The feds have been pressuring financial services companies to "de-platform" legal businesses, including those in the adult industry, for years.
The govt's pretext has been "reputational risk." Isn't it nice of the feds to tell a bank that "someone" might not think well of them if they provide services to "those" people?
It is established law that a business that acts at govt behest is a state actor, so that "pressure" is enough to bring the 1st amendment in. That is, if there's a 1st amendment argument. However, said de-plaforming doesn't seem to succumbed to a 1st amendment challenge.
Maybe such a business would win with a first amendment argument on FedNow, but how many can survive until that decision comes down?
The govt's pretext has been "reputational risk." Isn't it nice of the feds to tell a bank that "someone" might not think well of them if they provide services to "those" people?
It is established law that a business that acts at govt behest is a state actor, so that "pressure" is enough to bring the 1st amendment in. That is, if there's a 1st amendment argument. However, said de-plaforming doesn't seem to succumbed to a 1st amendment challenge.
Maybe such a business would win with a first amendment argument on FedNow, but how many can survive until that decision comes down?