DOJ Morality Police May Be Behind Chase Closing Bank Accounts Of Adult Film Actors

from the choke-on-this-point dept

Thu, May 1st 2014 7:46am — Timothy Geigner

The Techdirt comments section is to thank for this one. After we just talked about Chase Bank appearing to close the personal bank accounts of a bunch of employees in the adult performing business, a few of you pointed us to reports that this may just be Chase Bank dancing to a federal piper. That report has expanded upon Teagan Presley, a former porn star, and her comments upon finding out she was suddenly no longer a Chase customer.

When Presley went to the bank in person to ask why, she was told it's because she's considered "high risk."

"And then they told me that they canceled my husband’s account too, because our social security numbers are linked," Presley told VICE News. "They told him that it was because I'm a notorious adult star. Which is funny, because I'm kind of a goody-goody in the business, and I'm not even doing porn anymore."

So, the obvious question to ask next is what makes her "high risk"? After all, Chase Bank really likes money, even when it is generated by doing some pretty crappy things, so what's the deal? Well, the latest is that this may be a part of the US Department of Justice's "Operation Choke Point" program, in which the government has apparently decided that some extremely legal businesses don't get to exist anymore, but since they can't just disappear companies and industries in good standing, they've decided to route around the whole "freedom" thing and get the financial industry to act as contract hitmen.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Thursday, American Bankers Association CEO Frank Keating wrote that the Justice Department is "telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges."

"Operation Choke Point is asking banks to identify customers who may be breaking the law or simply doing something government officials don't like," Keating wrote. "Banks must then "choke off" those customers' access to financial services, shutting down their accounts."

Keating said the highly secretive operation was launched in early 2013. That's when porn stars started to complain to the media that their bank accounts were being shut down without explanation.

Let's not mince words: a program that was built upon the goals of stopping financial fraud has devolved into a massive government overreach into private businesses that are operating within the law. The way it works is that the DOJ informs financial institutions that certain industries are more likely than others to be involved in unauthorized charges of consumer credit and bank cards. They likewise inform the banks that the DOJ is going to keep a special super-awesome close-eye on these industries, with the implication being that there will be a great deal of prosecutorial action, subpoenas, and scrutiny on those industries, not mention penalties on the institutions that work with them. The intention of the government, it would seem, is to make the banks unwilling to deal with the government harassment and simply cut anyone in those industries off from the financial institutions. Nobody is happy about this.

Even the former chairman of the FDIC, William Isaac, wrote in American Banker magazine this week that Operation Choke Point is "way out of control," adding that 23 bipartisan members of Congress wrote a letter to the DOJ stating that the operation is driving legal business into the ground. That includes banks themselves.

Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, wrote a letter to the Justice Department in early April, saying that Operation Choke Point makes it too tough for small community banks to compete with the big chains.

It's worse than that. The federal government is lording over legal industries operating within their respective states' laws and single-handedly directing banking institutions to cut their legs out from beneath them. It would be bad enough if we were just talking about business accounts, but personal accounts are getting swept up in this as well. That's how you end up with individual performers in the adult film industry suddenly finding themselves unable to open up a bank account. This is done, by the way, in the name of morality. It represents a violation of a free and legal marketplace by a government that has as much moral authority as can fit in a thimble.

And, no, it isn't just the porn industry we're talking about.

In 2011, the FDIC listed 30 "merchant categories that have been associated with high-risk activity," likening pornography to Ponzi schemes, racist materials, "lifetime guarantees," and sales of fireworks and tobacco. At a March hearing before a Senate Banking subcommittee, the Washington Post reported, Senator David Vitter (R-La.) said "there is a determined effort, from [the Justice Department] to the regulators... to cut off credit and use other tactics to force [payday lenders] out of business. I find that deeply troubling because it has no statutory basis, no statutory authority."

This should be terrifying to business owners in every industry. Sure, this time they're going after some companies that you may not like, be they porn, or payday lenders, or people making racist materials, tobacco, or fireworks. But if those industries are operating within the law, they have the right to exist. The law is the only measure by which the DOJ should be invoking banking policy. The federal government doesn't get to pick and choose which businesses exist outside of their legality. If the federal government wants to make porn illegal, they should try to do so. They won't get very far, but they should try. This underhanded attack on free enterprise is simply un-American.

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, banks, doj, government pressure, morality, operation choke point, porn stars
Companies: chase bank, jpmorgan chase

130 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

fogbugzd (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 6:21am

The feds are probably just practicing. Once they get the kinks out of the system, get the banks used the closing accounts on request, and get precedents set to "protect the children" then they can go after the real targets. Suspected copyright infringers are probably next. Then they can move on to political dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kenneth Michaels, 1 May 2014 @ 8:14am
  
  Porn Funds Terrorism
  Studies show that porn is funding terrorism, just as intellectual property theft (particularly copyright theft) is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kalvan (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
    Links please? Yes, I could Google it, however you made the statement and you should be able to support it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
      There won't be any links. Just another pro-administration fucktard trying to project the illusion, again, that the exception is somehow the rule.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
      I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - anti-tod, 1 May 2014 @ 12:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
      he's being a smartass. there is no corralation between the two, hes just drawing a line of similarity
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
    Studies show that many comments made on internet forums are simply delusional bullshit lacking any supporting evidence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 5:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
      Whoosh!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
        Is that the sound of Poe's Law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 1:01am
    
    Re: Porn Funds Terrorism
    "funding terrorism, just as intellectual property theft"
    
    If you count the RIAA/MPAA lawsuit settlements as "funding", this is technically true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 1 May 2014 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  Christians won't be far down the line. You can read all about it in Revelation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stephen (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Christians already are warned against usury in the Bible, but they keep using banks anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ruben, 1 May 2014 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's because they can do whatever they want as long as they ask for forgiveness afterward!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 4:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Usury (/juri/[1][2]) is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans intended to unfairly enrich the lender. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors, but according to some dictionaries, simply charging any interest at all can be considered usury.[3][4][5] Someone who charges usury can be called an usurer, but the more common term in English is loan shark.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Self righteous bankers, heh
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 4:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why would anyone persecute Christians except for being dickwads? The exact same goes for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, PETA, abortion-clinic bombers and Bundy-suckers.
    
    If Christians want someone like Pat Robertson, Rick Frothy or Fred Phelps to represent them, then you'll get all the 'persecution' you want (assuming you spell persecution as c-r-i-t-i-c-i-s-m). If you'd rather go the Mother Theresa/Pope Francis route, you will get less persecution than you do to the Muslims.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The best representative of Christians is Jesus Himself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701, 2 May 2014 @ 6:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > If Christians want someone like Pat Robertson,
      > Rick Frothy or Fred Phelps to represent them, then
      > you'll get all the 'persecution' you want
      
      Just curious how you think this actually works. It's not like Christians hold elections and decide who gets to be a pastor/minister/revered, etc.
      
      If I'm a perfectly normal non-hateful person who attends a mainstream Methodist church in, say, Boise, how the hell am I supposed to do something about Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), 3 May 2014 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed. Somehow, I'm sure this applies more broadly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BlackJack11, 5 May 2014 @ 6:59am
  
  Exactly--my guess would be the political dissenters are next.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - davidbarcomb, 25 Nov 2014 @ 9:23pm
    
    Re:
    True that
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 7:42am

If they are going to drive rogue businesses into the ground, why don't they start with the banks themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 1 May 2014 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  "If they are going to drive rogue businesses into the ground, why don't they start with the banks themselves?"
  
  Because they own the government. You don't go after your master, you go after everyone else at his behest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 2 May 2014 @ 6:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > Because the banks own the government. You don't go after your
    > master, you go after everyone else at his behest.
    
    That doesn't make sense. The article says the government is forcing the banks to do this under threat and coercion. If the banks own the government and are its master, how can that be?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 1 May 2014 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, wrote a letter to the Justice Department in early April, saying that Operation Choke Point makes it too tough for small community banks to compete with the big chains.
  
  Done. Get rid of industries you don't like AND drive out possible competition for "too big to fail bank". Nice little system they set up there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 7:57am

This underhanded attack on free enterprise is simply American.
Fixed, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 7:57am

OMG, we're becoming China. America is turning into a communist state!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 1 May 2014 @ 8:46am
  
  Re:
  More like a dictatorship. Or facist. Or totalitarian.
  
  Far from communism or socialism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    It does not matter whether an extreme government is left or right politically, or even a theocracy, they establish a totalitarian regime in which an oligarchy can thrive at the expense of everybody else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And because we've been convinced to fear "the left" or derivatives thereof, we're letting it happen. Ruben is right, we should call it what it really is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And because we've been convinced to fear "the left" or derivatives thereof, we're letting it happen. Ruben is right, we should call it what it really is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy, 1 May 2014 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  No, what we have is an Oligarchy of a few uber rich families. More like Russia than China but not as "in your face"...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yup - when around 25,000 people have more wealth than three-0quarters of the population, then there's a big problem waiting to happen. See also; Russia, circa 1910, China in the mid-1930s.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:47am
  
  Re: OMG, we're becoming China.
  Lol, If you are just now noticing, you have not been paying attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Nemesh, 1 May 2014 @ 11:44am
  
  Re: Communist? No, it's fascist.
  "The liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of the government by an individual, by a group." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 1:27am
    
    Re: Re: Communist? No, it's fascist.
    I understand now. Franklin D. Roosevelt's quote made it clear to me we're living in a fascist state, not a communist state.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to the progressive agenda. First up is to knock the US down a few notches, next is the complete control of the people. People have geen pointing out the agenda for years now hut most are to loyal to the party to see it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 4:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's actually the opposite of any 'progressive' I've known. They aren't the control freaks that the reactionary conservatives are. I know, go too far left and your into control-freaky Stalinism/Putinism, but all of that is really oligarchy gone mad.
    
    True centrist progressives (real centre, not your right-wing flavour) want to help the most people and actually improve people's lives, but are not so wedded to ideology that they would rather let people starve, die of preventable sickness, or be left begging if it breaks some obscure St Ronnie Raygun diktat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 7:57am

Money is speech according to the supreme court, and this seems like a great tactic for suppressing those with money that refuse to drink the government mandated kool-aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 7:57am

The banks hate regulation - any regulation. By characterizing this as "the government is making us," they get small business owners upset who go to their representatives asking them to roll back the regulation.

The selective enforcement of a regulation requiring them to not facilitate crime, wherein they only target legal vice at the business or contractor level gives them maximum return on their grassroots lobbying with minimal damages.

The government may be incompetent, but make no mistake that the executives at Chase are scum. Stories that point to this being the result of government interference just give them ammunition to peel back the minimal regulation they have been "burdened" with so they can continue to work financially with the really lucrative criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 8:19am
  
  Re:
  The big banks may be scum, but in this case, they are right.
  
  There is no reason to do this to porn stars.
  
  Pornography, sex and prostitutes have pre-dated and outlasted every society that has ever existed.
  
  Whether you like porn or not doesn't matter, this is going way too far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    My point is that the bank(s) are selectively enforcing the regulation for their own purposes to avoid harming their actual business. I don't see any headlines that the banks are closing the bank accounts of any actual criminals.
    
    The banks aren't right or correct in this as the government does have a legitimate interest in regulating that the banks not facilitate criminal activity. The banks are enforcing the rule in a way that causes them minimal damage but causes the most chance of public intervention on their behalf.
    
    I don't care who the banks choose to conduct business with. But allowing them to characterize this as government intervention allows them to set the conversation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 2:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If it was just criminals, that would be one thing.
      
      But porn stars aren't criminals last I checked.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2014 @ 3:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is true. What they are doing is not illegal, simply because a camera is involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2014 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thats because they break laws first then pass laws after.........which begs the question, is it legal or not
        
        The only law that binds me is natures law, not manufactured laws with agendas, that is too close to that road of tyrrany....not guaranteed tyrrany, mind you, just more fucking highly more likely....ahem......tyrrany
        
        Dont let my attempted jest remove how vigourously the current path our respective nations are going down, is pissing me off.......this is not going away, why do they argue and continue as if it even has a slight chance of it, which entail, pisses me off further...........I DONT LIKE THE THINGS YOU ARE DOING(respective gover), i dont give a shit that you dont give a shit that i give a shit, ill still not fucking like it......so.what you gonna do, prove our points, and then PR the shit out of it, oh wait, too late........oh, your not done.......well, thats kinda fucking obvious
        
        To community
        Forgive my agrevated language, if i may
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Doug, 3 May 2014 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: banks
  I'lll bet that tinfoil hat looks really good on you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2014 @ 7:11am
  
  Re:
  "minimal regulation"? Banks are among the most heavily regulated business entities in the nation.
  
  The problem is the regulations are directed toward maximizing government control for the benefit of favored cronies, financial institutions and of course, politicians.
  
  Many if not most large banks are effectively corrupt, but is not due to lack of regulations, but to the corruption of the government regulatory system itself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kenneth Michaels, 1 May 2014 @ 8:08am

Financial Cutoff
Don't forget that the FBI is a racketeering organization -
Article: "Is the FBI a Racketeering Organization" (Forbes)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/07/31/is-the-fbi-a-racketeering-organizat ion/

And, creating financial difficulty is also part of a larger scheme to target those the feds don't like -

Article: "How the Feds Disable Criminal Defense" (Forbes) http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/01/03/black-whitey-how-the-feds-disable-criminal- defense/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 8:24am

When are we going to eliminate blue from our country's colors?

The Eagle is quickly becoming another oppressive symbol such as the Hammer & Sickle and the Swastika.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2014 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  the real symbol for the real face in this time
  
  Feels like that flag needs a'making........probabably means theres a law against it, you know, because of the terrorism and the children, we cant have folks creating whatever the hell they like, that doesnt HARM anyone in a free country, what kinda country do folks think we live in? A free country?
  Pah!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 8:25am

"extremely legal businesses"

Help me out here: please provide some examples of 'regular' legal businesses and sorta-kinda legal businesses since I wasn't aware there was a distinction having been made.

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  He's merely emphasizing that these businesses, while possibly unsavory, are legal. They aren't committing any crimes, but are still being targeted by the DoJ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DonM, 2 May 2014 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Whereas, when the DoJ had actuall convicted criminals, they were turned loose.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  Extremely legal: you sell hammers. Hammers could be used in a crime, but are generally legal for everyone to possess (barring unusual court orders, etc.)
  Regular legal: you sell firearms pursuant to all the rules and restrictions of the various gun control acts. The gun could be used in a crime, and there exist people who are prohibited from buying the gun, but most people can buy it legally.
  Sorta-kinda legal: you sell tightly regulated explosives. Demolition workers have a legitimate need to buy from you, so your business is legally permitted to exist, but the state considers the explosives too dangerous to let arbitrary non-criminal citizens walk in and buy explosives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 1 May 2014 @ 8:40am

Bitcoin
Looks like a great reason to put their money in bitcoin instead. The banks can't touch it then and their interest will probably be much better anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Easily Amused (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: Bitcoin
  If your money is 'in bitcoins' you aren't earning any interest. The value may appreciate according to the market, but that is no different than any currency including cash stuffed in a mattress. If you want to put those BTC in a financial account that does earn interest, guess who has those? The banks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 3:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Bitcoin
    How does "earning interest" work? Simple: the bank reinvests the money, for instance in government bonds or company stocks, takes a percentage for administration costs, and gives you the rest of the profit.
    
    You can skip the middleman and invest directly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applesauce, 1 May 2014 @ 8:46am

This is the intent
"...Operation Choke Point makes it too tough for small community banks to compete with the big chains."

So, the scheme is working as designed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 8:48am

This is a result of the intentional and deliberate takeover of the justice system by graduates of Oral Roberts University and Liberty University.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  Oral Roberts - lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 11:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oral Roberts = 2 gay Bobs
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zip, 1 May 2014 @ 9:20am

Enough about PORN, please!
Here is the complete "Dirty thirty" list of US-government banned businesses, from http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/examinations/supervisory/insights/sisum11/managing.html

* Ammunition Sales
* Cable Box De-scramblers
* Coin Dealers
* Credit Card Schemes
* Credit Repair Services
* Dating Services
* Debt Consolidation Scams
* Drug Paraphernalia
* Escort Services
* Firearms Sales
* Fireworks Sales
* Get Rich Products
* Government Grants
* Home-Based Charities
* Life-Time Guarantees

* Life-Time Memberships
* Lottery Sales
* Mailing Lists/Personal Info
* Money Transfer Networks
* On-line Gambling
* PayDay Loans
* Pharmaceutical Sales
* Ponzi Schemes
* Pornography
* Pyramid-Type Sales
* Racist Materials
* Surveillance Equipment
* Telemarketing
* Tobacco Sales
* Travel Clubs

(not mentioned: NZB and Torrent sites, which starting in 2012 were cut off from all US-based bank and payment processors due to pressure from Hollywood. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of these sites strictly adhere to all US laws, particularly the DMCA, despite being foreign-based sites that have no connection to the USA.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stosh (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: Enough about PORN, please!
  They are just trying to save us from our own silly decisions, and "save the children" even more so. If you simply surrender to complete government control your life will be so much better. Drink the Kool-Aid...drink the Kool-Aid, it won't hurt you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zip, 1 May 2014 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
    Most of the things on the banned list could be considered scams to at least some degree. Some promote an inherently illegal activity. But others, like firearm and tobacco sales, are presumably thrown in by virtue of being politically-incorrect.
    
    And we just can't allow people to donate money to racist, FBI-infiltrated websites like Stormfront.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 2:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
      "Most of the things on the banned list could be considered scams to at least some degree"
      
      No. There are scams that operate under the color of all of the things on that list (just as there are operating in literally every other type of business). But all of hte things on that list are legal activities that are engaged in by 100% legitimate businesses.
      
      If the intent is to crack down on scams, then do that -- target the businesses that are engaging in fraud. But to declare broad types of legal business activity "off limits" is wrong and, in my opinion, a type of fraud in and of itself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - zip, 1 May 2014 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
        "But all of hte things on that list are legal activities that are engaged in by 100% legitimate businesses."
        
        Is an escort service ever a legitimate business?
        
        Just a thought ..... if your $500 "tip" results in sex, it's illegal -- if not, it's a scam!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
        Low-populated counties in nevada?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 6:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
        "Is an escort service ever a legitimate business?"
        
        That's the sketchiest one, of course, but there do in fact exist escort services that aren't prostitution fronts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BernardoVerda (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
        I'd say that the Payday Loan/Used Car Loan companies are far, far sketchier -- they're mostly just rip-off artists and scammers preying on the desperate and the ignorant.
        
        At least everyone doing business through an "escort service" knows what they're getting into, and how much money is going to change hands.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), 3 May 2014 @ 3:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough about PORN, please!
        "Is an escort service ever a legitimate business?"
        
        Legitimate? Yes, absolutely.
        
        "Just a thought ..... if your $500 "tip" results in sex, it's illegal -- if not, it's a scam!"
        
        Just a thought ... if your $500 "tip" results in unrecorded sex, it's illegal -- if not, it's porn!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701, 2 May 2014 @ 6:54pm
  
  Re: Enough about PORN, please!
  Tobacco sales?
  
  Does this mean Philip-Morris can't get a bank account?
  
  > despite being foreign-based sites that have no connection
  > to the USA.
  
  Well, if they're foreign-based, the ability to get a US bank account wouldn't seem to be an issue for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 11:31pm
  
  Re: Enough about PORN, please!
  What happened to the Liberal left being for the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want?
  
  Surveillance Equipment is something they government doesn't want the public to have.
  
  Obama and Holder are Dictators in training.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), 3 May 2014 @ 3:44am
  
  Welcome to 1984.
  Thanks for posting that list. Pretty scary how many completely legal businesses are on that list, to say nothing about the possible motives for 'banning' them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 1 May 2014 @ 9:34am

Well, competition.
The U.S. government is the richest and most extensive organized crime syndicate on Earth, dealing in extortion, blackmail, industrial spionage, terrorism, weapons trading and lots of other stuff. They don't want competition in shady deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:35am

Where the Taliban used physical violence against those that do not conform to their view of society the US government is using financial violence. Same attitude, different tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:39am

so i guess next the trains run on time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:42am

If God hadn't wanted us to masturbate, then God wouldn't have given us porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  or arms long enough to reach our genitals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    We saw how well that worked out for the Tyrannosaurus.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Poor T-Rex!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 2 May 2014 @ 7:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      To honor their memory, let's bang a gong and get it on.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  You mean genitals?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fushta (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re:
  can't they just get a bank account offshore in the "cummin" islands?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:53am

Did they seriously think this wouldn't blow up in their faces (no pun intended)? It's the porn industry. Of course they are going to sue them now, and they are going to win. Dumbasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2014 @ 3:47am
  
  Re:
  No pun intended, he claims.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:01am

I think it may have started some time before 2013:

http://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/14zplm/astraweb_cancelling_accounts_using_2checkout/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 10:14am

this is bad, this is really, Really BAD...
wow, they just aren't bothering to hide the descent into a 1984-style police state, are they ? ? ?
NO DOUBT that similar tactics ARE being used against various activists, dissenters, etc...
this is very, VERY scary: it is ALREADY a joke that due process, etc are NOT being followed, even for gutted laws that are totally slanted for the state's convenience...
but, now they simply extra-legally, extra-judicially smother someone by removing their ability to function at any level in society...
HOW do The They (tm) think this turns out when you push desperate rats into a corner ? ? ?
again, like another poster opined the other day: are they TRYING to get us to revolt with this shit ? ? ?
'cause i have gotten to the point where there is NO 'saving grace' for this system: its shit through and through...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:31am

They are implementing Sharia Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 11:03am

Crap Inc.
Now that final word of "un-American" is the core issue here.

The United States should be worried less about foreign Governments than those "un-American" people corrupting the very core of the Administration by endangering the very meaning of what it is to be a US Citizen.

Long ago the USA used be to the place where foreign refugees fled to in order to escape the persecution of their own country where the USA represented freedom & safety. Only recently has that table turned when now US Passport holders flee to others countries to escape clear US persecution.

Then how many times have we sat here reading about the US Administration or Congress running off on some mega-lo-manic plan with little regards to the law of the land. They only moan that following the law is too hard for them and they should not have to follow the US Constitution and Bill of Rights... the very core documents on what the American way of life was founded!

Then their arrogance is so high and the Administration so rusted that they protect their mega-lo-manic authority through running the Administration as one giant secret outside of public oversight and accountability. Secrets upon secrets upon secrets where they really do persecute anyone who exposes their filth.

Then most sad of all is that the average US citizen accepts failure in their leadership. Sure they feel helpless and only see it as natural for sewage to float to the top of the tank.

What is most needed is an empowered office filled with people with no political aspirations beyond simply wanting to make the United States a better place. Their only job is to hunt down such un-Americans in order to fire them from ever working in Government departments, or to punish them under the law. I don't mean people making the odd mistake, or those a bit dumb at their job, but those supreme arrogant people who only care about punishing the unworthy along with a history of avoiding law accountability.

Only once heads start rolling, and people fear that their job is at stake, will they have reason to clean up their act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zip, 1 May 2014 @ 2:32pm
  
  Re: Crap Inc.
  "What is most needed is an empowered office filled with people with no political aspirations beyond simply wanting to make the United States a better place. Their only job is to hunt down such un-Americans in order to fire them from ever working in Government departments, or to punish them under the law."
  
  Washington, D.C. would be turned into a ghost town. It's an appealing thought, though. Something like a modern-day version of the French Revolution -- with the guillotine operators working in shifts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 10:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Crap Inc.
    Clearly there has been progress then. We now have robots for that task that don't even take cigarette breaks. Work 24/7/365 with a 15 minute SLA if within the bounds of Washington DC, 5 minutes if you are located on Capital Hill. 99.999% up time (assuming you can carry the results away fast enough) guaranteed, or you get 10 free service calls.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DonM, 2 May 2014 @ 1:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Crap Inc.
    Better yet, bid online and win, and you can yourself operate the guillotine. Video of the execution you performed would be streamed to your device.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 4:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crap Inc.
      You are forgetting about the selfie opportunity. Of course there will also be merchandising opportunities...as soon as the booble head makers figure out how to remove and reattach certain parts many many times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rocco Maglio (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 11:11am

This is a liberals list of things to stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rocco Maglio (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 11:17am

This is a liberals list of things to stop
Notice the inclusion of guns, ammo, and coin dealers. Porn is on the list because it degrades woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: This is a liberals list of things to stop
  Yes, it is those damn liberals again. Why can't they learn to keep their grubby paws off my rights? Next thing ya know those libtards will be repealing the 13th and the 14th amendments. What's next, corporations will be declared to be people? It is good to know that the conservatives are out there fighting to maintain my rights and not screw me over like those librals - amirite?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:54pm
    
    Re: Re: This is a liberals list of things to stop
    Truth hurts doesnt it. After all, the liberals are in charge. The liberals are for big government and feel like they can take care of you better than you can take care of you. You thought it was great when they said they were going after the rich, even though liberals are just as rich, but now you see their true intentions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is a liberals list of things to stop
      Sarcasm, how does it work?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Turd, 2 May 2014 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re: This is a liberals list of things to stop
    Hey shitforbrains, a corporation IS a "legal person" and has been for hundreds of years. If not, you could not contract with one, sue one, etc.
    Your smartass comments don't address the relentless march of the state, especially the executive branch (regulatory state), into the hyperregulation of the minutae of our lives.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2014 @ 6:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This is a liberals list of things to stop
      Ad Hominem, the pinnacle of discourse.
      
      "a corporation IS a "legal person" and has been for hundreds of years."
      
      - and the SCOTUS was asked to rule because it has been so obvious for hundreds of years.
      
      Why am I required to address only the issues which twist your panties?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCrea (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 11:51am

Proof of concept; Black Friday.
Well, it worked for online poker. Many former regulars don't have a clue a few sites still exist. I'd guess somebody saw that success, and reasoned if they can get rid of poker, they can get rid of anything else by targeting the financial institutes.

Never did bother to make the act (of playing poker) illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 1:00pm

"by a government that has as much moral authority as can fit in a thimble"

WAY to much room. Perhaps you meant a hollowed out transistor? Or a nano-tube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), 3 May 2014 @ 3:58am
  
  Re:
  :) Thanks, I was going to comment about that empty thimble, too. I wouldn't personally attribute any quantity of moral authority to this (US) government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 2:02pm

Martin Niemoller said it best
(at the risk of invoking Godwin...)

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 3:49pm

It's just a step toward something more...say pot dispensaries in CO & WA, then, I don't know...contributions to the wrong party's candidate?
Very slippery, almost vertical slope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ambrellite (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 4:42pm

The Practice Predates the Program
Isn't this precisely what happened to Wikileaks? The DOJ started an investigation--finding nothing to this day--and Wikileaks was soon after choked off by financial institutions that before or since have had little compunction about doing shady business with suspicious organizations and individuals. There was never any cost to doing so, until they had to invent a reason to snub Wikileaks, and then suddenly "reputational risk" became a thing.

The DOJ can buy favors from the groups it blesses, and vice versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 5:36pm

I sure am glad banks are not laundering money for drug cartels or rigging markets in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
willdao, 1 May 2014 @ 6:25pm

Synchronicity is right on time! One of my RSS Quotes of the Day:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), 3 May 2014 @ 4:06am
  
  Re:
  Yes, that was quite a mistake Woodrow Wilson made in 1913, after Andrew Jackson had previously ended it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:38pm

Oh how ironic
So Timmy tried to pin this move on conservatives and religous people and it turns out it is Obama and his liberal government. How does that crow taste Timmy? This is what happens when you make up the news, it often backfires. But hey, why let a little lie ruin a good story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:58pm
  
  Re: Oh how ironic
  Is you hi?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: Oh how ironic
  "So Timmy tried to pin this move on conservatives and religous people"
  
  Er, no I didn't. I only said they MIGHT not care much for the targets of these close downs. Try to get your facts right.
  
  Also, idiot, our "liberal" government is still conservative on the global scale and there's plenty of religious liberals, rendering even your fake point completely stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BernardoVerda (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 7:41pm

Setting Visa and MasterCard against WikiLeaks worked so well...
... so they decided to expand the tactic to everyone else the DoJ doesn't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BernardoVerda (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 8:01pm

Driving legal business out of the legitimate channels...
... has generally produced counter-productive results.

Which is worse -- "Pay Day Loan" companies, or loan sharks?
Jenna Jameson producing her own "erotic" films, or the Mob controlling the porn business?

The predictable consequence of this kind of heavy-handed "moralistic" approach, is that otherwise legal activities and businesses become the purview of criminal "entrepreneurs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- toyotabedzrock (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 12:47am
  
  Re: Driving legal business out of the legitimate channels...
  The alternative to payday lenders is a bank account and lower rates of poverty.
  
  Morons who see slippery slopes where non exist is a modern problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BernardoVerda (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 3:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Driving legal business out of the legitimate channels...
    I think we're mostly in agreement, here.
    Our responses aren't mutually incompatible.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 12:04am

This underhanded attack on free enterprise is simply un-American.

On the contrary, baseless attacks of the executive on anything it does not like, without any legal basis beyond 'we say so', is the essence of modern America. This is everything the US does in a nutshell. Sorry, folks, your government went off of any of those fabled high principles that once were so American years ago. And it will never go back to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 12:42am

The banks are doing more than asked so they can create a backlash against proper oversight.

No one gives a shit about payday lenders they are scum that rip people off. And tabacco has been employing kids to harvest its crop so tuck them too. The banks expanded to porn to create a public backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 9:34am

Let's not mince words: a program that was built upon the goals of stopping financial fraud has devolved into a massive government overreach into private businesses that are operating within the law.

Yet their stated goal of stopping financial fraud doesn't seem to have made any headway. I wonder why that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LVDave (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 9:38am

I'll put it as bluntly as I can.. America is UN-American, at least for the last twenty years or so.. The two Bushes, Klinton, and now Oblowme... They are FUCKING this country up at an ever-increasing rate... Makes me sick to my stomach..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 12:03pm

The President's New Clothes
And I'll bet most of you are still wondering why the fed let the banks hi-jack the american economy and get off scott free.

Well, this should give you a clue as to what sort of "deal" was struck between the crooks running the fed and the crooks running the banks.

Its just another aspect of the good old federal extortion racket, albeit this time it was between two friendly gangs of crooks.

The Fed said to the banksters: "We'll make it easy for you to steal billions from the US public and then let you off the hook legally, and you will thereafter help us destroy anyone we want to destroy financially."

Just business as usual for the US Federal Cartel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 2:12pm

Shareholder Lawsuit?
I wonder if we'll see this porn absurdity getting shot down by shareholders. Couldn't they argue that they're doing a disservice to their shareholders by refusing perfectly legitimate money for no good reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HarrySchell (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 3:15pm

As Lenin said, seizing control of the banking and healthcare delivery systems are essential to the successful centralization of political power in government hands.

Get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BernardoVerda (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 7:44pm

I've acquired a baggie of pure, uncut, Moral Superiority...
http://amultiverse.com/comic/2014/05/02/perc-and-mikes-bogus-journey/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ThirteenthLetter, 2 May 2014 @ 11:37pm

They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney, bluenose government bureaucrats would lawlessly crack down on anything that violated traditional morality, and sure enough they were right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raja Gopalan (profile), 3 May 2014 @ 4:34pm

Chase closing LOTS of accounts!
Something seriously wrong here--and it's not just porn stars. My business account was closed for no reason and i found out verbally that it was because our business was expanding too quickly! And we are just a staid IT firm. Does anyone have information on a class-action lawsuit here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Thacker, 4 May 2014 @ 8:07am

But remember, all the FDIC is supposed to do is make sure that banks are treating their customers fairly and equally, and people don't lose their deposits. Yet even though these industries are legal, the Feds are doing this.

Certainly doesn't make me feel good about the idea of the FCC enforcing net neutrality, now does it? Easy to imagine the FCC demanding that ISPs shutdown "high risk" websites that "aid terrorists" by having any of those 30 industries listed on the FDIC's site, much less already clearly illegal things like pirated movies or music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2014 @ 7:14pm

So the goody-goody of porn found her choke point and no longer is in the business and doesn't need a bank?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2014 @ 9:14pm

She actually had money in the bank?
No one pays for porn, its free on the internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2014 @ 12:29pm

The adult industries are not the only thing being targeted. Gun stores are part of it as well.

http://www.infowars.com/holders-latest-scandal-doj-now-pressuring-banks-to-refuse-service-to-gun-sto res/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]