SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
You may recall that in 2014 we wrote about a strange occurrence having to do with Chase Bank refusing to provide its banking services to Teagan Presley, a rather well known adult film actress. When it became clear that Presley wasn't the only performer to whom this was happening, it initially looked as though banks were engaging in a form of slut-shaming of adult film actors. It turned out, however, that it was the federal government doing the slut-shaming, with the emergence of the Department of Justice's Operation Choke Point. This DOJ policy that was developed to combat financial fraud somehow bled over the stencil lines and became a sort of banking morality police, encouraging banks to cut off services to industries like adult film, fireworks retail stores, and sellers engaged in what the DOJ deemed to be "racist materials." It's worth highlighting that all of these industries and actions, whether you like them or not, are legal, yet the DOJ was essentially attempting to extra-judiciously scuttle them through secretive federal policy. That should have terrified everyone, but didn't, and so the program went on.
Until recently. The justice department recently announced that Operation Choke Point will be ended.
The move hands a big victory to Republican lawmakers who charged that the initiative — dubbed "Operation Choke Point" — was hurting legitimate businesses. In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd referred to the program as "a misguided initiative."
"We share your view that law abiding businesses should not be targeted simply for operating in an industry that a particular administration might disfavor," says the letter, obtained by progressive activist group Allied Progress and later provided to POLITICO by Goodlatte's office. "Enforcement decisions should always be made based on facts and the applicable law. We reiterate that the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in short-term lending and firearms-related activities," it adds. A nearly identical letter was sent to Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
I was more annoyed by their use of it against gun stores but good riddance regardless.
Previously:
Adult Film Stars' Bank Accounts Closed
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 26 2017, @10:56PM (4 children)
C'mon, jmorris! You are just upset because you thought that "ChokePoint" was about auto-erotic asphyxiation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:56AM (3 children)
I just thought that it was a current administration taking credit for ending something that they helped enable in the last administration.
The only difference as to what kind of republican admits to wanting to give money to porn actresses are the ones that allowed Trump to win.
I cannot think of a single democratic lawmaker that has rallied against porn (but I am sure there are some, I just can't think of anyone at all) , but I can think of many republicans that thought that porn was bad. Perhaps that was just due to cultivating their religious base, but it seemed feasible that some were against entire feminist nature of the enterprise. Many tried and true conservatives, if not due to religious base pandering, had thought that the industry was giving the actresses too much freedom, too much power and, and too much money. The easiest thing to silently prevent was the money via banking rules.
I'd like to be wrong and instead have learned that the Evangelicals came to the aid of Miss Presley.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:02AM
"what kind of republican admits to wanting to give money to porn actresses"
None of them are proposing that we "give money to porn actresses". Instead, they suggest that we should stop stealing the money that someone else gave to the porn actresses. Do you think it alright to go downtown, find a prostitute, and shake her down for all her money? That would be alright, because why exactly? She earned her money in an immoral manner? Damn, it's like the 1960's have returned, and the so-called Moral Majority is running things again. "Go forth, find an immoral woman, and TAKE HER MONEY!!" Gotta love you modern day profits - errr - prophets.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:16PM (1 child)
Yet this thing happened under a Democrat administration (Operation Choke Point was a second term project of the Obama administration). Actions speak louder than words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:54PM
That is why I said I can't think of any names.
There are values I intend to keep, regardless of which party has them. If that makes it so Runaway and Jmorris and TMB are right from time to time -- I think soylent will be the better for it ;)
I am still under the impression that each side panders to group, some more so than others, and weighing on different metrics and all that.
Anyway, Runaway's response wasn't what I was looking for, but I wouldn't disagree with it. I wasn't literally expecting republicans to show up with money to pay the women. what I meant to say was that I don't recall them, not after title ix anyway, really ever caring about the general well-being of liberated women, or women that wanted to be liberated. There's a place for them, based on the general rhetoric of some of those guys in office, and it's not enjoying sexual and reproductive freedom. I get the feeling that the title ix stuff was just a look the other way at the great things we can do while we engage in other questionable enterprises. Which is what politics is often about.
Both parties are guilty of that behavior, but I am focusing on the questionable change of tactics. I expect this has more to do with business lobbying than women's rights--like marijuana taxes or something. probably gonna take parts of the PATRIOT act out of play due to the tax revenues possible for legalized sales of weed, and this was one of those barriers associated with it due to being lumped together and specifically was easy to eliminate while being able to blame someone else for putting it into place to begin with.