My response was flagged for some reason. I don't think that is a fair flagging. It skews the discussion and is tantamount to censorship. I believe I responded

My response was flagged for some reason. I don't think that is a fair flagging. It skews the discussion and is tantamount to censorship. I believe I responded to the counterpoint in good faith. To whoever did it, I welcome your explanation as to why you felt it was justified. Here is my original response that was flagged: Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.