Is PayPal violating its own anti-racism policy? – Fast Company

PayPal remains the biggest conduit for online payments, but its Acceptable Use Policy rules out whole classes of business. Most verboten dealings are illegal, like selling stolen goods; others are risqu, such as “items that are considered obscene.” PayPal also prohibits customers promoting “hate” or “racial intolerance.” But as I learned reporting on tech companies’ involvement with controversial sites, several PayPal customers are classified as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Examples include:

VanguardAmerica: Which advocates replacing the United States with a fascist empire.

Mission to Israel: Whose founder teaches that white Europeans, not Jews, are the descendants of Israel.

National Policy Institute (NPI): White nationalist/supremacist organization headed by alt-right scion Richard Spencer.

Radix Journal: NPI’s publication, with articles criticizing Jews and arguing the genetic superiority of whites.

Identity Evropa: A white nationalist youth movement closely tied to Spencer and NPI.

Nuwaubian Nation Of Moors: Whose jailed founder teaches that blacks are a supreme race and has called white people “the devil.”

VDARE: White nationalist U.S. site that opposes nonwhite immigration and argues for whites’ genetic superiority.

PayPal reviewed these and other sites from the SPLC list and concluded that they do not violate its Acceptable Use Policy. (In fact, since many are nonprofits, they would have required pre-approval to use PayPal for fundraising.) In a statement, PayPal said, “As individuals and as a company, we may disagree with the attitudes expressed by some of our account holders, but we also take into account and respect the right to free expression and open dialogue.” See my full reporting here. SC

More here:
Is PayPal violating its own anti-racism policy? – Fast Company

Related Post

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Anti Racism |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."