Just saying

December 7, 2010 by Jeff Jarvis

I can use Visa and Mastercard to pay for porn and support anti-abortion fanatics, Prop 8 homophobic bigots, and the Ku Klux Klan. But I can’t use them or PayPal to support Wikileaks, transparency, the First Amendment, and true government reform.

  • Pingback: Status Quo Wikileaks | Allesblog

  • http://andrevarga.blogspot.com/ Andre Varga

    You are preciselly right! So far Governments dont change as fast as market and society. Who knows when…
    Best regards. Keep on “waking us up” about”. Thanx. Obrigado! :)

  • Pingback: Tenersi Frattini - manteblog

  • Pingback: Beautifulife » Troppo vero, troppo brutto

  • Pingback: Per tutto il resto c’è Mastercard | dotcoma

  • Pingback: Wikileaks e paradossi « Gli Appunti del Paz83

  • Pingback: Wikileaks: che vergogna

  • http://kazoolist.blogspot.com kazoolist

    Your linking what Wikileaks has done with the “First Amendment” or “transparency” is as misguided as your slander that anyone who wants to preserve the traditional form of marriage as a homophobic bigot.

    You’re wrong on both counts.

    Stop being a troll.

    • http://www.strozzi.it Carlo

      @kazoolist: you are free to preserve whatever you like, but for yourself, not by imposing your beliefs upon others that have a different opinion. Assange did nothing but make public what others had done under cover, and nobody, to my knowledge, has put those leaks off as false, so the whole point is that things that are of concern to most of us in this world should never have been made known to us. Go figure.

    • WGMal

      If you can clarify the need to preserve traditional marriage and why it is threatened I might buy the “slander” bit. However, the bulk of the dialogue about perserving traditional marriage is tightly linked to the objection to same-sex marriage when the real threat to traditional marriage comes from other factors, especially when you consider a 50% failure rate of first marriages and a 70% failure rate of second marriages. It seems that heterosexuals create their own threat to traditional marriage without any assistance. Who’s misguided?

    • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

      Hoo boy. Pot. Kettle. Metal.

  • http://www.DyspepsiaGeneration.com Tim of Angle

    Gee, don’t you wish we had a free market?

  • Pingback: Grande Jeff! « Senzamegafono

  • http://feistywoman.net FeistyWoman

    Indeed. Hypocrisy abound. Guess our money doesn’t have enough blood on it.

  • Fletch

    Don’t agree at all. National Right To Life aren’t “abortion fanatics”. They support the right to life for all including the unborn. As for Prop 8 supporters, who do you know they are homophobic bigots? Is this a democracy or not? I’m sure those who disagreed with Prop 8 also had a site accepting donations – that’s how it works in a democracy. The real Prop 8 “fanatics” would be those who set up the eightmaps.com site which is a mashup with Google Maps which shows the addresses of Prop 8 donors who were then harassed at home and at work (many losing their jobs). Gays are all in favour of “tolerance” until they come up against someone who disagrees with them. If it were the houses of gays that were mapped they’re be a huge stink about it.

    And mapping these groups in with the KKK shows your “tolerant” bias. But a liberal can’t be wrong, can they?

    As for donating to wikileaks, I don’t know why any patriotic American would support what amounts to an act of political sabotage using stolen documents.

    As with the overthrow of the Shah in Iran in 1979, the leftists who supported it will be the first up against the wall when the real enemy attacks.

    • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

      “Is this a democracy or not?”

      It’s a limited democracy. Voting on whether a group of people get their civil rights recognized is generally frowned upon, especially when all the reasons given are bigoted lies.

      Second, show me the “many” people who lost their jobs because they backed Prop8. Hell, show me *five* people who lost their jobs because of it.

      Third, you’re more than welcome to set up a website using information from the public record, especially one pointing out the people who gave money to take away your civil rights. Be my guest.

      Fourth, I’m happy to, and do, tolerate plenty of people. But when you start abridging civil rights, I’m duty bound to speak up and tell people what you’re doing. Feel free to do the same.

    • http://sebmos.at/ Sebastian

      You do realize that Wikileaks isn’t doing anything illegal, and even if you disagree, other people mit agree with their way of doing things? You do realize that Jeff Jarvis might think that homophobic bigots are bigots but should have the option to receive donations via MasterCard, much like he thinks Wikileaks should have?

      Boy, I’m not even a supporter of Wikileaks, I even think it’s OK for MasterCard to refuse processing payments for them, but you sure make me reconsider my opinion!

  • Fletch

    *that should read “lumping these groups in with the KKK”

  • Stan Hogan

    Most newspapers will accept any of your credit cards as a show of support for the first amendment.

    • Eric Gauvin

      That’s good because the only people reading wikileaks are journalists…

  • Chris

    The ACLU supports the First Amendment, and they still take Visa and MC.

    I don’t think that the action Visa and MC are taking is warranted, but I also don’t think Wikileaks is the only organization working for transparency, the First Amendment, and true government reform. Nor, for that matter, do I think they are the most effective at said efforts.

    Finally: is it possible, Jeff, to disagree with you on abortion or gay marriage without being dismissed as a fanatic and/or bigot? I hope not. I’d like to think that on issues on which tens of millions of Americans differ we can find a way to talk about contentious issues without, well, name-calling (and yes, that goes for everyone on all sides).

    • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

      The only reason given for removing a group of people’s civil right to marry the person they please (if that person makes a matching choice) is bigotry. Every other excuse that’s been given has been soundly disproved in a court of law (not to mention a cursory glance at the Constitution).

      Still don’t want that group of Americans to have their civil rights? That’s bigotry. The number of people who disagree is irrelevant.

      • Chris

        Matt,

        My point is this: if you want to convince and persuade others, name-calling isn’t the best way to go about it. But maybe you aren’t interested in persuasion.

      • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

        That wasn’t your point, Chris, but you’re right on the other part. I’m not particularly interested in persuasion when it requires that I obscure truth.

        I don’t think everyone against civil rights are particularly bigoted; some are just ignorant of the facts and would rather not think about it. But the leaders of the movement? Your Maggie Gallaghers, James Dobsons, Elaine Donnellys, and Tony Perkinses? The people who spend their lives fighting against Civil Rights? The professional politicians who vote against Civil Rights? Bigots, the lot of them.

      • Chris

        Matt,

        *Obviously* I disagree that your civil rights are being denied by asserting that the essence of marriage is that it be a man & a woman and having that maintained in law. And the vast majority of Americans happen to agree with me.

        For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that I’m wrong. Look at the civil rights movement… yes, there were legal battles, but there was also a clear & concerted effort made by MLK et al. to *convince* and *persuade* their fellow Americans, including those who disagreed with them and were open to civil discussion.

        You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to assert that those who disagree with you are either bigoted or ignorant. Whatever approach that is, it’s not the one taken by MLK.

        If you believe that your case that marriage isn’t exclusively male-female is rational, then make it. Don’t succumb to name-calling because it’s easier. Trying to persuade and convince might be more difficult, but in the end it’s more effective at winning people to your side.

  • http://www.plugmyduck.com Don

    I think PayPal needs to play nice with a government to prevent a backlash since it still has that weird existence where it’s not a bank but acts like one.

  • cm

    Perhaps you need to get rid of the self-delusion that the First Amendment actually means anything and that the US actually has good freedom of speech.

    These are just fictions that do not really hold up to scrutiny. USA ranks poorly in press freedom. You have free speech, so long as you follow the strict rules.

    How can it be called free speech when the government can control when, how and where you exercise the “free speech”. Why are there “Free speech areas”?

    • Fletch

      This can be seen in Obama’s attempts to silence news organizations (eg, Fox) that he didn’t like, to the point of excluding them from press conferences. Gee, isn’t it terrible when someone has a different view from yours in a society with free speech. The Left can’t stomach it and will try and shut up or smear those they don’t agree with instead of having honest dialogue.

      • jake

        fletch – both side are guilty.

        or do you really believe people like rush limbaugh don’t try to
        smear their political opponents?

        maybe if more americans realized left vs right is just a distraction keeping us from the real issues and making real progress, assange wouldn’t have felt the need for wikileaks.

      • http://blog.mattalgren.com Matt Algren

        Seriously, FOX is far from a news organization. Even they’ve been up front about that.

      • Andy Freeman

        > fletch – both side are guilty.

        We’re all guilty, but that doesn’t imply that we’re all guilty of the same things.

        > or do you really believe people like rush limbaugh don’t try to
        smear their political opponents?

        They don’t try to get govt to take their opponents off the air.

  • Brenden

    Um… Isn’t the KKK declared a terrorist organisation? Shocking a site can exist and be hosted in the US. Abortion is one thing, but to hate someone for their race………. Also surprised to see Network Solutions hosting the domain. (http://http://whois.domaintools.com/kkk.bz)… Hmm…….

  • Pingback: Francesco Biacca blog » Blog Archive » Accerchiamento WikiLeaks

  • Pingback: Kreditkarten-Moral -- zweitens-magazin.de

  • Pingback: WikiLeaks-Banner « Düstere-Grenze

  • Pingback: Jeff Jarvis zu PayPal, VISA und Mastercard « Ein Mensch namens Lars …

  • Rajendranath Mehrotra

    These leaks clearly indicate that U.S.A can ruine any Nation,Sacrifice any so called or do everything wich others can’t even dream off, to rule the world.

  • sigthor

    Somewhere I saw reported that you can buy access to underage modeling sites, often referred to as child pornography with both visa, mastercard or paypal

  • Pingback: Le sette sorelle contro la libertà » Piovono rane - Blog - L'espresso

  • Pingback: » Jeff Jarvis over Wikileaks

  • MRJCB

    Is it noy a case of Visa and American Express fearing the backlash from the government if they are seen to do nothing about Wikileaks (no more tax breaks or whatever).

  • Tex Lovera

    A dismissive post, worthy only of dismissal itself…

  • Pingback: Wikileaks, quanto è libera la rete… : Mauro Munafò

  • Al Dorman

    This is a fantastic post, and you were great on CNN recently Jeff. Thanks for being a thin ray of sunshine in what has been appalling coverage — essentially just asking CIA and State what they think of the leak. These journalists are a joke, and it’s depressing to see the state of American journalism, when the first question asked, upon being leaked some amazing information like this, is “Oh Golly, Should I Even Have This??”

  • Pingback: Meglio il Ku Klux Klan che Wikileaks | non sparate sul pianista

  • http://kevintraver.com Kevin Traver

    People are using historic comparisons and laws when discussing #wikileaks. Im not sure ‘historic’ terms and laws can be applied, as this is a entirely new affair. Thoughts?

  • Doug H.

    Sabotaging our national interests is not protected speech. Assange’s mission was never govt. reform and he is not a journalist. His mission was to make it harder for the govt. to operate. A noble goal, indeed. You probably wouldn’t be screaming ‘free speech’ if he had published your family’s social security numbers, dates of birth and addresses.

  • http://www.nobleackerson.com Noble

    Great. Now paypal is down, many small business reliant on this service now can’t get business done. There goes the economy. Thanks Mr. Jarvis.

    j/k can’t wait for Public Parts

  • Pingback: Die WikiLeaks-Revolution « stohl.de

  • Pingback: Wikileaks: per tutto il resto c’è MasterCard | Pino Bruno

  • Pingback: Wikileaks and internet censorship | Wadds' PR Blog

  • Pingback: depicus – Freedom of expression is priceless. For everything else, there’s MasterCard.

  • John

    Yeah.. people against abortion and those that watch porn are exactly in the same bag as those who support slavery and those against same-sex marriage!

    Your one step away from godwins law there buddy…

    Since I don’t agree with you on some of your points can I also say your just a racist-homophobe youself or are you the only one that can draw these brilliant conclusions on everyone else?

  • http://www.weltenweiser.de Weltenweiser

    I kind of like how the “Verpixelung” in GSV is a cute little puppy against what is happing right now. The problem is, the words used where pretty equal.

  • Joe Walton

    Don’t the owners or MC and Visa also have 1st amendment rights?

  • Pingback: WikiLeaks – Die Rebellion im Internet | Markus Ladstätter privat

  • Pingback: Wikileaks und die Ethik in der Informationsgesellschaft « Emamedia's Blog

  • Derval

    Maybe Mastercard, Visa and PayPal should stop accepting payment to “accomplices” of Wikileaks, who helped spread the facts Assange brought to light. Who are the accomplices? All the newspapers, news sites, television networks, you and me and everybody else.

    How many people bothered to visit the actual website of wikileaks and how many people have heard the news it uncovered? If wikileaks did a bad thing publicizing facts that should remain hidden what about the work of the media? What’s the real difference? Is it just because they were the first to publish the material?

    If somebody commits a real crime, say, photos of naked children or racist propaganda, these are not going to get republished in newspapers or broadcast over national television. The very fact that everything (ok, just the best parts) was reported by the media shows that nobody saw it as a crime.

    • http://ShaverAssociates.net Rob Shaver

      How many people would have to close their credit card accounts before they turned Wikileaks back on? 1%? 5%?

  • http://www.deciminyan.org Deciminyan

    And I’m sure that if Dick Cheney or any of his acolytes are indicted for their treasonous act of outing Valerie Plame, I would be able to use my Visa to contribute to their legal defense fund. I don’t see much difference between what Cheney did and what Assange did.

    • Andy Freeman

      > And I’m sure that if Dick Cheney or any of his acolytes are indicted for their treasonous act of outing Valerie Plame

      DC and his “acolytes” didn’t out Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage did.

  • Pingback: Governments: Ku Klux Klan okay, WikiLeaks not – Culture Mulcher

  • Pingback: la libertà non è uno spazio libero « Non guardo la tivù

  • http://www.facebook.com/enrique.esquinas Enrique E.

    This is a spanish translation I made to quote you on my Facebook wall: “Puedo usar Visa o Mastercard para comprar porno y financiar a fanáticos anti-abortistas, a prejuiciados homófobos de la Proposición 8 y al Ku Klux Klan. Pero no puedo usarlas ni tampoco puedo usar PayPal para sustentar Wikileaks, la transparencia, la Primera Enmienda ni una verdadera reforma de nuestro gobierno”

  • Pingback: marcel_baur » Blog Archive » Worte der Woche

  • http://vamosaperdernos.blogspot.com Lucia

    EXCELLENT!!!!!!

  • Roger

    Jarvis, I’m a fan. Lumping me with the KKK and porn because I support Prop 8 or anti-abortion stung. I can take it, but for me it really detracted from your point. Just a bit too broad a stroke there, especially coming from you, it disappoints.

  • http://www.aothun.vn/ hinh ao lop

    howdy-do, noble blog on lardy loss. such a one helped . Can i use it in my website : http://aothun.vn/group/ ?