4 ms·

If something is just like outright "wrong", why not make laws? It feels more correct to handle things at that level instead of relying on tech companies. Edit:

If something is just like outright "wrong", why not make laws? It feels more correct to handle things at that level instead of relying on tech companies. Edit: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-in-USA-to-wave-a-Nazi-flag https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-in-USA-to-wave-a-Nazi-flag

brianwawok 9y ago
Because its not sustainable. You want to give Trump the power to say what words are legal vs illegal? Really? In what government has that worked out well?
- the_common_man 9y ago
  Well, relying on tech companies is even less sustainable since they work for whatever makes them more profit. A govt in contrast is for the people. Also, Trump is a president of the people and not some dictator. The congress has to pass laws and people on congress are voted for by the people. Trump cannot just ban random things on his own.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    Sure he can. Do you know what an executive order is? The president has pretty insane powers. Both directly and his appointments.
    - masonic 9y ago
      Executive Orders do not trump law, let alone Constitutional rights. This is why the majority of Obama's Executive Orders that were subjected to court scrutiny were overturned.
danso 9y ago
Laws like those have been created and courts have struck them down based on the Constitution.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  Then maybe we shouldn't accept unaccountable entities having the power of extradjudicial punishment.
  - danso 9y ago
    What unaccountable entities? Airbnb is a company that is accountable to federal and local laws.
    - hackinthebochs 9y ago
      Their choice of who to deny services to and why is unaccountable unless they're breaking specific laws. But the standard for punishment shouldn't be "negative" in this way; there should be positive proof and legal justification for punishment, rather than being free to punish barring any specific legal basis against it. And yes, Airbnb denying these guys access is punishment when you're a national entity and the only one of its kind.
      - danso 9y ago
        The legal justification for Airbnb or any other company to refuse service comes from what you state in your first sentence: they aren't breaking specific laws. Is there a law that private entities have no say in how they want to conduct their business? Should HN mods be taken to court every time they ban users and kill discussion threads? Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.
        hackinthebochs 9y ago
        It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.
zhemao 9y ago
Despite the existence of laws criminalizing holocaust denial and displaying Nazi symbols, Germany still has holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. Criminalizing speech isn't a very effective way of diminishing it.
- danso 9y ago
  Just because a law hasn't eradicated something, doesn't mean that it hasn't been effective in diminishing it. I wouldn't support the United States to follow the same route as Germany, but I understand that Germany was in a very different situation as a country when it enacted those laws. On what basis do you think neo-Nazi activity in Germany would be less diminished today had Germany not criminalized such speech?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If something is just like outright "wrong", why not make laws? Sometimes, the costs/risks of making and enforcing laws outweigh the potential benefit. Not everything wrong should be illegal; not everything morally obligatory ought to be legally mandatory.

brianwawok 9y ago

Because its not sustainable. You want to give Trump the power to say what words are legal vs illegal? Really? In what government has that worked out well?

the_common_man 9y ago
Well, relying on tech companies is even less sustainable since they work for whatever makes them more profit. A govt in contrast is for the people. Also, Trump is a president of the people and not some dictator. The congress has to pass laws and people on congress are voted for by the people. Trump cannot just ban random things on his own.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Sure he can. Do you know what an executive order is? The president has pretty insane powers. Both directly and his appointments.
  - masonic 9y ago
    Executive Orders do not trump law, let alone Constitutional rights. This is why the majority of Obama's Executive Orders that were subjected to court scrutiny were overturned.

danso 9y ago

Laws like those have been created and courts have struck them down based on the Constitution.

hackinthebochs 9y ago
Then maybe we shouldn't accept unaccountable entities having the power of extradjudicial punishment.
- danso 9y ago
  What unaccountable entities? Airbnb is a company that is accountable to federal and local laws.
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    Their choice of who to deny services to and why is unaccountable unless they're breaking specific laws. But the standard for punishment shouldn't be "negative" in this way; there should be positive proof and legal justification for punishment, rather than being free to punish barring any specific legal basis against it. And yes, Airbnb denying these guys access is punishment when you're a national entity and the only one of its kind.
    - danso 9y ago
      The legal justification for Airbnb or any other company to refuse service comes from what you state in your first sentence: they aren't breaking specific laws. Is there a law that private entities have no say in how they want to conduct their business? Should HN mods be taken to court every time they ban users and kill discussion threads? Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.
      - hackinthebochs 9y ago
        It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.

zhemao 9y ago

Despite the existence of laws criminalizing holocaust denial and displaying Nazi symbols, Germany still has holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. Criminalizing speech isn't a very effective way of diminishing it.

danso 9y ago
Just because a law hasn't eradicated something, doesn't mean that it hasn't been effective in diminishing it. I wouldn't support the United States to follow the same route as Germany, but I understand that Germany was in a very different situation as a country when it enacted those laws. On what basis do you think neo-Nazi activity in Germany would be less diminished today had Germany not criminalized such speech?

dragonwriter 9y ago

> If something is just like outright "wrong", why not make laws? Sometimes, the costs/risks of making and enforcing laws outweigh the potential benefit. Not everything wrong should be illegal; not everything morally obligatory ought to be legally mandatory.