>Incorrect, it applies to companies too as companies are citizens according to citizens united ruling over a decade ago.
This doesn't even make sense. If a corporation is a person, then 1A Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot restrict the corporations political speech.
The corporation is absolutely allowed to restrict their users free speech, including political speech, because A) the bill of rights only binds the government, not corporations and B) it would actually be against free speech to compell a private corporation to engage in speech it does not agree with.
Should you be forced to post political or sexual content that you disagree with on your accounts or on a wall at your house? Of course not. Similarly, if you start a business, you cannot be forced to post political or sexual content you disagree with. Your freedom of speech as a business is what matters here.
The idea that we have "speech anarchy" where all people can say anything they want and punish anyone who doesn't reproduce their speech is insanity.
What kind of "speech" are we talking about here? If a payment processor is already required to be secure, it could also be required not to deny any legal transactions. This isn't even political, you wouldn't expect a mobile carrier to censor your phone calls (at least in the EU we don't have that.. yet).
The concept that you're talking about in the US is a "common carrier" e.g. a taxi can't deny some people or a hotel can't refuse some people.
In the US, payment processors are not common carriers and operate on a contractual regime that allows them to refuse or terminate service for non-compliance, risk management, or policy reasons.
Mobile companies here are common carriers and are much more strictly regulated.
>Incorrect, it applies to companies too as companies are citizens according to citizens united ruling over a decade ago.
This doesn't even make sense. If a corporation is a person, then 1A Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot restrict the corporations political speech.
The corporation is absolutely allowed to restrict their users free speech, including political speech, because A) the bill of rights only binds the government, not corporations and B) it would actually be against free speech to compell a private corporation to engage in speech it does not agree with.
Should you be forced to post political or sexual content that you disagree with on your accounts or on a wall at your house? Of course not. Similarly, if you start a business, you cannot be forced to post political or sexual content you disagree with. Your freedom of speech as a business is what matters here.
The idea that we have "speech anarchy" where all people can say anything they want and punish anyone who doesn't reproduce their speech is insanity.
What kind of "speech" are we talking about here? If a payment processor is already required to be secure, it could also be required not to deny any legal transactions. This isn't even political, you wouldn't expect a mobile carrier to censor your phone calls (at least in the EU we don't have that.. yet).
The concept that you're talking about in the US is a "common carrier" e.g. a taxi can't deny some people or a hotel can't refuse some people.
In the US, payment processors are not common carriers and operate on a contractual regime that allows them to refuse or terminate service for non-compliance, risk management, or policy reasons.
Mobile companies here are common carriers and are much more strictly regulated.