Legislation Proposed To Criminalize Calls For A "Run On The Bank"

[chimpanchu]

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-legislation-proposed-criminalise-calls-run-bank

This is the first time to my knowledge a government would ban the use of a phrase! Oh... the length corrupt politicians would go to protect their bankster masters!

Calling for a "bank run" in public will possibly become a criminal offense. Ministers Opstelten of Security and De Jager of Finance are preparing a proposal for a new law.

They want to be able to penalize people who are openly calling for a "bank run" a maximum of 4 years or a fine of 19.000 euro. According to the ministers a bank run can seriously endanger a bank.

The ministers say that the collapse of a bank in case of a "bank run" is a question of hours instead of days, since a call for this can be spread fast, using prestent methods of communication. Banks cannot defend themselves from this, and thus must acquire protection under the criminal law, is their thought.

DSB: Reason for the tightened methods is the demise of the DSB Bank. Account holders took out 600 million euro from their accounts in this bank, after the call of Pieter Lakeman, of the Foundation "Hypotheekleed" (Motgage suffering).

The bank run was the initiation of the bankruptcy of the bank of Dirk Scheringa.

 

[chimpanchu]

Banks cannot defend themselves from this, and thus must acquire protection under the criminal law

This is laughable. The banks seem to get all the protections they need from government. Whatever happen to protecting citizens' free speech!?

 

[chimpanchu]

Do you think collusion between banks to take down the price of Silver should be legal (e.g. like the implication made that JPM was signaling other traders when price take downs were to occur)?

I don't see how this is any different.

I'm of two minds on the matter... not sure whether I agree or disagree with laws being put in place. The sort of action being taken on the internet these days (e.g. the viral takedown JPM campaign) could be quite damaging if something similar was launched at a smaller, weaker bank who may not be as tied up in corruption as the larger ones...

When was the people in "collusion" to take something down? JP Morgan and other big banks went to far in their attempts to manipulate market and crashing the economy.

You are raising a question of FAIRNESS, what the big banks did in the past decades can't be called fair game can it?

Besides since when it is illegal to say something in public??? Do you believe in free speech?

 

[intelligencer]

Its bullshit.

If mere calls for bank runs is enough, then where is the problem exactly?

With the call for a bank run? Or the structure of the banking system?


Abolish fractional reserve banking and become immune from bank runs. Thats my approach.

It's the people's money. They can withdraw it whenever they want imo.

Yesterday at the CBA they had a special lady telling people in line there was a $500 withdrawal limit. The sheeple abided.

Bank runs are a weapon the people have to keep the banks honest. A system that requires people to keep heir money in the system to remain stable is not a sound system.

Exploit it. Take your money out of the banks. Do with it what YOU will.

 

[KyleSector]

Its bullshit.

If mere calls for bank runs is enough, then where is the problem exactly?

With the call for a bank run? Or the structure of the banking system?


Abolish fractional reserve banking and become immune from bank runs. Thats my approach.

It's the people's money. They can withdraw it whenever they want imo.

Yesterday at the CBA they had a special lady telling people in line there was a $500 withdrawal limit. The sheeple abided.

Bank runs are a weapon the people have to keep the banks honest. A system that requires people to keep heir money in the system to remain stable is not a sound system.

Exploit it. Take your money out of the banks. Do with it what YOU will.

+1

 

[goldpelican]

Yesterday at the CBA they had a special lady telling people in line there was a $500 withdrawal limit. The sheeple abided.

Which branch???

 

[Captain Kookaburra]

Where do you draw the line?

What's the policy on inciting a "jog" on the banks?

 

[chimpanchu]

What do you know man... you could be walking on the street licking ice cream and talking about "Bank run" so happen a Cop was nearby caught a listen to your conversation.

The next thing you know, the copper slapped handcuffs on you and you crouch in prison for 4 years! Welcome to the New World Order.

 

[chimpanchu]

Yesterday at the CBA they had a special lady telling people in line there was a $500 withdrawal limit. The sheeple abided.

Are you serious?

Well just keep hitting those ATM machine, withdrawing $500 everyday until your account is empty!

 

[Big A.D.]

Besides since when it is illegal to say something in public???

Since shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre was declared a reasonable limit on the ability to speak freely?

Okay, it was actually illegal to say lots of things in public long before then and it still is illegal to say lots of things in public today, but the point stands.

Do you believe in free speech?

I believe it should be legal to say anything unless good reason can be shown for not being allowed to say it.

The legal case where "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre" comes from was actually overturned and limited to speech designed to provoke "imminent lawless action" rather than just "dangerous" speech occurring during wartime.

I can see what the people proposing this law are driving at, in that bank runs are very dangerous to a nation's economic security and they can (and have) had a knock-on effect on other banks until they all crash.

That said, I don't think that is enough reason to deny calling for a run on a bank the protection of "free speech".

Without having seen the legislation, there will probably be ways around it anyway by, say, calling for a "flash boycott" instead of a "bank run". If the speaker can provide a legitimate list of reasons not to do business with the target bank, it would be a perfectly reasonable argument to say that people should choose not to do business with that institution. A "bank run" could be instigated for fun, but a "boycott" would be based on reasoned argument. FWIW, I also think "because they're f***ing bastards" may well constitute reasoned argument with the way some of the world's banks have behaved recently.

 

[Slam]

Yesterday at the CBA they had a special lady telling people in line there was a $500 withdrawal limit. The sheeple abided.

Are you serious?

Well just keep hitting those ATM machine, withdrawing $500 everyday until your account is empty!

Setup your account to be able to withdraw 2k from the ATM daily.

The fractional reserve system is so corrupt, I'd wish more people will wake up and buy gold/silver. We have dumb people in this world that don't agree, I try to wake people up they think I'm some kind of crazy guy.

Slam

 

[THUCYDIDES79]

** Setup your account to be able to withdraw 2k from the ATM daily. **

The "luxury" $2000 limit can be switched off with a click of a button.

But still better than lower $100 limit.

 

[projack]

157 banks failed in the US so far this year.
Knowing that in advance is a crime.

What is not crime is:

Lehman Brothers International held close to 40 billion dollars of clients assets when it filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
Richard Fuld, head of Lehman Brothers, faced questioning from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked: "Your company is now bankrupt, our economy is in crisis, but you get to keep $480 million (276 million). I have a very basic question for you, is this fair?"[49] Fuld said that he had in fact taken about $300 million (173 million) in pay and bonuses over the past eight years.[49] Despite Fuld's defense on his high pay, Lehman Brothers executive pay was reported to have increased significantly before filing for bankruptcy.[50]

 

[chimpanchu]

Well the "take down JP Morgan campaign" is not collusion given that it's occurring in the open, but IMO it's along the same lines as JP Morgans actions of (allegedly) manipulating the market. I mean trying to get an increase in physical buyers to reduce supply and push up the price, that's the same sort of actions silverbugs are whinging JPM is up to (just pushing the price in the other direction)... hypocritical... by the way this isn't necessarily aimed at you chimpanchu... just those that think it's ok for the people to do the things they want the banks banned from doing.

What some of the banks do is not right, but two wrongs don't make a right and actions such as a bank run can harm financial institutions that haven't done anything wrong and in all honesty is more likely to harm them as the big boys that push around the markets are 'too big to fail' and will get bailed out!

Do I believe that people should have a right to attempt the take down of a bank by rallying the people to withdraw their cash from it... no. It's not really a free speech issue. As Big A.D. pointed out there are circumstances that warrant there being rules about what people can and can't say in public.

All banks engaging in Fractional reserve which is wrong and financially immoral thing to do. Today's banking system is one of the most corrupt institution there is.

I went to Sydney central on the weekend, we got Christian evangelists shouting the end of the world everybody should accept Jesus Christ or go to hell. Shouldn't there should be a law banning these kind of speech in public? Certainly these kind of speech have the potential taking down other religion institutions? Why not put 4 years jail penalty on this?

How about a bunch of people campaigning to free Julian Assange from prison (that really happened in Sydney CBD a couple of weeks ago). That'll probably take down something? Ban that too?

How about banning people promoting Gold and Silver as a mean to protect one's asset? That certainly have potential to take down banking system? Ban this too then.

How about banking system engaging in disinformation campaign about "recovery" to get the public re-enter stock market and bonds? This certainly have the potential to rob every last penny the people have left. Shouldn't this be banned?

Why banks being singled out and treated special? There is a great double standard when it comes to banking against the common men on the street. The banks enjoy EXTRA added protections by policy makers so they can further rob and steal from the people.

 

[THUCYDIDES79]

" I went to Sydney central on the weekend, we got Christian evangelists shouting the end of the world everybody should accept Jesus Christ or go to hell. Shouldn't there should be a law banning these kind of speech in public? Certainly these kind of speech have the potential taking down other religion institutions? Why not put 4 years jail penalty on this?"

BECAUSE OF THIS MOTTO

" ALLOW ME TO ISSUE A NATION'S CURRENCY AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES THE LAWS "

that is the one global fact which has befallen the ENTIRE GLOBE, nowhere currently in the world
is money with INTRINSIC VALUE being used as money.
Not even Iran, who as muslims MUST use money with intrinsic value. so as to make
their daily transactions halal.
but not to be...

I dont think that ANY country could pull that one off in the current system, as it would destabilize it.

So it seems, that rothschilds progeny knew what
they were doing.

 

[chimpanchu]

The legal case where "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre" comes from was actually overturned and limited to speech designed to provoke "imminent lawless action" rather than just "dangerous" speech occurring during wartime.

I can see what the people proposing this law are driving at, in that bank runs are very dangerous to a nation's economic security and they can (and have) had a knock-on effect on other banks until they all crash.

That said, I don't think that is enough reason to deny calling for a run on a bank the protection of "free speech".

Without having seen the legislation, there will probably be ways around it anyway by, say, calling for a "flash boycott" instead of a "bank run". If the speaker can provide a legitimate list of reasons not to do business with the target bank, it would be a perfectly reasonable argument to say that people should choose not to do business with that institution. A "bank run" could be instigated for fun, but a "boycott" would be based on reasoned argument. FWIW, I also think "because they're f***ing bastards" may well constitute reasoned argument with the way some of the world's banks have behaved recently.

I understand your position in cry wolf shouting fire logic. Certainly common sense does prevail.

The legislation to ban "Bank run" speech is an entirely different argument.

Suppose a banking collapse is imminent (Which in today's financial climate, is ALL TOO REAL assumption) like what happened in 1929. A journalist could write in a publication to warn the public that banking collapse and a bank run is imminent and the most prudent thing to do for common men on the street to protect themselves is to get their money out ASAP. The effect of this action could lead to bank run! This legislation essentially would make it illegal for the journalist to WARN the public of what could potentially save their financial well-being.

The example above illustrate, the journalist may or may not have the intention to TAKE DOWN a bank or two, but simply to warn the public so they can protect themselves financially. Unfortunately the effect of that information lead to bank run (well, too bad for the bankers!). But the legislation will make it illegal anyway.

Clearly this legislation is written by bankers for the bankers, designed to protect banking system's interest at the expense of the depositors. It is as clear as day.

 

[THUCYDIDES79]

The legal case where "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre" comes from was actually overturned and limited to speech designed to provoke "imminent lawless action" rather than just "dangerous" speech occurring during wartime.

I can see what the people proposing this law are driving at, in that bank runs are very dangerous to a nation's economic security and they can (and have) had a knock-on effect on other banks until they all crash.

That said, I don't think that is enough reason to deny calling for a run on a bank the protection of "free speech".

Without having seen the legislation, there will probably be ways around it anyway by, say, calling for a "flash boycott" instead of a "bank run". If the speaker can provide a legitimate list of reasons not to do business with the target bank, it would be a perfectly reasonable argument to say that people should choose not to do business with that institution. A "bank run" could be instigated for fun, but a "boycott" would be based on reasoned argument. FWIW, I also think "because they're f***ing bastards" may well constitute reasoned argument with the way some of the world's banks have behaved recently.

I understand your position in cry wolf shouting fire logic. Certainly common sense does prevail.

The legislation to ban "Bank run" speech is an entirely different argument.

Suppose a banking collapse is imminent (Which in today's financial climate, is ALL TOO REAL assumption) like what happened in 1929. A journalist could write in a publication to warn the public that banking collapse and a bank run is imminent and the most prudent thing to do for common men on the street to protect themselves is to get their money out ASAP. The effect of this action could lead to bank run! This legislation essentially would make it illegal for the journalist to WARN the public of what could potentially save their financial well-being.

The example above illustrate, the journalist may or may not have the intention to TAKE DOWN a bank or two, but simply to warn the public so they can protect themselves financially. Unfortunately the effect of that information lead to bank run (well, too bad for the bankers!). But the legislation will make it illegal anyway.

Clearly this legislation is written by bankers for the bankers, designed to protect banking system's interest at the expense of the depositors. It is as clear as day.

BUT ALSO,
Lets not forget that the journalist does not want to bite the hand that feeds him. and will have editors up the ladder, and KPIs to keep or increase
Media & Banking are in bed together.

If one such journalist comes along, than he surely was sent by them in the first place

 

[intelligencer]

Well they'd better ban anti-bank run speech too.

Everyone should keep their money in the bank. They're guaranteed to allow it to be safeguarded that way. In the event of a crisis they won't have to worry about their money as it will be safely locked up in the bank unable to be withdrawn. Even if the bank went bankrupt the government would sort things out. After the crisis was over in a few months or years the government would reissue to you all the money whose value or purchasing power could he very different. It could perhaps be even more valuable and trusted at that point. You wouldn't have had to worry about storing it or spending it since it would have been in the safe hands of the bank.

 

[intelligencer]

My suggestion

Write up a big placard:

"THERE IS NO BANKING CRISIS YET. DO NOT WITHDRAW ALL YOUR MONEY FROM THE BANK."

Stand outside a city bank with that placard and see what the response is.

 

[Big A.D.]

Suppose a banking collapse is imminent (Which in today's financial climate, is ALL TOO REAL assumption) like what happened in 1929. A journalist could write in a publication to warn the public that banking collapse and a bank run is imminent and the most prudent thing to do for common men on the street to protect themselves is to get their money out ASAP. The effect of this action could lead to bank run! This legislation essentially would make it illegal for the journalist to WARN the public of what could potentially save their financial well-being.

The example above illustrate, the journalist may or may not have the intention to TAKE DOWN a bank or two, but simply to warn the public so they can protect themselves financially. Unfortunately the effect of that information lead to bank run (well, too bad for the bankers!). But the legislation will make it illegal anyway.

Well that depends on the actual wording of the proposed law, doesn't it?

Many crimes require intent (mens rea) to be proved before someone can be found guilty of committing them. Since the Netherlands use Roman-Dutch law which is heavily reliant on the Napoleonic Code (which in turn relies on the Corpus Juis Civilis laid down by Justinian I), the inquisitorial system a case would fall under would of course take the writer's intent into account - it has to be because the whole case is based on speech which is, in itself, harmless. The actions the speech intends to provoke would determine the intent of the speaker, so if you wrote about the imminent collapse of a bank and told people to take their money out before it went under you may actually cause a bank run even though your intent was to help the depositors rather than damage the bank.

It simply wouldn't be possible to criminalise causing a bank run like you're suggesting because that would mean anyone who withdrew money from a bank before it collapsed, let alone told anyone they'd withdrawn money, would have committed a crime - someone simply paying a deposit on a new house would be "causing a bank run" by transferring money out of their account and into the vendor's.