Hypnotic Prejudicial Nonsense

Comment

Comment by Hypnogoddess Dreamsender on June 20, 2008 at 8:46pm

Newest twist in this discussion.

The MC Forum mods are running scared; one has ordered discussion of this stopped;
especially forbidding the further mention of any legal action possibility,
unless "practical, sourced facts" are found. One wonders if this person may have been
unfavorably approached by someone? I'm no lawyer myself, but I think simply discussing
the possibility of legal action and paths to/grounds for same did not constitute
Barratry when last I lived on US soil?

http://www.mcforum.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=15576.125#lastPost

Go figure.

Comment by Lee Darrow on June 20, 2008 at 11:16am

Well, if MasterCard blocks acting material, with regards to the depiction of non-consensual sex, then they would have to block the sale of a whole lot of Hollywood mainstream movies and, to be honest, disallow ANYONE from subscribing to even basic cable using their MasterCard as many of the crime shows on TV (CSI, Cold Case Files, and a lot of what's on the Women's Network or whatever it's called) have depictions of rape in varying degrees of intensity. Some of the depictions on TLC have made me queasy and I used to teach women's self-defense classes! There's a fair amount of what's shown on those shows that is far worse, especially in the "graphic depiction of mutilation" than anything on a hypnosis video!

It's going to eventually come down to a court challenge, if anyone has the money or the stones to take it that far. And MasterCard will not want that kind of publicity - or maybe they will.

Maybe it's time for someone to set up a legitimate payment program for ALL businesses to be able to use... Because this is censorship and censorship, especially when applied in an uneven and biased manner, is simply wrong.

As an earlier post noted, allowing them to do this now only opens the door for other, similarly biased bans and limitations against us. "If you can't legislate them out of business, RUN them out of business by any means, fair or foul." - anon.

I think it may be time to start a Hypnotist's Pride movement. Stand up for OUR rights for a change, instead of rolling over and allowing the powers that think they be to roll over us as they have since Ben Franklin and Lavoissier...

"Say it LOUD and Say it PROUD - I'm A HYPNOTIST and I AM PROUD!"

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Comment by Hypnogoddess Dreamsender on June 20, 2008 at 6:02am

Not to mention Myself, who does not even use models in Her video work. I do hypnotic domination vids based on My pre-recorded hypnosubmission MP3s and all the visuals
are based on computer-generated animation footage. FYI, a class action suit could be
filed on a contingency basis; the now famous suit involving PayPal was filed thus.

CNET article on the PayPal CAS Settlement

Like Lee I think filing on a non-uniformity of rule application is the way to do this
IF a legal eagle should find it actionable...

Comment by Synapse on June 20, 2008 at 5:13am

"...Note the Costco example earlier."
I know, I read Melissa's response about a week ago and my jaw nearly hit the keyboard. Since when does a complimentary therapy threaten to taint Costco's corporate image? I'd just love to know their logic behind that.

Comment by Brian David Phillips on June 20, 2008 at 5:00am

That's the thing, hypnosis is not specifically listed as part of the illegal material but it is being lumped in with the material related to nonconsensual and pattentely illegal material. It seems very likely that someone made a call based upon false impressions either from previous prejudice (see the earlier comment about Costco and credit card processing) or because of false impressions specifically created some material that "seems" nonconsensual but is most likely "acting" (for instance the "Hypnotrick" webpages at http://www.hypnotrick.com (warning very very NSFW) are hardcore pornography in which the setup is that a "Dr" says he's doing hypnosis to help these hot young models but then he hypnotizes them into performing nonconsensual sexual acts and erases their memory before emerging them . . . it's acting hardcore porn and honestly has NOTHING to do with genuine hypnosis other than the setup but unless you actually read the disclaimers some folks who are less informed may assume it's reality or gonzo porn and is "real" - an illusion the sitemakers are happy to encourage. I could see how someone misinformed about the realities of hypnosis - especially someone who's misplaced his/her ability to perform rudimentary level critical thinking - might see such material as indicative of hypnoporn which it most certainly is NOT.

Unfortunately, folks like Jason (who does have R-rated material but he also has a lot of G stuff) get caught in the crossfire and while we may all support them there's not a lot they can do other than to call the companies involved (and likely get a runaround) and then if they can't get resolution to sue but most of these folks don't have the financial resources to successfully petition or sue . . . so, unless they can find someone sympathetic on the inside, they are in real danger of getting swept under the rug (which may be devastating for them and can build credence to further erroneous bans against all of us by other businesses who see the successful ban of these folks operating within their legitimate and legal freedom of expression rights and their characterization as nonconsensual and then apply that to the rest of us for whatever reasons. Note the Costco example earlier.

Comment by Synapse on June 20, 2008 at 4:33am

My take on it is that Mastercard is confused about nonconsensual material and anything done under hypnosis. There's a lovely "carte blanche" in there "any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark"

That being said.. I don't see the word "hypnosis" or "trance" mentioned anywhere in the section of ToS that has been posted in this thread.

Comment by Lord Hypno (Jason Speaks) on June 20, 2008 at 3:08am

Of course i agree with you. But the Million dollar question is what to do about it. how do I keep doing what i love and stay legal. how does a very small nitch of a group explain that to the one's that make the rules ? unfortunately i believe i know the answer is. they don't Like the One Massively Poplar modeling website ban them all to cover your rear just in case one is bad.

i'm with Shakespeare's on this one ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,''

Comment by Lee Darrow on June 20, 2008 at 12:03am

MasterCard's Rule, cited below in italics, is WAY too broad, and allows WAY too much leeway for interpretation, making them, de facto, censors where even the Supreme Court of the United States will not tread. Some comments on this, inserted where applicable:

5.9.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions
A Merchant must not submit for payment into interchange, and an Acquirer
must not accept from a Merchant for submission into interchange, any
Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may
damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.

So if THEY deem it bad, it's bad and is right out. How convenient. For them.

The Corporation considers any of the following activities to be in violation of
this Rule:

1. The sale or offer of sale of a product or service other than in full
compliance with law then applicable to the Acquirer, Issuer, Merchant,
Cardholder, Cards, or the Corporation.

Okay, so far, nobody on this board has violated anything so far as I am aware...

2. The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently
offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and
not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual
exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body
part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems
unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.

Without a definition of "patently offensive" and "lacking serious artistic merit," this rule could be used to ban anything from Doonesbury, Calvin & Hobbes to ANY collection of nude photography (including the one Leonard Nimoy just published of BBW's).

At least one of the examples, the "nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body
part," would rule out just about every horror movie made in the past twenty years, as well.

Uniform enforcement would be a point to attack them on, I would guess.

An Acquirer that has been notified of a Merchant’s noncompliance with this
Rule and that fails promptly to cause the noncompliant practice to cease, or
that has been notified multiple times regarding violations of this Rule, is
subject, at the Acquirer’s expense, and in addition to any other noncompliance
assessment or other discipline, or both, to any one or more of the following:
1. A RAMP Level 3 review as described in the Security Rules and Procedures
manual
2. An audit at the sole expense of the Acquirer by a third party selected by
the Corporation, of the Acquirer’s acquiring practices
The Corporation may list a Merchant which the Corporation determines is
noncompliant with this Rule on the MATCH system. (See Chapter 11 of the
Security Rules and Procedures manual.)

So, not only can they audit you, at YOUR cost, but they can put you up on this MATCH system, essentially a blacklist, and pull your ability to process their cards.

Well, the first merchant who sells a copy of The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Gave Up Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies is going to have a problem with these people, as would nyone who sells a copy of The Hypnotic Eye (non-consensual mutilation for both of these films), as well as Lust for a Vampire (non-consensual sex) and a raft of other, generally accepted, mainstream films, including many of the works of respected directors including Roger Corman, Ray Harryhausen and even Alfred Hitchcock!

Protests are in order.

HIGHLY in order.

Can you tell that I am a free speech advocate?

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it!" And that includes your right to buy it with your credit card should you choose to do so!

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Comment by Brian David Phillips on June 19, 2008 at 10:11pm

Jason, thanks for posting that. It is very clear that MasterCard is lumping hypnosis in with nonconsensual and illegal materials irregardless of whether the hypnosis is consensual or not. They seem to assume that hypnosis must by its very nature must be controlling and manipulative and by its very nature nonconsensual. I've seen your G timestop stuff and it's as tame as it comes - entertaining, but certainly should not be lumped in with bestiality or child porn or nonconsensual mutilation (yuck and a half).

Comment by Lord Hypno (Jason Speaks) on June 19, 2008 at 7:23pm

I also got a letter and so far all my E-mails have gone unanswered. Pete so far as i know is the only one to be in contact with them here's what he said

(Quote) from: PetefromPetesGirls on Today at 08:59:06 AM
When the honcho at clips4sale told me that "they" are really on the warpath against hypnosis content right now, I wasn't sure as to whom he was referring.
"The government?" I asked.
"No," was the reply, "MasterCard." (End quote)

From the rules on mastercards website even My small Non Erotic G rated stuff is illegal. alll because i use hypnosis to give the person the illusion that time stops or that they are a mannequin and then i move or pose them.

and the way the mastercard rules read many thing's could be illegal.
here are the rules

Mastercard

5.9.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions
A Merchant must not submit for payment into interchange, and an Acquirer
must not accept from a Merchant for submission into interchange, any
Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may
damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.
The Corporation considers any of the following activities to be in violation of
this Rule:

1. The sale or offer of sale of a product or service other than in full
compliance with law then applicable to the Acquirer, Issuer, Merchant,
Cardholder, Cards, or the Corporation.

2. The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently
offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and
not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual
exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body
part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems
unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.
An Acquirer that has been notified of a Merchant’s noncompliance with this
Rule and that fails promptly to cause the noncompliant practice to cease, or
that has been notified multiple times regarding violations of this Rule, is
subject, at the Acquirer’s expense, and in addition to any other noncompliance
assessment or other discipline, or both, to any one or more of the following:
1. A RAMP Level 3 review as described in the Security Rules and Procedures
manual
2. An audit at the sole expense of the Acquirer by a third party selected by
the Corporation, of the Acquirer’s acquiring practices
The Corporation may list a Merchant which the Corporation determines is
noncompliant with this Rule on the MATCH system. (See Chapter 11 of the
Security Rules and Procedures manual.)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page