anything that's not in the list is perfectly legal.
    
    You are correct when speaking of the USA. I believe Ninja is not from the US (Brazil, maybe?).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:45am

Did you just compare adult industry employees to Nazis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  Did you just compare adult industry employees to Nazis?
  Yes, but not in a bad way. Article poster says the bank served Nazis, but refuses to serve porn stars. The obvious implication is that the bank thinks porn stars are worse than Nazis, and the article poster disagrees. By the same token, I could say that construction workers are not worse than Nazis. Neither are accountants, or food service workers, or any of a huge number of professions that people legally conduct on a regular basis. Yet the bank has taken the position that it will decide, based on criteria that it is legally permitted (obligatory http://xkcd.com/1357/ - read the title text) to discriminate on, that it will decline service to these people. That's legal, but it's not good business. Worse, it sets a precedent for their account managers to close accounts based on criteria other than what is best for the business. Today they refuse to maintain accounts for people who work in porn. Maybe tomorrow they decide to refuse accounts to people who regularly buy pornographic movies/videos, or who make purchases at known sex toy retailers. Or maybe they decide to get involved in politics and refuse accounts to people who support causes that the account managers oppose. Even if you like all these ideas, do you also like the idea that your account gets flagged for closure because it made a transaction that the bank incorrectly decided matched one of the new "evil" transaction types? Perhaps you had a transaction with a group whose name is too similar to a blacklisted entity, even though the actual vendor is one the bank likes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re:
  No, he compared the treatment of adult industry employees by a bank to the treatment of Nazis by the same bank. Reading comprehension is your friend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HegemonicDistortion (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:16am

Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
This is thought to be part of DOJ and other agencies' Operation Choke Point.

Here are a couple of articles about it:
�Operation Choke Point� harmful to flow of commerce
DOJ's 'Operation Choke Point' May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings

To see the list of may be a "high risk" account, see this page from the FDIC (scroll down about halfway). It includes many legal but "socially undesirable" operations, as:
Ammunition Sales
Coin Dealers
Dating Services
Drug Paraphernalia
Get Rich Products
Money Transfer Networks
PayDay Loans
Pornography
Racist Materials
Telemarketing
Tobacco Sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
  Coin dealers? Dating services? What the hell?
  
  Even telemarketers seems out of place on that list, as much as I hate them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HegemonicDistortion (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:44am
    
    Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
    Exactly. Also "racist materials" and "pornography" are both "speech" protected by the First Amendment (regardless of how abhorrent the former may be).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
    I hate to defend the government here, but in the larger context of the linked page, those entries make a perverse sort of sense. Most dating services will not involve you visiting a specific store to fill in the application and pay for membership, but would be done online or possibly over the phone. Coin dealers might have a store presence, but again could operate without any face-to-face interaction. In the context of businesses which conduct their business remotely and offer a product that could be easily misrepresented, dating services (maybe it only offers a very limited number of first dates per month, or misleads about how many potential contacts are within reasonable travel distance) and coin dealers could legitimately be included there. I wouldn't knowingly sign up for a dating service that had almost all its members located hundreds of miles from where I normally go. Meeting those members would be too inconvenient.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 12:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
      But what is it about those businesses that causes them to be singled out? Lots of online-only businesses exist that aren't in that list, so it's not a matter of whether or not there's a physical store. The whole thing reeks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HegemonicDistortion (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
        And now I can't open up an account for my new online store, PMFUK.com (that's Precious Moments Figurines and Unicorn Kisses you filthy-minded bastard!).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point
  "To see the list of may be a "high risk" account, see this page from the FDIC (scroll down about halfway). It includes many legal but "socially undesirable" operations, as:
  Ammunition Sales
  Coin Dealers
  Dating Services
  Drug Paraphernalia
  Get Rich Products
  Money Transfer Networks
  PayDay Loans
  Pornography
  Racist Materials
  Telemarketing
  Tobacco Sales"
  
  Wait! How about my bribes taking Congressman?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthem1 (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:36am

Original story on Reason.com
There is a story on Reason that implicates government pressure to the banks as a impetus for this action.

link here: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/QkJkGVaPUCg/doj-operation-chokepoint-and-porn-sta rs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:09am

So legal = moral?
The implication in this action is that Chase will discriminate as it pleases, so long as doing so is legal.

Much like Abercrombie & Fitch not producing larger size because it only wants skinny people wearing their clothes.

Chase believes it is acceptable for it to discriminate if it doesn't like your career.

What's to stop them from discriminating against unattractive people?
...or jobless people?
...or crazy people?
...or gun-owners?
...or people recovering from drug problems?
...or people with poor driving records?
...or gamers?
...or goths?
...or furries?
...or bronies?
...or people who are opinionated on the internet?

There are countless fringe groups, minorities and countercultures that are not popular with the mainstream but are not specifically protected by our anti-discrimination laws. Just because it is legal to refuse them business doesn't mean it is moral or ethical.

Seems there's a lot of confusing those sets, what is legal and what is right.
As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States
This post does not contain an encrypted secret message.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
pea indian hostpital padlock entrance fever crisps cockroach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: So legal = moral?
  unattractive people?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dc, 16 May 2014 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re: So legal = moral?
  Ah... there we go. Now we have a post that points out something that will drive the people on one side of this argument nuts. So, let's say a big bank, whose pres and upper management just happen to be in favor of strict control laws (never mind the fact that there probably doesn't and would never exist such a bank, it's called an a-na-lo-gy people), decide to close the accounts of anyone who writes a check to a gun dealer to buy an assault rifle? Or more than a certain amount of ammo at a time? Ohhhhhhhh... There we go. NOW the same peeps who are defending the bank's doing this to adult performers, would be out in the streets demanding that bank president's head. mmm-hmmm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:50pm

Cash
For all the talk about how cash is going away and online payments systems are much more convenient, this shows exactly why cash will never be gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:19pm

Chase teaching morals? Wow.

Is doing any other then missionary position is also disqualifying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NoahVail (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:11pm

Chase is massive, corrupt institution.
Anyone with an ounce of ethical backbone is already avoiding them.

It's the stripper's own fault for not moving her accounts to a smaller bank years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:15pm

I have to say I don't really have a problem with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 4:21pm

Wonder?
I wonder if that is also, IF' you OWN them money..
OR is there a CLAUSE to cover them for refusing services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rita Real, 1 May 2014 @ 4:13am

Let's See Chase's Real Colors
Tonight the execs at Chase can go to Comcast and watch "Teen Moms Love 12 Inches" or any of a few dozen cultural flicks. Lets see if they send a letter to Comcast saying your account is closed. One must ask what is worse "Earning a few bucks acting in these films" or "Pushing it over the internet to millions of viewers"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 4:58am

Huh, I always thought porn stars used sperm banks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan G Difino, 1 May 2014 @ 5:56am

666 Banking Morality
Some banks just have too much money apparently. Do those who hold the big stock in their hands want this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: 666 Banking Morality
  That really sucks for those porn stars..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ta, 1 May 2014 @ 9:25am

50 billion in fines is not exactly a wrist slap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:38am

small businesses and big industry spurt out their wares like (insert grossest applicable analogy here)

...performers in swap.avi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 11:01am

I'm glad I closed my Chase account
I'm actually happier at my credit union anyway.

Even if Chase weren't a hypocritical, megalomaniacal, criminal organization, they're still an awful bank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 2 May 2014 @ 6:46am

2600+ Uses of 'Slutshames' on TechDirt?!?!
Awesome!

No wait, boooo... the sites' search indexer is indexing every page where this story appeared at least once under Essential Reading-> Hot Topics.

So 2600+ hits... of just this one article :S You should get your intern to fix that Mike, would make it much easier to find stuff on your site :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ercan mercan, 20 Jul 2017 @ 8:24am

webmaster forum
https://bonusum.com webmaster forum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]