[cHex]

Originally Posted by vxf

As a very generic point... for those saying that any company has - or should have - the right to choose whom to do business with... do you even remember all the establishments not accepting non-whites? The hotels refusing homosexual couples? Or, further back in time, unmarried couples?

Businesses are NOT unrestricted in choosing whom to do business with, nor should they be.

This is a case where I believe US laws have infringed on people's constitutional rights. While it is proper for courts to enforce equal-access to public property (toilets, drinking fountains, buses and utilities where government creates monopolies, etc.) I think telling restaurants, for example, that they MUST do business with any class of people should be considered unconstitutional.

In my mind, any restriction to freedom is detrimental - to me, to society.

Except restrictions on one's freedom to determine with whom to do business?

I might accept arguments about being forced to supply a particular service - as above, contraceptives, tobacco, alcohol, etc. But here we are talking about something completely different - HINDERING someone else's ability to engage in a LEGAL transaction.

I don't know where the legality of the issue lays. But Paypal is certainly on my black list.

Saying that PayPal is hindering Smashwords from engaging in a legal transaction by not doing business with them is like saying I am hindering a grocery store from engaging in legal transactions by buying my groceries elsewhere.

Our freedom to do business does not mean others are forced to do business with us.

Smashwords should be free to set whatever criteria they wish on which works to publish and sell. They should be free to enter into any contracts they find acceptable with potential business partners. They should be free from compulsion to do business with potential business partners.

PayPal should be free to set whatever criteria they wish for which people or companies they will handle financial transactions. They should be free from compulsion to do handle financial transactions for anybody.

We should be free to purchase any legal items, including eBooks, that someone may offer for sale. We should be free to use any financial processors available to us. We should not be compelled to purchase items we do not desire. We should not be compelled to use any financial processor.

Put it all together, and you get workable freedom.

If some privately-owned item is not available to us, whether because we can't afford it, it's too far away, we don't know about it, we can't pay in the manner the seller desires, we won't agree to the terms of sale, etc. may be inconvenient, but it is hardly "censorship," "hypocrisy," or "illegal."