Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard

from the plug-pulled dept

The title of this post is from Rinze, who perfectly sums up the ridiculousness of MasterCard blocking any payment systems that are working with Wikileaks from allowing people to use its card. MasterCard's excuse is even more ridiculous than Paypal, Amazon and others. Rather than drudging up some sort of "terms of service violation," MasterCard is now just making stuff up:
MasterCard said it was cutting off payments because WikiLeaks is engaging in illegal activity. "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal," spokesman Chris Monteiro said.
That's nice, but last we checked, for something to be found guilty of illegal activity, first they have to be charged and tried, and only after a court decides it's illegal, is it actually considered illegal. To date, Wikileaks hasn't been even charged with anything, let alone found guilty. Apparently MasterCard isn't a big believer in due process either. It's actually very unlikely that Wikileaks actually has done anything illegal. It is against the law to leak such documents but publishing those documents is still protected activity. Except to MasterCard.

Filed Under: free speech, mastercard, wikileaks
Companies: mastercard, wikileaks


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Darryl, 7 Dec 2010 @ 10:10am

    no company needs an excuse

    Mastercard, paypal, you or me, can choose who they want to conduct business with and who they do not. They dont need a reason, and they dont need to justify it to anyone else.


    Just the same as airlines can stop you from flying, if they think you have been drinking too much, or are acting in a way they do not like.

    I run a business, I refuse clients all the time, I also have conditions of service, I will not provide my services unless they are willing to meet my requirements.

    That might be they are required to pay me, or pay me in advance, or it might be that I just dont want to take on that person as a client..

    It is not illegal for me to choose who I conduct by business with or why..

    If I do not morally agree with something (like wikileaks) there is nothing stopping me from taking it upon myself, to make my company not have to deal with that thing I do not like.

    Does that come as a surprise to you that companies can and do pick and choose who their clients are all the time, and that there is no legal requirement forcing a company from dealing with a specific client..

    get over it. they can do what they like, and what you dont like..

    Maybe you can tell wikileaks about it, and they can leak it as news..

    Like the australian venom company that is supposed to be a critical facility for the US, but have not dealt with the US for well over 10 years, and makes anti-venom for Australian native snakes !!!.. (not many of them in the US BTW, in case you didn't know).

    So the validity and accuracy of the material of wikileaks has now be placed into question, just as Julian's motives for leaking, and his reasons for not releasing all information, and censoring that information from us ?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.