Hacker News Reader

Comment by gadders | Hacker News Reader

There are plenty of examples of people getting deplatformed by banks (or EG paypal) due to their political beliefs.

But this is about the language used to describe the action, not the action itself. I don't think “being unable to open a bank account” is what most people mean when they say “so-and-so shouldn't be given a platform by the NYT”.

It's the end result, and they certainly don't _oppose_ it

That's how Hatreon etc came to be

I wish we would be more explicit here. What political beliefs are they being de-platformed for? Is it the lower taxes? Deregulation? Immigration policy? Which specific political belief is getting them kicked off of platforms?

Does it matter? Do you have some political beliefs for which you think de-banking is acceptable? What are those?

Political belief is human opinion, and not a protected class.

Is your position that there is no human opinion for which de-banking is acceptable?

Given that even murderers, rapists and paedophiles get to have bank accounts, I don't think that there is any human opinion for which people should have their banks accounts removed for what they believe.

If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law.

So you're okay with your bank assisting ISIL in their weapons transactions?

What about illegal activities outside of the law's jurisdiction?

See my previous answer:

>>If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law.

This also goes for their activities.

There is a clear difference between someone saying "I think Terrorist Group X is great" on twitter and someone using their bank account so that Terrorist Group X can buy stuff to make bombs. And even in that latter case, once the person concerned has finished their prison sentence they should still get a bank account so they can live.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com