3 ms·

I disagree. No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime and 2) th

I disagree. No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime and 2) the no-fly penalty is defined by legal statute and sentenced by a judge with all the constitutional protections that entails. Not by a private corporation and its employees. In this case, it seems like only #1 is fulfilled, or at least I'm not aware of any law that has no-fly as a penalty. I know, there's the normal no-fly list but I already don't understand how that passes constitutional muster as a penalty via administrative rather than criminal/legal processes.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime That is, even without further conditions, a fairly extreme position (“public civil penalties should not exist”.)
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Public civil penalties are subject to constitutional rights in the legal system and due process, and are also determined by legal statute. I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps I should have said "1) broken the law", as there are criminal laws & penalties along with civil ones. Whatever the penalty levelled against someone by the government it should stem from legal statute and constitutional due process. If I can go to court and state my case before a judge regarding a speeding ticket and minor fine, I should certainly be afforded that opportunity before I am banned from a major form of transportation all together.