Religious Attacks

The Cato Institute has published a report on debanking. You can find it here: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/understanding-debanking-evaluating-governmental-operational-political-religious?utm_source=social&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cato%20Social%20Share

Here’s what the report is all about:

Debanking can be a frustrating and deeply unsettling experience. One day everything seems fine, and the next, a notice arrives giving just 30 days to withdraw funds and find a new financial institution. Confusion quickly turns into anxiety. Bills were paid, nothing appeared out of the ordinary — so what changed? A call to the bank rarely brings clarity, and the response is often the same: no further details can be provided. Customers are left with more questions than answers.

On the other side of the conversation, bankers are frequently constrained by strict confidentiality requirements. Even frontline staff may not have access to the underlying reasons for an account closure. Financial institutions operate within a framework of anti–money laundering, know your customer, and countering the financing of terrorism regulations — commonly referred to as AML, KYC, and CFT. While these rules are standard practice within the industry, they remain largely invisible to the public, creating a disconnect that fuels frustration on both sides.

For those looking to address the growing concern around debanking, some argue that meaningful change will require greater transparency. That could mean reconsidering the confidentiality that surrounds account closures, removing reputational risk as a regulatory factor, and reevaluating the Bank Secrecy Act framework that effectively places financial institutions in the role of investigative gatekeepers.

Your bank may never send you a memo about it, but it’s quietly shaping your life.

Every time you click “buy now,” a small army of institutions decides whether that purchase gets to exist. And for adult creators, that army has been steadily tightening its grip. For years, people in the industry have been warning about financial discrimination and debanking — the sudden closure of accounts, the polite but devastating “we can no longer do business with you.” It’s happening more often now. And it’s happening quietly.

“I don’t know what could happen next or when it might happen,”

Adult VTuber, journalist, and activist Ana Valens says. In just two weeks last November, nearly every platform she relied on either removed her content or suspended her outright. “While my Patreon and Ko-fi were reinstated, I’ve spent the past two months waiting for the other shoe to drop — another Patreon ban, my PayPal deactivated, and so on.” She reached out for explanations. Most platforms couldn’t clearly articulate how she’d violated their terms. Ko-fi didn’t respond until repeated messages finally led to reinstatement.

That kind of uncertainty lingers. It’s like walking on ice that might crack at any moment.

“Deplatforming and debanking are an occupational hazard for any adult content creator,” says Gina, a co-founder of PeepMe, a startup that set out to build a worker-owned creator marketplace. PeepMe was imagined as an alternative to OnlyFans and Patreon — a space where creators could hold equity, elect a democratic board, and receive quarterly profit-sharing dividends.

Gina requested that a pseudonym be used, given her continued work adjacent to the adult industry and the very real fear of financial fallout. “Even still, I’ve never seen someone banned on so many sites before [as Ana has been],” she says.

And it’s not just adult creators feeling the pressure. Companies in oil and gas, cryptocurrency, tobacco, and firearms have also raised concerns about politically motivated debanking. The pushback has grown loud enough that U.S. regulators are now stepping in, attempting to rein in financial discrimination.

Who’s Blocking My Buying?

When you make an online purchase, your money doesn’t travel in a straight line. It passes through layers of gatekeepers. The pipeline often looks like this:

1. Platform (merchant) websites: where creators earn income — YouTube, Patreon, Etsy, DoorDash, Steam.

2. Payment processors: companies that route the transaction between card networks and banks — PayPal, Stripe.

3. Card networks: Visa, American Express, Mastercard — the rule-makers that standardize how buyers and sellers interact.

4. Your bank and the seller’s bank: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and so on.

Each step has discretion. Beyond preventing illegal activity, these institutions can decide what kinds of money they’re willing to touch.

“The rules set by card networks are sometimes vague,” says Dr. Val Webber, a postdoctoral researcher at Dalhousie University’s Sexual Health and Gender Research Lab. Mastercard’s June 2025 rules restrict “any Transaction that […] in the sole discretion of [Mastercard], may damage the goodwill of [Mastercard] or reflect negatively on the [brand].”

“In the sole discretion” is doing a lot of work there.

Last summer, Steam and itch.io removed or deindexed adult games after pressure from payment processors and card networks. Steam cited pressure from Mastercard, conveyed through processors like Stripe. Stripe told itch.io, “Stripe is currently unable to support sexually explicit content due to restrictions placed on them by their banking partners, despite card networks generally supporting adult content.” Stripe’s prohibited business list includes “pornography and other mature audience content (including literature, imagery, and other media) designed for the purpose of sexual gratification.”

Mastercard later denied involvement. In August 2025, the company stated, “Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations.”

Meanwhile, Valens saw her articles disappear from Vice. “My suspicion is that it was easy for a financial company to flag me as high risk as a punitive measure for my content, or my activism work,” she says. Attempts to obtain comment from Vice were unsuccessful.

Who Can Get Debanked?

“We have lots of data to show that people in the adult industry face financial discrimination in the form of their accounts being closed, being denied mortgages, business loans, and other banking services — despite banks often not being able to substantiate legal reasons related to these individual accounts,” says Maggie MacDonald, a PhD researcher at the University of Toronto.

The tension escalated in December 2020 when Visa and Mastercard cut ties with Pornhub, citing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). “Our adult content standards allow for legal adult activity created by consenting individuals or studios,” Mastercard said at the time. “Merchants must have controls to monitor, block and remove unlawful content from being posted.” Pornhub denied hosting illegal content and emphasized the harm to “the hundreds of thousands of models who rely on [their] platform for their livelihoods.”

But here’s the inconsistency that nags at people: X continues to process payments despite widespread reports of CSAM and non-consensual deepfake content. No sweeping financial freeze there.

Watching major platforms lose payment relationships makes smaller startups tread lightly. “We just can’t afford to lose our ability to do business with these financial companies,” Gina says. “Stripe takes only 2.9 percent from businesses they’re willing to work with, while high-risk processors willing to take on adult content can charge up to 15 percent.”

That difference can sink a company before it starts.

“Losing a relationship with card networks is a risk payment processors can’t afford, and losing relationships with payment processors is a risk that platform websites can’t afford,” explains Webber. “In the end, the responsibility of ensuring their content stays within the lines of these oftentimes unclear rules trickles down to each individual creator. Because ultimately, content creators are more expendable to platforms than payment processors and card networks.”

One justification often cited is chargebacks — when customers reverse credit card transactions. Gina isn’t convinced.

“Locking out entire industries makes less and less sense as fraud detection technology advances,” she says. “Payment processors and card networks already have processes to step in when an individual business has a high rate of chargebacks, there’s no reason to block out a whole industry.” Mastercard recently announced expanded generative AI fraud-detection tools, building on already sophisticated monitoring systems.

“We also haven’t seen the claim of high-chargebacks in adult content substantiated anywhere in terms of measured data,” adds MacDonald. “As a researcher, that makes me suspicious of the criteria these companies are using behind the scenes.”

The Evolving Landscape of Banking Regulations

In February 2025, the Free Speech Coalition filed a statement with the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, calling for due process protections, objective risk assessments, and explicit recognition that lawful adult businesses do not inherently present financial crime risk. Blocking entire industries without individualized evaluation, the statement argued, is regulatory overreach with serious implications for free speech.

Multiple efforts are underway in the United States to limit financial institutions from denying service for reasons beyond legal violations. In August 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing regulators to investigate and reverse politically motivated debanking. Bank regulators have begun removing “reputational risk” from compliance criteria, and proposed Senate legislation would impose civil fines on banks and card networks that avoid entire categories of customers.

“Card networks and payment processors began by blocking pornography, but they’ve moved into other online industries as well,” says Webber. “The line in the sand continues to shift, and it has recently expanded to video game creators and streamers as well. We don’t know how these rules might evolve, and what type of online content might be next.”

Valens has spent months urging customers to call Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, and Stripe to question purchase restrictions and account freezes. Visa points to its policies for combating illegal activity; PayPal requires pre-approval for adult materials, similar to tobacco; Stripe states it does not support adult content.

“Private companies have been deputized to decide how we can earn and spend our money,” says MacDonald. “Anyone who is ideologically misaligned with any of these companies faces the risk of losing their livelihood.”

That’s the part that lingers.

It’s not just about porn, or games, or activism. It’s about the invisible committee that votes on your transactions — and whether one day, without warning, they decide you don’t get a vote at all.

A federal judge quietly slammed the brakes this week on a pair of lawsuits that were meant to test Kansas’ age-verification law — and in doing so, reminded everyone that the internet doesn’t neatly respect state lines, no matter how badly lawmakers might want it to.

Last year, a conservative anti-pornography group brought lawsuits against four adult websites on behalf of a 14-year-old Kansas resident and her mother. Two of those suits went after Titan Websites, which runs HentaiCity.com, and ICF Technology, which operates Jerkmate.com. The core claim was simple and familiar by now: the teenager allegedly accessed content on the sites without her age being verified.

But Judge Holly Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas wasn’t persuaded. She dismissed both cases outright, pointing to something that often gets lost in the political noise — jurisdiction still matters.

In the case against Titan Websites, Teeter ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show HentaiCity.com had “purposefully directed its activities at Kansas.”

“The contacts between Defendant and the forum were not due to discriminating, intentional conduct that targeted Kansas,” Teeter wrote. “Rather, they were the random, and fortuitous contacts inherent in the operation of an indiscriminate and universally accessible website … This is insufficient to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.”

If you’ve ever run a website, that language probably lands with a thud of recognition. The internet is global by default. You don’t wake up deciding to “target Kansas” unless you’re buying billboards off I-70 or running a very specific ad campaign. Sometimes a click is just a click.

In a statement, the Free Speech Coalition welcomed the decision as a meaningful step forward.

“As the first age verification case filed by a private plaintiff to reach final resolution, the ruling suggests that private plaintiffs can lack personal jurisdiction to sue out-of-state website operators under the Kansas statute,” the statement reads.

The organization’s executive director said the ruling offers “critical guidance” for platforms trying to navigate age-verification laws in Kansas and beyond — a legal patchwork that’s getting harder to track by the month.

“While not precedent-setting, nor necessarily applicable in every case, the District Court’s ruling is an important victory against state laws enforced by private rights of action,” said Boden. “In the meantime, the threat of litigation is real, and we encourage our members to continue to comply with all applicable laws.”

That last part matters. This wasn’t a mic-drop that ends the conversation forever. The plaintiffs still have the option to appeal, and the broader legal fight is far from over.

Two other cases backed by the same group are still winding their way through the system. In the lawsuit against Multi Media LLC, which operates Chaturbate.com, the judge granted a motion to compel arbitration and paused the case while that process plays out. In the case against Techpump Solutions, which runs Superporn.com, the court hasn’t yet ruled on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

So yes, one door just closed — but plenty of others remain cracked open. And if there’s a lesson here, it’s this: the battle over age verification isn’t just about who clicks what. It’s about where the law thinks the internet actually lives.

Michael McGrady opines on faith based porn panics:

What happens when a small faction of politicians attempts to impose their faith-driven vision of “American values” at the expense of free speech, queer visibility, and secular governance? The growing wave of anti-pornography proposals—ranging from full bans on adult content to invasive age-verification laws—illustrates how far the far-right is willing to transform moral panic into legislation, regardless of constitutional limits or practical absurdity.

One striking example comes from Michigan state representative Josh Schriver, a Republican known for racist, homophobic, and inflammatory rhetoric. In September 2025, Schriver went viral after introducing a proposal to completely outlaw online pornography in Michigan’s digital sphere. Even many conservatives expressed skepticism, acknowledging the proposal’s blatant overreach into free speech protections.

Schriver’s bill, House Bill 4938—formally titled the “Anti-Corruption of Public Morals Act”—would impose sweeping criminal penalties and steep fines for distributing or possessing what it vaguely defines as “prohibited material.”

A History of Gendered Censorship and the Costs of Faith-Based ‘Porn’ Panics - TheHumanist.com

Bigotry rebranded as moral purity.

Read More

thehumanist.com

LOS ANGELES—Collective Shout, an Australian anti-pornography group, announced Thursday that it successfully pressured Honey Birdette, the Playboy-owned lingerie retailer, to withdraw certain advertising from a shopping mall near Perth.

The group described the outcome as a “flash win” in its campaign against what it called “porn-themed” marketing.

Collective Shout, co-founded by self-described “pro-life feminist” Melinda Tankard Reist, positions itself as a prominent anti-pornography organization in Australia and has often compared its efforts to similar conservative-led advocacy groups in the United States.

Honey Birdette has been in Collective Shout’s crosshairs for years. In August 2025, the group objected to the retailer’s advertising of lingerie products featuring BDSM-inspired accessories such as chains, collars, and leashes. The complaint was filed with Australia’s advertising industry regulatory body, Ad Standards, which later closed the matter after Honey Birdette addressed the concerns. Similar cases have been raised by Collective Shout against the brand multiple times in the past.

“Playboy-owned sex shop Honey Birdette has been forced to remove two porn-style shop window ads following our reports to Ad Standards,” the blog post declared. “The ads promoting a range called ‘Sumi – Leopard’ featured objectifying portrayals of naked women.”

The complaint targeted ads promoting Honey Birdette’s Sumi collection, which the company describes as “inspired by sheer bodysuits and bodystockings.” The line includes lingerie sets, catsuits, headpieces, and other items in black and leopard print designs.

Collective Shout said the ads objectified women and were inappropriate for children visiting the Perth shopping mall. The group emphasized that the ads were displayed in close proximity to a children’s stage show, describing the venue as a “family shopping center.”

While the group highlighted this proximity in its complaint, it did not provide exact measurements of the distance between the advertisements and the stage show. Still, Ad Standards acted quickly after receiving the reports.

“Less than 24 hours after lodging our reports, Ad Standards replied with a notice advising that Honey Birdette had confirmed the ads had been ‘modified or removed and the original advertisement will not be used again on this medium,’” Collective Shout wrote in its post.

Following the removal, the group is now urging its supporters to continue the campaign by filing additional complaints with Ad Standards and petitioning executives of the shopping center’s parent company to suspend Honey Birdette’s marketing campaigns across all of their properties in Australia.

Honey Birdette, founded in 2006 in Australia, was acquired in 2021 by the NASDAQ-listed PLBY Group, parent company of Playboy and other brands, as part of a strategy to expand its global retail footprint and e-commerce operations. The lingerie chain operates stores across Australia as well as in the United States and other international markets.

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban has cut off internet access across large parts of northern Afghanistan, a move it says is intended to curb “immoral activities.”

According to Reuters, the shutdown initially targeted five provinces — Kunduz, Badakhshan, Baghlan, Takhar, and Balkh — and blocked all fiber-optic connections. Reports later suggested the blackout had expanded to as many as 10 provinces. While mobile internet technically remains available, service is unreliable and in many areas largely inaccessible.

Taliban officials have long expressed concerns over pornography, framing it as a justification for stricter online controls. “This measure was taken to prevent immorality, and an alternative will be built within the country for necessities,” Haji Attaullah Zaid, a spokesman for the Taliban government in Balkh province, told the Associated Press.

Critics, however, argue the ban is far more sweeping than necessary. Former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad noted that many Islamic countries filter explicit content without imposing a nationwide blackout. “If pornography is really the concern, it can easily be filtered,” he wrote on X.com, warning that the Taliban is using the issue as a pretext to limit access to information.

“The justification for the decision is absurd and insulting,” Khalilzad added. “It will damage not only the province’s economy but the country’s prospects as a whole.”

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai also condemned the move, calling it part of the Taliban’s broader assault on women’s rights. “Shutting down the internet is the Taliban’s latest attempt, under their brutal system of gender apartheid, to cut Afghan women and girls off from the world,” she wrote.

The internet restrictions deepen concerns that Afghanistan is becoming increasingly isolated under Taliban rule, with significant consequences for its economy, education system, and civil society.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, has raised concerns about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Paxton. In a briefing published on Tuesday, Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at AEI for technology policy studies, laid out the basis for the criticism.

Calvert argued that the Court’s conservative majority created a carve-out in First Amendment protections for controversial forms of expression, such as adult content.

“To grease the skids for a decision that burdens First Amendment rights, it helps to denigrate the group that’s fighting for free speech subtly,” Calvert wrote in his AEI blog post.

Calvert is professor of law emeritus at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law and Brechner Eminent Scholar Emeritus at the College of Journalism and Communications, with expertise in First Amendment case law and communications policy.

He noted that the Free Speech Coalition (FSC)—which describes itself as “the trade association of the adult entertainment industry based in the United States”—was characterized differently in the Court’s opinion. While FSC’s website does not use the socially stigmatized term “pornography,” Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, referred to it as “a trade association for the pornography industry.”

“Semantics matter because under U.S. law, there are three distinct categories of sexual speech: obscenity, child pornography, and variable obscenity,” Calvert explained. “Notably, pornography is not a legal term; it’s just a disparagingly loaded word. Thomas unloaded it against the FSC, making it just that much easier for adults to stomach a decision burdening their own First Amendment rights.”

Reason opines about how anti-porn groups are coming after games by pressuring payment processors

The anti-porn crusade comes for online games

Activists pressure payment processors, who in turn pressure game marketplaces. Now many video games and visual novels are disappearing.

Read More

reason.com

Gaming platform Itch.io has removed all NSFW games after being targeted by an anti-porn group.

Itch.io Removes NSFW Games After Targeting by Anti-Porn Group AVN

Itch.io is the latest popular PC gaming storefront to cave to payment processors when it comes to marketing and distributing adult games.

Read More

avn.com

An anti-porn group has taken credit for the adult ban at the game platform Steam.

Anti-Porn Group Claims Credit for Steam’s Adult Game Purge AVN

Steam, the popular online gaming platform, recently purged scores of adult and sexually explicit games to appease payment processors. Several news outlets report that the anti-porn group Collective Shout took credit for the pressure campaign.

Read More

avn.com