Kiwi Farms and SEPA

[Null]

If you are in a country in the SEPA, I have a homework assignment for you. I need to open a SEPA bank account for business related to the forum since right now I cannot receive any payments from users outside of North America and that demographic is continuing to grow as European websites become gayer and shittier. So, I am trying to figure out what SEPA country I can open a Kiwi Farms bank account in.

These are the SEPA countries.



My questions boil down to:
1. If my US is found to host (in the US) hate speech or defamatory material by either EU or EU-member law (civil or criminal), can this result in my account being seized?
2. If the bank receivers a complaint like "this website hosts the Chch shooting video, close their account" are they going to do that?

I want answers in affirmative or negative, i.e. "Don't open anything in my country (Belgium), because ..."

---

An example of my concerns is liability.

Section 230 is a United States law that is very important. It is safe harbor provisions for Internet services against civil liability, I am not responsible for it, the poster is. In Europe this is also a concern with so-called hate speech. If someone posts "Muslims should stay in the Middle East and Muhammad is a pedophile", that is illegal in almost all of Europe. The question is, am I also liable for it as a host?

More info on 230:

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's very hard to find answers to this question in English. This is especially true with smaller countries. The larger economies (France, Germany) SUCK and there's no way I'm opening an account there.

I've already paid a lot of money to be told to fuck off from basically every country on Earth in regards to actually hosting the Kiwi Farms abroad, but this specifically relates to SEPA-enabled bank accounts.

So if you're a local to any country in blue that isn't France or Germany do a little research for me. I'd appreciate it. The smaller and shittier your country is the better it probably is, so don't think "I am but a poor gypsie from Translyvania, my country cannot possibly have these protections", cuz it might. Albania, for instance, has some of the strongest protections for personal freedom of speech in Europe.

---

Please do not DM me just to say "my country is a shithole and the law doesn't matter, open an account here". I need more assurance than that. Will your bank close the account after a single volley of complaints from belligerent English retards? What if EU politician Isiah Rosenberg from Luxembourg says it's a hate site?

---

Italy is looking the best so far. If you're Italian and know about business shit get in touch. Grazie.

 

[REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!]

Null you done fucked up by leaving America. Good luck with the Euros, bud. They're going to hang you out to dry.

 

[Null]

Null you done fucked up by leaving America. Good luck with the Euros, bud. They're going to hang you out to dry.

read the post you crackhead fucking nigger

 

[Jobama]

Not my problem

 

[Buffalo Chicken Sandwich]

I speak Jive.
Lemme know if any of them cracka ass honkies try and keep ya down, ya dig?

 

[Mr. Confederate Man]

Null, just write to Santa. It’s Christmas!

 

[Troonos]

I wish I could help. You deserve to participate in commerce. All the bank and payment processor C-levels should jump out a top-floor window.

 

[Akashic Retard]

Just posting to let you know that I can't help in any way.

 

[Dyn]

In Czechia, Slovakia and Italy you've got third-party liability protections with no duty to monitor content, but can lose it if it's proven you became aware of our unlawfulness and did nothing to prevent it further. In theory you're protected, in practice some faggot could tie you up in litigation trying to prove you knew European users were cyberbowling mohammad and you'd actually have to respond. In Italy specifically you might need to put up a boilerplate disclaimer saying that you don't guarantee the veracity of anything we say, because the third party liabilities for civil defamation case law was tested with that, and the judges brought it up as being a relevant factor.

I think you're going to find that all European countries are going to have the same level of liability protections, and the bigger problem is that pretty much none of them give a shit about prior restraint and will be willing to hit you with injunctions the second some tubby retard files against you, and then nail you to the wall with contempt charges if you don't delete massive vaguely-defined swathes of your website because they told you to.

 

[Foltest]

I will do some research on Sweden and the SEPA law ( we part of it, just not the eurozone).

 

[Null]

I'm afraid of Czechia because they have those three big cases in 2019 where people went to prison for saying Muhammad is a pedophile. Honestly embarrassing the Czechs allowed that to happen. I don't know anything about Slovakia.

Italy might actually be the best bet because it seems to be the sweet spot between "real economy" and "my country is a shithole and nobody cares about the law, trust me".

 

[SilenceIsViolence]

My questions boil down to:
1. If my US is found to host (in the US) hate speech or defamatory material by either EU or EU-member law (civil or criminal), can this result in my account being seized?
2. If the bank receivers a complaint like "this website hosts the Chch shooting video, close their account" are they going to do that?

I'm not sure on 1, but for 2 if they classify it as terrorist funding, they can close your account down on a whim which I imagine they would out of fear of backlash.

EUR-Lex - 32015L0849 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (Text with EEA relevance)

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-4-The-Evolution-of-the-EU-Law-Against-Criminal-Finance.pdf

“Terrorist financing” is defined as “the provision or collection of funds, by any means, directly or indirectly, with the intention that they be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out any of the offences within the meaning of Articles 1 to 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA.

EUR-Lex - 32002F0475 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

Article 1

Terrorist offences and fundamental rights and principles

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to below in points (a) to (i), as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of:

- seriously intimidating a population, or

- unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or

- seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,

shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:

(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;

(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;

(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;

(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;

(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;

(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;

(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

2. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of altering the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.

Article 2

Offences relating to a terrorist group

1. For the purposes of this Framework Decision, "terrorist group" shall mean: a structured group of more than two persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist offences. "Structured group" shall mean a group that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of an offence and that does not need to have formally defined roles for its members, continuity of its membership or a developed structure.

2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional acts are punishable:

(a) directing a terrorist group;

(b) participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the terrorist group.

Article 3

Offences linked to terrorist activities

Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist-linked offences include the following acts:

(a) aggravated theft with a view to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1);

(b) extortion with a view to the perpetration of one of the acts listed in Article 1(1);

(c) drawing up false administrative documents with a view to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) and Article 2(2)(b).

Article 4

Inciting, aiding or abetting, and attempting

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that inciting or aiding or abetting an offence referred to in Article 1(1), Articles 2 or 3 is made punishable.

2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 1(1) and Article 3, with the exception of

While I personally wouldn't classify sharing videos of ChCh as terrorist activities, all that needs to happen is for someone to make the argument and banks will cower at the very thought of being the source of 'terrorist' money. Take this all with a grain of thought, I'm just an internet autist.

 

[Madre Muerte]

We don't have what you're looking for in the Basque, cross that one off the list.

 

[Clostridium Botulinum]

Italy might actually be the best bet because it seems to be the sweet spot between "real economy" and "my country is a shithole and nobody cares about the law, trust me".

Greece may also be a safe bet, but you're probably trading economic stability for some extra freedoms

 

[Tsurubami Senri]

i mean i dunno.. im polish and i dont know where the fuck to look.

 

[Splinters RCVD ✞]

Hungary could be a viable option. Globohomo will not come after you, LGBT+, Muslims and such are ideologically antagonized on a daily basis, and the EU never does anything about it besides sperging in the news. The current ruling party, FIDESZ, literally has the gig of scaring people with migrants, and the populace, generally, either does not care about Western ideological detritus or holds it in ridicule. The relatively few ultraliberals are almost all from the 16-30 age bracket, and the local (horribly corrupt and broken) justice system does not fight for liberal causes like Western ones do.

The thing you have to understand about Hungary is that, yes, it is a corrupt backwater, but it is deliberately so, for the purpose of giving the EU space to cash in from less ethical economical manouvers while having the apathetic, corrupt population as both willing and silent accomplices in exchange for EU premiums, and having the political and ideological tomfoolery here as an elaborate cover to distract any prying eyes away from the abovementioned shady business.

You might get a few, nominal warnings about KF and whatever goes on here, but they will all be empty threats as long as the Hungarian regime does not feel threatened by you. And I highly doubt it would happen. Nobody would give a damn about whatever is said and done here.

Just make sure to choose a Hungarian bank like OTP Bank or MKB Bank.

Source: am Hungarian and live in Hungary, and have seen a few things.

 

[Dyn]

I'm afraid of Czechia because they have those three big cases in 2019 where people went to prison for saying Muhammad is a pedophile. Honestly embarrassing the Czechs allowed that to happen. I don't know anything about Slovakia.

Italy might actually be the best bet because it seems to be the sweet spot between "real economy" and "my country is a shithole and nobody cares about the law, trust me".

Italy has had a supreme court case affirming third party protections but you're still going to be open to really severe injunctions over any pending cases, and the threat of some faggot trying to argue you know we're a bunch of defaming hatespeeching seditioners and permit it (which, tbh, OP would probably prove).

Can you open a SEPA bank account and flush all the money out of it as often as possible and consider it an expendable low-value asset that you're willing to write off on a default if you get sued?

 

[Prostolurk]

After all I read, in Bulgaria it's mostly unclear if you as the host are responsible (a.k.a no one knows and no one gives a shit). In 2015 the Chamber of the Low Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) spoke about this issue in the case of Delphi (some estonian news forum) v. Estonia when they tried to resolve the same questions you ask. They said that the host is responsible, and not the posters, and they recommended that all EU countries should treat their forums the same way. After this decision, in 2015 many bulgarian news sites removed the comments all together. Others got mods and jannies to delete hate speech. Yet there are many sites and forums that allow unmoderated comments with plenty of hate speech on them and no one gives a shit.

So in a way, we're under the radar, but at the same time we are a part of the EU so it's still risky.

Spoiler: Longer legal-y explanation ran through Google Translate

In 2015, special attention was drawn to the decision of the Chamber of the Low Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Delphi v. Estonia. "Delphi" Estonian new nar portal. The Court issued a decision concerning comment a- in the forum to the portal and the question of whose responsibility it is for them. According to the decision, Delphi is responsible for 230 mentors of the publication and was sued for failing to remove timely texts affecting the reputation and dignity of specific person. As a continuation of the logic of the decision in court, the portal in practice appears to be obligated constantly to moderate your forum, to quickly remove comments, containing vulgar or insulting expressions, slander and threats, written by readers to protect against possible stalking actions by individuals. The ECtHR's decision in the Delphi case has a wide impact, because you recommend the EU pages to adapt this one principle of treating sites in relation to nations national legislation. In the text of the decision on this occasion it reads: ‘The rights and interests of individuals and of the general community this generally allows the parties to impose themselves the responsibility of news portals on the Internet (...) if they do not I manage to take steps to take action on the apparently illegal comments, including when they were not notified by the alleged victim or by a third party

On another note, I just read about how the bulgarian prosecution has refused to look into any hate speech complaints, and legislative authorities have even removed certain laws that were prohibiting hate speech (https://aej-bulgaria.org/как-българското-и-международно-закон/)

TLDR: The EU "suggests" that all its members ban hate speech and hold the host responsible, but in Bulgaria no one gives a fuck about it.

 

[Rungle]

Not sure if we have those laws in the Netherlands... but i'll see what I can find.
Can't you just ask one of your lawyers, if anyone should know anything about weirdass laws it should be them.

 

[whore loving dragon]

I don't know about the full legal details, but apparently in Spain it is illegal for a business to discriminate against people based on ideology?

Games Workshop condemns hate groups after Nazi imagery appears at Spanish Warhammer 40k tournament

Games Workshop condemns hate groups after an attendee of Spanish Warhammer 40,000 tournament GT Talavera competed with Nazi imagery on their clothing.

www.dicebreaker.com

“At this point we want to emphasize that in Spain it is not a crime to display Nazi symbols as long as it is not accompanied by criminal conduct,” the club told Baer. “Instead if the organization expels to this person for his deplorable ideas (Nazism), it is the organization that is committing a crime of ideological discrimination and it could perfectly denounce us and would have the law on its side. At that moment we find ourselves tied hand and foot.”

That said, maybe financial institutions have a little more leeway than mom 'n' pop's tabletop tournament club