Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PayPal Reinstates Fund For WikiLeaker Manning

Posted by Soulskill on from the saw-which-way-the-wind-was-blowing dept.

itwbennett writes "PayPal has lifted a temporary restriction placed on the account of Courage to Resist, a group raising funds to support the legal defense of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested for allegedly downloading classified information and providing it to WikiLeaks. As you may recall, PayPal was embroiled in controversy late last year when it shuttered an account for WikiLeaks amid the controversy over the expose of US State Department documents. PayPal communications director Anuj Nayar said in a blog posting that the decision 'had nothing to do with WikiLeaks.'"

3 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Credibility anyone? by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you accept Paypal?

  2. Re:Slashdot Wins! by Duradin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, they totally made that decision because a site full of people who hate their service and don't use them anyways (publicly) had their sensibilities hurt. That was just as successful as /.'s campaign to topple the lame Apple.

    Tempest, meet Teacup. Teacup, Tempest. I think you two will get along famously. Oh, you met over Other OS? I'll leave you two to it then.

  3. Re:Credibility anyone? by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then you apparently didnt actually read the earlier story, where the explaination boils down to,

    • CTR claimed nonprofit status with paypal
    • Paypal has a policy requiring a bank account to be associated with such accounts
    • Paypal warned CTR that they were not in compliance with said requirements
    • CTR ignored said warnings, and had their account frozen

    Source for claims (here)

    We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue).

    In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions.

    But no, CTR and slashdots sourceless claims are totally more credible than that. And its totally bogus for Paypal to ask CTR to follow the same requirements as everyone else.

    I can agree the unfreezing has a tenuous link with Manning-- all the attention around this non-story has made paypal choose the path of least resistance, which is to reinstate the account and lift the restrictions.