3 ms·
> a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal beca
by _hyn3 5y ago
> a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values.
What you are saying is literally the opposite of hundreds of years of the rule of law.
If FB did break the law as written, then prosecute them for that in a fair trial by a jury of their peers, but yours (or anyone else's) personal feelings about "our values" should never be able to override the plain language of the law, especially retroactively.
- NineStarPoint 5y agoThe point they’re making is you don’t prosecute Facebook for something that we think is unjust but is not yet illegal. You make it illegal, and then after that point if anyone continues with the now illegal course of action then you prosecute them. Prosecuting someone for something that wasn’t illegal when they did it would of course be wrong.
- _hyn3 5y agoIf that was what the OP had said, I would agree, but I don't interpret that as being what they actually said (although I may have misinterpreted): "However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal" (emphasis added) I interpret this as saying that they believe retroactively applying enforcement would be moral, just, and legal.