Alex Jones Sues Paypal For Infowars Ban Over "Hate, Intolerance"

[r3volution 3.0]

They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

As RJ quoted:

PayPal, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to suspend or terminate this user agreement, access to or use of its websites, software, systems (including any networks and servers used to provide any of the PayPal services) operated by us or on our behalf or some or all of the PayPal services for any reason and at any time upon notice to you and, upon termination of this user agreement, the payment to you of any unrestricted funds held in your PayPal balance.

As for this:

PayPal engaged in this viewpoint-based censorship despite stating that, in determining whether a user violated its acceptable use policy, it would only consider conduct actually involving the use of PayPal. PayPal’s decision to kick Plaintiff off its platform had nothing to do with such activities." While one can claim that PayPal, as a private company, has every right to ban whomever it wants, even if it results in outright discrimination, Jones disagrees and to plead his case invokes the California Unruh Civil Rights Act:

PayPal discriminated against Plaintiff based on its political viewpoints and politically conservative affiliation, thus violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. PayPal is engaged in unfair business practices by enforcing its contractual terms in an unconscionable manner, namely arbitrarily banning Plaintiff from its platform for off-platform speech despite never claiming it might ban users for off-platform activity. In doing so, it also violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff.
​

What is Unruh?

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”) guarantees that “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Although the Unruh Act specifically forbids business establishments from discriminating based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”, this statutorily enumerated list is illustrative, and not exhaustive, of the characteristics on which business establishments may not discriminate.

Discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology is forbidden under Unruh, as it is a personal characteristic.
​

So as Jones finds his business impaired as a result of the ban...

PayPal is restraining Plaintiff’s commerce because it is politically conservative and sells to a conservative audience. PayPal’s actions amount to discrimination based on political viewpoint and affiliation, which is forbidden under Unruh.
​

... a ban which is not justified based on the acceptable use policy: The UA provides several examples of situations where PayPal might issue a limitation, including “f we reasonably believe you have violated the Acceptable Use Policy.” None of these examples allow PayPal to issue a limitation based on off-platform activity, and all the examples are geared towards activity that involves risky, fraudulent, or illegal financial transactions.

This is not a contract dispute.

The contract is clear; Paypal acted within its rights under the contract, period.

Jones is suing under a California statute that attempts to void contracts which the State of Caliornia doesn't like.

...and under the unconscionability doctrine (which means he's asking the judge to void the contract because the judge doesn't like it).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No further defenses of the welfare baby?

Guess the cat's got his tongue..

 

[UWDude]

Bust out the trust buster. Break em up real good.

Crush the banks too. Demand our 700 billion back, with interest, and even more in fines for robbing us at gunpoint in 2008. Assholes.
Break the "real estate management" cabals up too, that should have "corrected" (meaning died like the tumor they are) in 2008, along with the banks, and everyone else insured by AIG.

I know my enemies.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Crush the banks too. Demand our 700 billion back, with interest, and even more in fines for robbing us at gunpoint in 2008. Assholes.
Break the "real estate management" cabals up too, that should have "corrected" (meaning died like the tumor they are) in 2008, along with the banks, and everyone else insured by AIG.

I know my enemies.

Trump just signed an $854 billion spending bill into law.

Does this bother you at all?

 

[UWDude]

Trump just signed an $854 billion spending bill into law.

Does this bother you at all?

Even better reason to crush the banks, and take our money back. We got plans for it.

 

[Danke]

The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

 

[nikcers]

The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

There seems to be an alternative vehicle being created to circumvent the dollar to trade with Iran. What do you think will happen if they go through with it?

 

[jkr]

Nothing says liberty like the state crushing a private enterprise because its competitors paid the right lobbyists it's too successful, amiright?

YES

fuck paypal


whats more important here?

 

[Grandmastersexsay]

They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

Sorry. Not a contract dispute as you framed it earlier. I don't like PayPal going after Alex Jones, but they're a private company who didn't violate any contractual obligations.

Your sense of right and wrong seems to revolve around right and left more than a guiding ideology. This isn't the only example.

 

[CaptUSA]

They are banning him based on behavior that didn't involve their services when they claim they don't do that and they are in violation of current law whether you agree with that law or not, if the law they are breaking is bad then this is an opportunity to see it overturned, if it isn't overturned then at least everyone will be playing by the same rules.

What part of, "PayPal, in its sole discretion... for any reason" do you not understand?

You progressives sicken me. You only care about "liberty" when it applies to your causes. You're as bad as the progressives on the left - only they're more honest about the treachery they seek to impose.

 

[specsaregood]

I will never understand the desire by some to give people that don't like them, their money and business. There are plenty of competitors of paypal that would love to get the transaction fees off infowars transactions.

 

[oyarde]

The Federal Reserve is private too. Just try and do business with an alternate currency and see what happens.

Arrangements can be made with me to obtain real money for FRN's but that window will close one day .

 

[CaptUSA]

I will never understand the desire by some to give people that don't like them, their money and business. There are plenty of competitors of paypal that would love to get the transaction fees off infowars transactions.

Right??

But this should tell you about AJ's real motivations. It has nothing to do with any fealty to principles - it's all about promotion for more $$. The PayPal thing makes it more tedious for his customers to part with their money.



(ETA: I should note that while I'm a critic of Alex Jones' methods, I do appreciate his usefulness. I've always maintained the "many paths to liberty" philosophy when it comes to these types of characters. He may not appeal to me, but he does appeal to some others. And while I don't think his contrarianism is liberty-focused, it will often times create overlaps. I'm in favor of just about anything that gets people to question authority and AJ is useful in that regard. [I just wish he'd stop at "questioning" instead of hyping false answers.])

 

[AZJoe]

So ...
PayPal jumped on the left wing "declare anything they don't like as hate speech and thus ban it from their platforms" bandwagon to ban AJ's companies.
Then AJ's company sues PayPal using California's draconian leftwing statist Unruh Civil Rights Act which guarantees under California law “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" regardless of any contract language otherwise by Paypal, or whether they are private actors or not.

The irony is delicious.

Unfortunately it will be lost on the left and right. They wont defend Paypal as a private actor that can choose for itself what it wants to allow on the platform. Rather they will defend Paypal via authoritarianism of the state - i.e. we agree with Paypal's decision this time therefore the state will permit this targeted discrimination because if furthers our personal preference in running other people's lives and businesses, but reserve the right to exercise control over Paypal's actions over anything at anytime.

 

[AZJoe]

Paypal has a lot of restrictions to their service ...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/guns-drugs-and-timeshares-14-things-paypal-wont-let-you-buy/

From the cover picture it seems that would include red haired, cigarette smoking, blue skinned, camo wearing women with guns.

 

[specsaregood]

So ...
Then AJ's company sues PayPal using California's draconian leftwing statist Unruh Civil Rights Act which guarantees under California law “all persons” are “entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever" regardless of any contract language otherwise by Paypal, or whether they are private actors or not.

I don't get it though. AJ is not a California resident and I doubt his business is incorporated there. Paypal is incorporated in Delaware. What does CA law have to do with it?

 

[homahr]

Private companies should never be prosecuted.

 

[dannno]

I will never understand the desire by some to give people that don't like them, their money and business. There are plenty of competitors of paypal that would love to get the transaction fees off infowars transactions.

That concept makes a lot of sense when there are good alternatives, but sometimes there just aren't. Sometimes there is only one cake baker in town, and sometimes PayPal is the only large widely used and trusted payment service on the internet.

The idea is people would rather give their credit card info to one trusted company, PayPal, as opposed to giving it to every small website on the internet they buy stuff from.

Another company would mean they would have to give up their credit card info again to that company, which may not be as trusted as PayPal.

It would be great if a better payment service alternative came out of this, but more than likely all it will do is hurt his business.

What part of, "PayPal, in its sole discretion... for any reason" do you not understand?

You progressives sicken me. You only care about "liberty" when it applies to your causes. You're as bad as the progressives on the left - only they're more honest about the treachery they seek to impose.

Dude, you have to be completely fucking kidding me..

This is literally one of the ONLY websites on the internet - and the liberty movement is the only movement where you will find people who generally agree that businesses should be allowed to discriminate from a philosophical perspective.. NOBODY ELSE FUCKING BELIEVES THAT SHIT. So why do you think it is, that people in the liberty movement are the only ones suffering from discriminatory practices and not striking back legally?

Circling back, you will hear progressives going around mocking infowars saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate.. but they don't believe that, so why do they say it? They don't think businesses should be allowed to discriminate, unless it is against libertarians and small government folks. So why are they using that argument against infowars? Because infowars is right wing libertarian and that is what the progressives know they believe. So they are using their own beliefs against them, to hurt the movement, while everybody else gets to live under a different set of rules.

How about this? How about we not be fucking cucks and stand up for ourselves and be treated equally under the law? PayPal is not a fucking lowly cake baker. They are in with the banks and the banks have no doubt helped monopolize them. If any other more mainstream or leftist movement who was non-violent was getting kicked off social media or PayPal, they wouldn't be allowed to be treated that way.

We are being treated like this because they are using our beliefs to treat us as second class citizens.

If you want to be a fucking pussy, then fine, but I'm going to fight.. and of course I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but that isn't the world we live in and I'm not going to be a fucking cuck and just roll over and die. You can do that if you want.

 

[specsaregood]

That concept makes a lot of sense when there are good alternatives, but sometimes there just aren't. Sometimes there is only one cake baker in town, and sometimes PayPal is the only large widely used and trusted payment service on the internet.

The idea is people would rather give their credit card info to one trusted company, PayPal, as opposed to giving it to every small website on the internet they buy stuff from.

Another company would mean they would have to give up their credit card info again to that company, which may not be as trusted as PayPal.

It would be great if a better payment service alternative came out of this, but more than likely all it will do is hurt his business.

1. it sounds like you just gave plenty of reason to NOT trust paypal. Especially for Jones target audience.
2. so your position is to make it harder for a competitor to get an opening to compete.

 

[CaptUSA]

Dude, you have to be completely fucking kidding me...

Uh oh... Looks like I triggered another snowflake.

Hilarious hearing a Trump supporter talking about someone else being cucked. But let me get this straight, you think because some people use the F'd up laws as a battering ram to get what they want from other people, that we should be doing the same? So instead of fighting against that system, we should use the "laws" to get as much from other people as we can? Who cares about you as long as I get mine? And somehow that puts you on a higher moral ground than your opponents?!

Maybe this is just AJ's 42D chess move to get the progressives to allow businesses to discriminate and it doesn't have anything to do with making it easier for people to buy dick pills?