Positng here too since other thread is being raided
I made an letter to send to them i'm not sure if it's good though, but it can at least used as template to be sent to payement processors it should be easy to edit for personal points and not make it seem as spam ,if anyone make a petition or have something more open i can make a open letter too
Subject: Upholding Transactional Neutrality and Artistic Freedom in the Digital Era
Att: Recipient name
It has become impossible to ignore the rise of coordinated, intolerant campaigns by activists which demand that payment processors abandon neutrality and enforce broad ideological censorship against digital platforms hosting controversial fictional works. Their actions go far beyond advocating for community standards; they represent a fundamental assault on pluralism and cultural diversity. By appealing to fear, indignation, and moral panic all while refusing any serious engagement with evidence or open debate, these groups wield coercion as a weapon against artistic freedom, intentionally seeking to impose a single, parochial understanding of morality upon a global marketplace.
This is not the defense of virtue, it is the delegitimization of difference, the silencing of minority voices, and the trampling of basic artistic and personal freedoms. Their campaigns actively disrupt real-world moral progress: they foster bigotry, discourage open intellectual inquiry, and valorize the suppression of anything that challenges or discomforts their particular orthodoxy. Against this assault on freedom and tolerance, your unwavering support for partnership with all legally compliant digital distributors, regardless of fictional content, stands as an indispensable defense of genuine, universal ethics and social stability.
1. Fiction Is Not Action: Moral Panic vs. Legal Fact
The suggestion that platforms or payment facilitators are "complicit" in promoting real-world crimes by enabling the sale of extreme fictional works is not merely specious—it has been systematically repudiated both legally and empirically. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002):
“The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government ‘cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts.’”
Fiction, however graphic, is not a criminal act, nor is its distribution equivalent to endorsement.
2. No Evidence of Causal Harm
Contrary to the alarmist assertions of anti-expression activists, exhaustive meta-analyses and governmental reviews find no credible scientific basis for the claim that consumption of extreme fictional narratives or games causally increases real-world aggression or crime. The APA Task Force on Violent Media (2017) and multiple peer-reviewed articles reach the same conclusion: correlation is not causation, and the overwhelming majority of consumers of “taboo” fiction are law-abiding. Proponents of bans are unable to produce replicable, methodologically sound research demonstrating otherwise.
3. Precedent and Risk with Censorship
Once the transaction neutrality of payment processors is compromised, once you assume the role of content censor at the behest of moral pressure groups, no creative sector is safe. Censorship begets further censorship. Acclaimed works of literature and film have been accused of the very same “harms” now imputed to games. Where does this logic end? A world in which Nabokov, de Sade, or even Shakespeare could be summarily “deplatformed” by fiat? John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, warned:
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation. … If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
4. Platform, Not Prosecutor
Payment processors are not arbiters of art or morality; you are facilitators of lawful commerce. Existing legal frameworks, national and international, already criminalize genuine acts of harm and distribution of illegal materials. Fictional depictions, however abhorrent in some eyes, enjoy robust protection under constitutions and human rights law, provided they do not cross into actual criminal conduct.
5. The True Harm of Censorship
Yielding to emotional blackmail and censorious outcry comes at a steep social and psychological cost: the stifling of creativity, the chilling of artistic risk, the narrowing of acceptable discourse, and the alienation of millions of law-abiding creators and consumers worldwide. The deeper “harm” is not in the existence of difficult art, but in the whittling away of cultural freedom.
6. Emotional Manipulation, Lack of Evidence, and Distortion of Global Morality
It is critical to recognize that the campaigners driving these appeals substitute evidence with pure emotional impact, fostering environments where outrage trumps facts:
These groups rely on evocative language and distressing rhetoric, intentionally provoking fear and revulsion rather than reasoned debate. This mode of operation is not an accident—it is a strategy to shut down analysis and overwhelm commonsense boundaries between fiction and reality.
In pushing for global policy changes rooted not in legal or scientific consensus but moral panic, these groups fail to acknowledge cultural diversity or the internationally recognized right to free artistic expression. Far from upholding or advancing global morality, their crusade undermines it—encouraging intolerance, groupthink, and the imposition of narrow parochial standards on diverse societies.
The broader effect is a corrosion of critical faculties and moral reasoning worldwide: art, literature, and gaming communities are made more fearful and less imaginative, while the public is deprived of meaningful discussion about freedom, boundaries, and creative value.
In closing, we urge you to reaffirm their commitment to transaction neutrality, refusing to be conscripted into the ideological crusades of those who cannot distinguish between fiction and reality. Your continued partnership with digital marketplaces is not only legally and ethically sound; it is a bulwark against the erosion of fundamental freedoms.
Let us be clear: capitulation to demands for content-based exclusions would mark your services not as responsible actors, but as tools of arbitrary censorship—a move both historically discredited and perilous to your brand’s reputation as impartial global facilitators of commerce.
We trust in your judgment, and in your resolve to stand on the side of liberty, legality, and reason.
[Expand Post]
Regards,
Your name