Banks by law have the right to refuse services, provided there is a legitimate reason to suspect a particular client's dealing are unlawful or unethical to the Federal Reserve banking rules. Nevertheless Bank of America (BOA) actions along the other financial institution's refusing to provide banking services to WikiLeaks are in violation of contractual rights and civil rights.
WikiLeaks has a deontological moral right that is being violated by these organizations. Deontological speaking his actions may not necessary be welcomed by many perhaps the majority of people here in the United States or the world as banking industries deal worldwide. He may be able to prove a point based upon his first amendment's right but the consequences will only benefit a few. Bank of America's action to prohibit PayPal and other transactions that are linked to WikiLeaks clearly demonstrate the political power financial institutions have if allowed continuing denying providing a service which is a right of us all.
The government surely is not acting on the behalf of the people if financial institutions are allow to distance themselves from an individual or a group based solely on their beliefs of inappropriate actions according to the Federal Reserve guidance. WikiLeaks is not doing anything considered illegal nor immoral; they are just acting as whistleblowers, informing people of practices financial institutions are partaking at higher echelons which may be illegal or unethical that ordinary people would never know.
In my opinion, looking at the reactions taken by these institutions they are afraid of WikiLeaks findings and possible exposure that could trigger a federal investigation leading to exposing illegal practices involving executive levels of the banking industry; which could cost millions if not billions of dollars in compensations and fines.
Unfortunately this is a practice of "do as I say not as I do" because if WikiLeaks is trying to expose them for wrong doing then the government should be supporting WikiLeaks. As I mentioned earlier we have to be careful this not at all utilitarianism. The effects of trying to destroy or perhaps sanction BOA and all financial institutions with new policies and regulations would trigger a reaction of benefiting everyone as a whole versus the few or vice versa.
I disagree with some of WikiLeaks exposures as we all know they have expose classified information which dealt with the Department of Defense putting Soldiers and other agents in danger not to ignore their family members. Should the government create new laws prohibiting certain rights or limiting existing laws to an extend where the rights of people would still be protected? In the United States this would be very difficult to accomplish because of the many laws and documents created for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people.
Looking at the significance of deontological versus utilitarianism one can easily say they both are equally important with unquestionable similarities. They are both important in describing equal rights and its meaning according to each understanding of what the rights stand for. WikiLeaks in my opinion did not violate the financial institution's rights in any way. They may not agree with WikiLeaks disclosures but they do not have the right to deny banking services. WikiLeaks may have violated some legal laws but they are not imposing on anyone's right. Bank of America should be allow to pursue legal actions against them just like the Department of Defense did assuming they can prove wrong doing on behalf of WikiLeaks part if not it may not be to their best interest.
We have faced too many powerful industries believing they are above the law, using their power in politics and executive level positions to gain from ordinary people. Common people on the other hand are suffering as the unknown is being used to dry them off their income with interest rate as high as...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document