BitChute’s Bank Accounts Have Been Frozen And Suspended In Attempt To End Platform

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

we can’t have free speech?

You can have all the free speech you want. But not on someone else's credit. Maybe go ask Elon for a loan, he seems to be fond of troll talk.

The bank has no right to withhold funds or close an account on the basis of political disagreement in a democratic society. There is no basis in what you have claimed despite trying to justify your opinions.

So you are wrong for once more.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

we can’t have free speech?

You can have all the free speech you want. But not on someone else's credit. Maybe go ask Elon for a loan, he seems to be fond of troll talk.

Still bitter about Twitter? LOL

You can do what your kind does best; scream at the sky and burn down a local business.

And somehow a lawyer could not get this resolved quickly through proper channels? Because the second a lawyer gets involved all manner of impropriety can come to the surface and almost every bank would rather resolve the issue quickly with a little hush money to boot, than to have their bank audited or their practices scrutinized. a reply to: Asmodeus3

a reply to: Asmodeus3

When you wrote "They just wanted to silence free speech. The bank wanted to enforce the official narrative and change the behaviour of Bitchute" was that your opinion or is there a statement from the bank saying it or at least suggesting it?

a reply to: Astyanax

you're out of your mind.

You think its ok to seize someone's funds because of a website that hosts others people videos?

Well damn, why hasn't anyone froze youtube's bank yet? You know how much BS is on that website every day? TONS of it.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Asmodeus3

When you wrote "They just wanted to silence free speech. The bank wanted to enforce the official narrative and change the behaviour of Bitchute" was that your opinion or is there a statement from the bank saying it or at least suggesting it?

The bank will never admit anywhere and especially in writing that they are trying to censor free speech and trying to implement their narratives and the narratives of the establishment.

If you take a look around you will see it is obvious what they are trying to unless you live in your own bubble and you are detached from reality.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Your point of view is sad to me.

There, there. Eat a peach, as Neil said to Stephen.

So sad that because of feelings, like the feelings that you have

My post didn't express any feelings, it stated facts. Those feelings you're sorry about are yours, not mine.

because of this kind of crap, we can’t have free speech?

You have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to say what you want against others without being punished for it. Learn the difference. Citizenship 101.

Libel, hate speech, fraud, sedition, treason -- they continue, quite rightly, to be prohibited. You'll have to find another outlet for your delinquent impulses or decent society will crush you like a bug.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Your point of view is sad to me.

There, there. Eat a peach, as Neil said to Stephen.

So sad that because of feelings, like the feelings that you have

My post didn't express any feelings, it stated facts. Those feelings you're sorry about are yours, not mine.

because of this kind of crap, we can’t have free speech?

You have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to say what you want against others without being punished for it. Learn the difference. Citizenship 101.

Libel, hate speech, fraud, sedition, treason -- they continue, quite rightly, to be prohibited. You'll have to find another outlet for your delinquent impulses or decent society will crush you like a bug.

Libel, hate speech, fraud, sedition, treason -- they continue, quite rightly, to be prohibited.

None of these apply in the case we are discussing

a reply to: Asmodeus3

None of these apply in the case we are discussing

We are discussing the legal and financial exposure of a bank to the potentially criminal activities and funding sources of a social media platform. Libel, hate speech, fraud, sedition and treason are all highly applicable.

What did you think you were discussing? A 'conspiracy' by HSBC to 'silence' free speech? Lol.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Asmodeus3

None of these apply in the case we are discussing

We are discussing the legal and financial exposure of a bank to the potentially criminal activities and funding sources of a social media platform. Libel, hate speech, fraud, sedition and treason are all highly applicable.

What did you think you were discussing? A 'conspiracy' by HSBC to 'silence' free speech? Lol.

No we are not. We are discussing the censorship oh political ideas.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If you take a look around you will see it is obvious what they are trying to unless you live in your own bubble and you are detached from reality.

What sounds obvious to a person may not sound obvious to another person with different or no preconceived ideas.

The fact that I do not state theories as facts doesn't mean I think the theories are not valid, it only means that facts are facts and that when we do not have them we shouldn't try to change reality to fit our ideas.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If you take a look around you will see it is obvious what they are trying to unless you live in your own bubble and you are detached from reality.

What sounds obvious to a person may not sound obvious to another person with different or no preconceived ideas.

The fact that I do not state theories as facts doesn't mean I think the theories are not valid, it only means that facts are facts and that when we do not have them we shouldn't try to change reality to fit our ideas.

Let me re-iterate again what I have said earlier

The bank will never admit anywhere and especially in writing that they are trying to censor free speech and trying to implement their narratives and the narratives of the establishment

The actions of the bank 🏦 speak for themselves. You don't need the use of philosophy or advance mathematics to understand what they are trying to do.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

We are discussing the censorship oh political ideas.

It might seem so to a hayseed who doesn't understand how the world works, I suppose. You started this thread, didn’t you? Perhaps you should have learnt a bit about the Basel accords before starting a thread about the legal risks and obligations faced by a bank and the scope of action it may take in this connexion.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Asmodeus3

We are discussing the censorship oh political ideas.

It might seem so to a hayseed who doesn't understand how the world works, I suppose. You started this thread, didn’t you? Perhaps you should have learnt a bit about the Basel accords before starting a thread about the legal risks and obligations faced by a bank and the scope of action it may take in this connexion.

Hmmm....Not really.

It's obvious to most of us why Bitchute's accounts are frozen.

You said

Libel, hate speech, fraud, sedition, treason -- they continue, quite rightly, to be prohibited.

None of these are related to the case we are discussing. Here are discussing the censorship of political ideas. Bitchute 'must' behave according to the prevailing narratives otherwise it will be punished.


You said

You can have all the free speech you want. But not on someone else's credit. Maybe go ask Elon for a loan, he seems to be fond of troll talk.

You seem bitter about the takeover of Twitter from the hands of radical left-wing loonies who wanted to censor everything and everyone.

I assume by troll talk you mean the talk by the likes of Dr Malone, Dr Peter McCullough, Jordan Peterson and the rest who have been reinstated on twitter. Actually there are tens of thousands of accounts to be reinstated after the fact checkers banned them.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Here are discussing the censorship of political ideas. Bitchute 'must' behave according to the prevailing narratives otherwise it will be punished.

We are discussing the freeze of Bitchute's bank account, the reasons are speculation, as the bank didn't state their reasons, as far as I know.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Here are discussing the censorship of political ideas. Bitchute 'must' behave according to the prevailing narratives otherwise it will be punished.

We are discussing the freeze of Bitchute's bank account, the reasons are speculation, as the bank didn't state their reasons, as far as I know.

What reasons do they have? If there were matters with respect to the law we would have known them by now.

We can all guess what it is without being absolutely certain. It's fine.

And most here guess it's something other than breaking the law.

It looks like there is censorship of political ideas and views.


This is the bank that we were talking about

HSBC's Money Laundering 2012 Charge
HSBC Holdings' (HSBC) agreement to pay a $1.9 billion fine to regulators for serving as a middleman for Mexican drug cartels and enter into a deferred prosecution agreement points to a lack of adequate control processes in compliance and anti-money laundering.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What reasons do they have? If there were matters with respect to the law we would have known them by now.

Why? It's a private question between the bank and a client.

We can all guess what it is without being absolutely certain. It's fine.

Sure it's fine, just don't present it as fact.

And most here guess it's something other than breaking the law.

Just because most people think one thing doesn't make it true, only popular.

It looks like there is censorship of political ideas and views.

If it is then it's the client that can take legal action against the bank, unless there's a clause in the contract that allows the bank to do it.

This is the bank that we were talking about

I know it well.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
What reasons do they have? If there were matters with respect to the law we would have known them by now.

Why? It's a private question between the bank and a client.

We can all guess what it is without being absolutely certain. It's fine.

Sure it's fine, just don't present it as fact.

And most here guess it's something other than breaking the law.

Just because most people think one thing doesn't make it true, only popular.

It looks like there is censorship of political ideas and views.

If it is then it's the client that can take legal action against the bank, unless there's a clause in the contract that allows the bank to do it.

This is the bank that we were talking about

I know it well.

No need to defend the actions of the bank. They are indefensible by the way.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I'm not defending the actions of the bank, I'm only pointing to the known facts and to the difference between facts and assumptions.

Is an account freeze an extreme action against someone? It sure is, and it should happen only in extreme cases.

Do we really know the reasons the bank had to support their actions? No.

Does it look like there isn't any strong legal reason, which would likely result in legal action? No.
Does that mean that what the bank did is illegal? No, as it doesn't look like BitChute is suing the bank, which they should do if there was a breach of contract from the bank.

I think we need more information to be able to understand the situation.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I'm not defending the actions of the bank, I'm only pointing to the known facts and to the difference between facts and assumptions.

Is an account freeze an extreme action against someone? It sure is, and it should happen only in extreme cases.

Do we really know the reasons the bank had to support their actions? No.

Does it look like there isn't any strong legal reason, which would likely result in legal action? No.
Does that mean that what the bank did is illegal? No, as it doesn't look like BitChute is suing the bank, which they should do if there was a breach of contract from the bank.

I think we need more information to be able to understand the situation.

Yes we do without being absolutely certain and knowing that Bitchute isn't involved in unlawful actions. If it did they would have been taken to courts. That hasn't happened.

We can take an educated guess of what is going on.

It's the bank by the way that has to prove they froze the account by having real legitimate reasons. Otherwise they will be done.