Writing in CiF, James Bell argues that the refusal of organisations such as Paypal and Master card to process payments for Wikileaks amounts to an infringement on free speech.
Whether you support WikiLeaks or not, the blockade by Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and others is a sinister attack on free speech
I don’t support Wikileaks particularly. While I support the notion of whistle blowing, Wikileaks has become little more than a publicity machine for its founder and offers no more than a plethora of vacuous tittle-tattle masquerading as whistle blowing – tittle-tattle that was stolen it would be wise to remember and the processing companies may have decided that they do not wish to be involved with such theft. For the most part, there hasn’t been anything much of worth anyway.
But, is the boycotting by the likes of Paypal and Master card really an infringement on free speech?
No, of course not. There is another liberty at play here; freedom of association. Wikileaks behaved in a manner that left these organisations not wanting to be associated with the site. They should be at liberty to trade with whoever they wish. If a client is likely to bring their brand into disrepute – either actually or even only in their own opinion – then that is their prerogative.
That the money has apparently run out isn’t because of Paypal et al, after all, there are other means of moving money about; direct money transfers, for example or even the good old cheque. I am not aware of any banks refusing Mr Assange an account, so he could easily cash the cheques rolling in from all those well wishers.
Or is it that this particular little bandwagon finally ran out of steam? Bell lists a series of charges; that Wikileaks has nothing to offer that cannot be gleaned elsewhere, internal squabbles leading to resignations and, frankly, some dubious financial activity, surely free speech just isn’t the issue here.
So given WikiLeaks’ status as an unreliable purveyor of financial information, and given its operations might have crashed to a halt with or without financial restrictions, is the banking blockade a mere non-issue? In short, it is not. The banking blockade against WikiLeaks is one of the most sinister developments in recent years, and perhaps the most extreme example in a western democracy of extrajudicial actions aimed at stifling free speech – made all the worse by the public support of numerous people sitting in the US House of Representatives.
Actually, yes, it is a non-issue. No one should be forced to trade with another. That is what free association means – not to mention free trade.
Payment companies representing more than 97% of the global market have shut off the funding taps between WikiLeaks and those who would donate to it. Unlike many of the country’s leading corporations, WikiLeaks has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime at either state, federal, or international level.
As I said, you can always send a cheque or make a bank transfer. Wikileaks is at liberty to indulge in freedom of speech – the payment processing companies are not stopping it. They are at liberty to have nothing to do with it, should they so desire. In so doing, it might make life more difficult for Assange and company, but whatever it is, it is not a restriction on freedom of speech, it is the exercise of freedom of association. That the two may have conflicting goals on this occasion is just too bad.
I also note the equivalence drawn between the EDL and the KKK as a throwaway remark – this being the Guardian, they just had to get that little dig in. Anyway…
Visa and Mastercard are already inescapable. As the world becomes ever-more digital, and cash continues its journey to obsolescence, they will become still more pervasive. If they are allowed to cut off payment to lawful organisations with whom they disagree, the US’s first amendment, the European convention on human rights’ article 10, and all other legal free speech protections become irrelevant.
There will always be – at least for the foreseeable future – cash and cheques and in the digital age, Internet banking allows for simple direct transfers to be set up in the time it takes to make a Paypal donation. The banks have pulled back from withdrawing cheques from circulation, so if people really, really want to line Assange’s pockets, there is nothing stopping them. Again, this is not a free speech issue.
Those who value free expression, whether they like WikiLeaks or loathe it, should hope it wins its current battle.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be unhappy if I never saw Julian Assange’s fizzog on the news ever again. Nor would I shed a tear if Wikileaks vanished from the face of the Earth. As I said, whistle blowing has its place, but Wikileaks has done little if anything useful to further it. So, no, despite my firm belief in freedom of speech, I don’t give a toss about Wikileaks’ battle with the payment processing companies.
This takes the standard lefty approach to free speech (you’re free to say anything they approve of) to another level.
Bell appears to be implying that we should be forced to listen to messages he approves of. And he has the nerve to say it’s “sinister” if you don’t agree.
The left’s abuse of the word liberal is well noted. But I think the far bigger crime is their attempt to hijack freedom when they really want control.
As always – it’s the principle of the matter.
Compulsion to listen to or finance messages the left approve of has been on the statute book for ages: anybody in the UK using a TV is compelled to cough up £150 or thereabouts for a TV “licence”. Were the beneficiary of this tax – the BBC – a genuinely impartial purveyor of news and opinion, the left would be on the streets demanding the BBC’s dismantling and the abolition of the tax.
LR,
Whilst in general you are right, there is one aspect here which you may have missed and, I think, changes the argument significantly.
It is this: those payment processors refusing to deal with WikiLeaks are not doing so out of their own views of WikiLeaks and/or Assange: they are doing so because they fear the US Govt will withdraw their banking licences.
This is, for example, why InterPal suddenly got dumped in the US. The US Govt says “Any bank managing funds for Interpal loses its licence” and magically, they all say “Righto”.
Jamie Bell doesn’t call this out explicitly so your take on his argument is correct, but only so far as it is a comment on his argument rather than what is actually happening.
PG
That does put a different perspective on it. However, thinking about it, is it not reasonable to expect that the licensing arrangements include transactions that are legal? Given that Wikileaks operates by breaking the law, then the payment companies would be in breach of their licence.
Now, if Wikileaks was to genuinely expose evidence of malfeasance then there might be a defence that could be mounted – the greater good and all that. As no such defence can be mounted, they have no real choice but to distance themselves or lose their license, I suspect.
I still don’t see it as a free speech matter, though. There are other funding options available.
“There are other funding options available.”
True, but it is nonetheless distinctly chilling of that right and that chilling comes direct from Govt.
“Given that Wikileaks operates by breaking the law, then the payment companies would be in breach of their licence.”
Not so: wikileaks may indeed be breaking the law in what it does, but the transactions are not themselves illegal.
This is a very dangerous road to go down: should banks be required to close your account or refuse to process payments to you because you are convicted of a (any) crime?
Contrast this with the Hamas/Interpal situation where the organisation itself is proscribed.
Yes, I take your point. However, I can also see that they would be deemed to be aiding and abetting the criminal activity. I suppose a parallel would be the banks having liability for dubious transactions such as money laundering. Not that I believe this is right, merely making the observation.