How 'Big Finance' Uses Financial Censorship to Suppress Speech and Control Dissent

Financial Censorship: The New Frontier of Speech Suppression

Banks are scanning pornography platforms to flag objectionable words and scenes. Payment processors are dictating what qualifies as misinformation about war. A credit union may even decide whether a donation to a cannabis advocacy group can proceed. These examples highlight a growing trend: the suppression of speech through financial institutions, a phenomenon author Rainey Reitman terms financial censorship.

Reitman first encountered this issue while assisting whistleblower Chelsea Manning’s defense through the organization Courage to Resist. In 2011, the group’s PayPal account was frozen without explanation, with only vague references to the PATRIOT Act provided. Despite persistent inquiries, PayPal offered no clarity. However, media attention forced PayPal to reverse its decision within days.

"When PayPal reversed their decision so quickly in response to the publicity surrounding our press release, it was clear to me….We really had done nothing wrong," Reitman writes in her book Transaction Denied: Big Finance's Power to Punish Speech. "If there had been any legal requirement for PayPal to suspend our account, they wouldn't have changed their mind just because people were tweeting at them."

This experience sparked Reitman’s investigation into what she describes as financial censorship—a practice where banks, payment processors, and credit card companies restrict or close accounts of individuals or groups deemed controversial, even when no laws have been violated. These institutions effectively become tools to silence dissenting and marginalized voices.

What Is Financial Censorship?

Financial censorship is privatized censorship, where financial service providers act as censors in ways the government cannot due to First Amendment constraints. Reitman, a civil liberties advocate and co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, argues that the distinction between government and private censorship is irrelevant.

"It is a form of privatized censorship where banks and payment intermediaries act as censors in ways the government couldn't do directly without violating the First Amendment," Reitman writes. "I think that's a pedantic and unhelpful distinction."

Transaction Denied examines how financial censorship—also referred to as financial exclusion or debanking—has expanded over the past 15 years. The book documents cases involving protesters, journalists, gun rights advocates, adult content creators, Muslim entrepreneurs, cannabis activists, erotica writers, religious freedom fighters, and others who have faced financial restrictions.

How Financial Institutions Justify Censorship

While private institutions are not legally obligated to serve every individual or group, they cannot reject business based on protected categories such as race, religion, or sex. However, they can terminate accounts for reasons unrelated to discrimination, including moral objections or perceived incompatibility with their values.

Reitman acknowledges this legal loophole but advocates for change. She argues that modern society’s reliance on digital payments and banking services makes financial access essential for participation in daily life.

"People today cannot survive on wads of cash stuffed under a mattress; they need access to payment and banking services to exist in society," Reitman writes. She proposes legal reforms to prohibit financial institutions from punishing speech through account terminations or restrictions.

Key Examples of Financial Censorship

• Adult Content Creators: Banks and payment processors are increasingly flagging and restricting accounts linked to adult entertainment platforms, citing content policies or moral objections.
• Journalists and War Coverage: Payment processors are determining what constitutes "misinformation" about conflicts, effectively controlling narratives by restricting funding to certain media outlets.
• Cannabis Advocacy Groups: Credit unions and banks have denied or frozen donations to organizations supporting cannabis legalization, citing federal drug laws or reputational risks.
• Protesters and Activists: Financial institutions have targeted accounts linked to social justice movements, citing vague concerns over illegal activity or reputational harm.
• Muslim Entrepreneurs and Religious Groups: Some financial institutions have restricted accounts for Muslim-owned businesses or religious organizations, citing anti-terrorism financing laws or perceived associations with extremism.

The Future of Financial Censorship

Reitman’s work underscores the urgent need for transparency and accountability in how financial institutions wield their power. Without legal safeguards, the line between legitimate risk management and censorship becomes dangerously blurred.

As digital payments dominate global transactions, the ability of banks and payment processors to control speech grows. Reitman’s book serves as a call to action for policymakers, advocates, and the public to address this evolving threat to free expression.