4 ms·

Because nobody passed a law that says the government can do that, and if the government did it anyway it'd be tyrannical as hell?

by Zetice 3y ago

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
I hardly think it's tyrannical to jail someone who made literally billions of attempts to defraud people.
shkkmo 3y ago
Then why don't we pass that law?
- Zetice 3y ago
  Go for it. I'd vote for such a law (or more accurately, consider voting for a representative who supported such a law), depending on the specifics.
LordDragonfang 3y ago
It's tyrannical to put people who knowingly break the law in jail? Break the law to get $100, it's a crime, break the law to get a million, it's a write-off.
- Zetice 3y ago
  You take it as a given that what they did broke the law just because the government claims it was illegal. However, that is not what the settlement proposal actually says. There was no trial, there was no conviction, and the telemarketers admit to no wrongdoing. They also agree to pay the full $13m if they fail to comply with a whole host of reporting and reform, including stopping their part of the calls.
  - LordDragonfang 3y ago
    Okay, first off, this is the comment you replied to: >Why can't we just start putting the CEOs of robocall companies that break the law in jail? I take it as a given because it was given in the premise. Anyway, I read the settlement proposal. There was no trial because the company waived their right to it. Because they know they're getting a slap on the wrist compared to the potential fines they could face. They're getting told they got away with all the illegal acts they previously committed (and yes, some of those things are definitely illegal), as long as they stop it now. Imagine if someone steals hundreds of TVs, gpus, and laptops, then when they finally get caught, the courts say "Naughty naughty. We're fining you 100 dollars, but you can keep everything you stole. Now don't do it again or we'll actually punish you". It's absurd.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      Literally not given in the premise, and these people haven’t been convicted of anything, so your analogy is flawed (they didn’t steal or get caught doing anything).

Because nobody passed a law that says the government can do that, and if the government did it anyway it'd be tyrannical as hell?

by Zetice 3y ago

Because nobody passed a law that says the government can do that, and if the government did it anyway it'd be tyrannical as hell?

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

I hardly think it's tyrannical to jail someone who made literally billions of attempts to defraud people.

shkkmo 3y ago

Then why don't we pass that law?

Zetice 3y ago
Go for it. I'd vote for such a law (or more accurately, consider voting for a representative who supported such a law), depending on the specifics.

LordDragonfang 3y ago

It's tyrannical to put people who knowingly break the law in jail? Break the law to get $100, it's a crime, break the law to get a million, it's a write-off.

Zetice 3y ago
You take it as a given that what they did broke the law just because the government claims it was illegal. However, that is not what the settlement proposal actually says. There was no trial, there was no conviction, and the telemarketers admit to no wrongdoing. They also agree to pay the full $13m if they fail to comply with a whole host of reporting and reform, including stopping their part of the calls.
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  Okay, first off, this is the comment you replied to: >Why can't we just start putting the CEOs of robocall companies that break the law in jail? I take it as a given because it was given in the premise. Anyway, I read the settlement proposal. There was no trial because the company waived their right to it. Because they know they're getting a slap on the wrist compared to the potential fines they could face. They're getting told they got away with all the illegal acts they previously committed (and yes, some of those things are definitely illegal), as long as they stop it now. Imagine if someone steals hundreds of TVs, gpus, and laptops, then when they finally get caught, the courts say "Naughty naughty. We're fining you 100 dollars, but you can keep everything you stole. Now don't do it again or we'll actually punish you". It's absurd.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Literally not given in the premise, and these people haven’t been convicted of anything, so your analogy is flawed (they didn’t steal or get caught doing anything).