A government official suggesting that or even telling a company/corporation/individual to do something is not the same as a providing legal order with basis, even if that order and basis is logically unsound. No way was any legal requirement imposed on PayPal, VISA or MasterCard as was done to Twitter, and which that company immediately challenged the gagging portion.
As long as there are still some laws that can be used to challenge government actions, they ought to be used while attempting to persuade people to question the assumption that government is the necessity it always claims to be.
The use of alternate money transfer companies is highly recommended - "Are Principles Unaffordable?" http://selfsip.org/focus/areprinciplesunaffordable.html
A government official suggesting that or even telling a company/corporation/individual to do something is not the same as a providing legal order with basis, even if that order and basis is logically unsound. No way was any legal requirement imposed on PayPal, VISA or MasterCard as was done to Twitter, and which that company immediately challenged the gagging portion.
As long as there are still some laws that can be used to challenge government actions, they ought to be used while attempting to persuade people to question the assumption that government is the necessity it always claims to be.
The use of alternate money transfer companies is highly recommended - "Are Principles Unaffordable?" http://selfsip.org/focus/areprinciplesunaffordable.html
Thank you for the input! I have a story on this coming soon!
It could be a violaton of anti trust laws, big companies secretly making decisions to the detriment of the public.