[tptacek]

What about the people among us who don't think that Wikileaks is a good thing to support?

What if there are more people who think that than message board sentiment analysis would lead you to believe?

What if the New York Times simply doesn't agree with your take --- ok, the popular take on places like HN --- about Wikileaks?

[lukejduncan]

Does it matter if anyone thinks WikiLeaks is a "good" thing?

These are the questions that matter: Is WikiLeaks a journalistic entity? Why or why not? Is it OK for a bank/financial entity to block donations to any entity, journalism or not? *If money is speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) how is blocking donations not a criminal offence?

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

[asdfasdghasdf]

Because Visa and Mastercard are private companies that can decide whom they want or don't want as customers. They'll deny you from being a merchant if you have poor credit, too. They take on risk with every new merchant they accept, and I can see how WikiLeaks might pose a greater risk than most. If a group's supporters are willing to DoS visa.com and mastercard.com, I wouldn't put it past them to make large donations with stolen credit card numbers either, and Visa and Mastercard are on the hook for the chargebacks.

And, of course, since money is speech, it's fully within your rights to donate to wikileaks (cash, check, wire transfer, money order), just as its within Visa's rights not to accept Wikileaks as a customer.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that there are no political motivations behind the decisions of Visa and Mastercard. I'm just answering the question about why this isn't for some reason illegal.

[mathewi]

The article was my opinion -- obviously you are entitled to your own :-)