Financial Censorship

OnlyFans recently announced it would ban sexually explicit content, citing pressure from “banking partners and payout providers.” This is the latest example of a troubling pattern of financial intermediaries censoring constitutionally protected legal speech by shutting down accounts—or threatening to do so.

OnlyFans is a subscription site that allows artists, performers and other content creators to monetize their creative works—and it has become a go-to platform for independent creators of adult content. The ban on sexually explicit content has been met by an outcry from many creators who have used the platform to safely earn an income in the adult industry.

This is just the latest example of censorship by financial intermediaries. Intermediaries have cut off access to financial services for independent booksellers, social networks, adult video websites, and whistleblower websites, regardless of whether those targeted were trading in First Amendment-protected speech. By cutting off these critical services, financial intermediaries force businesses to adhere to their moral and political standards.

It is not surprising that, faced with the choice of losing access to financial services or banning explicit content, OnlyFans would choose its payment processors over its users. For many businesses, losing access to financial services seriously disrupts operations and may have existential consequences.

As EFF has explained, access to the financial system is a necessary precondition for the operations of nearly every Internet intermediary, including content hosts and platforms. The structure of the electronic payment economy makes these payment systems a natural chokepoint for controlling online content. Indeed, in one case, a federal appeals court analogized shutting down financial services for a business to “killing a person by cutting off his oxygen supply.” In that case, Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, the Seventh Circuit found that a sheriff had violated the First Amendment by strongly encouraging payment processors to cut off financial services to a classified advertising website.

There has been some movement in Washington to fight financial censorship. Earlier this year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency finalized its Fair Access to Financial Services rule, which would have prevented banks from refusing to serve entire classes of customers they find politically or morally unsavory. But the rule was put on hold with the change of administrations in January.

Content moderation is a complex topic, and EFF has written about the implications of censorship by companies closer to the bottom of the technical stack. But content creators should not lose their financial lifelines based on the whims and moral standards of a few dominant and unaccountable financial institutions.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/onlyfans-content-creators-are-latest-victims-financial-censorship

*****************************************

Calling women at work 'love', 'hun' or 'babes' is demeaning and 'infantilising' but it's acceptable to use 'mate' or 'lad' for male colleague, judge rules at tribunal

I think a lot depends on context here. In some contexts routine use of "hun", "love" etc is accepted as normal

Calling women at work 'love' or 'hun' is demeaning but it's acceptable to use 'mate' for a male colleague, a judge has ruled at a tribunal involving a funeral firm manager who was sacked for using inappropriate language towards female staff.

Mike Hartley had claimed he was a victim of the Me Too movement when he was fired from Blackpool-based funeral firm D Hollowell & Sons Limited in January of this year.

A Manchester tribunal heard how he regularly called women 'sweet', 'love', 'chick' and 'honey', which he argued was the same as calling male counterparts 'mate' or 'lad'.

However the tribunal found it was inappropriate to compare the two, as the way he addressed men did not undermine them in the way his names for women did.

'Calling someone "mate" or "lad" is not a "pet" name in our opinion, it is a nickname,' Employment Judge Pauline Feeney said.

'They are not demeaning... however, chick, babes, bobs, honey, hun and sweetie are all demeaning and infantilising ways of referring to women.'

The final straw came when he called a colleague 'Rachie boobies' after making a comment about looking up her skirt, leading her to file a sexual harassment complaint which led to his dismissal.

The hearing heard how Mr Hartley began working as a driver and bearer for D Hollowell & Sons Limited in 2017 where he was promoted to client liaison and HR manager the following year.

In 2019, colleague Rachel Anderton complained about him making 'insulting' and 'very inappropriate' comments.

The panel heard Mr Hartley requested to add her on Facebook 'immediately' after meeting her, asked her what her 'vital statistics' were when enquiring about uniform size and called her pet names such as 'honey', 'babe' and 'chick' numerous times.

The panel, held remotely, heard this 'shocked' and 'upset' her.

Mr Hartley then brought his claims of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal. He said the MeToo movement had influenced the decision to find him guilty.

The panel found he had been unfairly dismissed as the investigation into his behaviour was not carried out properly.

However, it found that the company was right to fire him anyway, and refused to award him compensation.

It rejected his claim that he had been sexually discriminated against.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9985441/Calling-women-work-hun-demeaning-using-mate-lad-men-acceptable-says-judge.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************