Hacker News Reader

Comment by ummonk | Hacker News Reader

Okay that explains it. I thought banning for 12 months was a little harsh for someone making a political statement once, but he knew what he was doing and doubled down on it.

View on HN

Why does the fact that the person making a political statement knew that they were making a political statement make their banning okay?

There's a difference between accidentally and knowingly breaking a rule. Regardless of if you feel the rule is fair or right, knowingly breaking is more egregious, e.g. manslaughter is not as bad as first or second degree murder.

Knowing that you're doing something that is not in the interest of Blizzard or China and may bring you trouble is not the same thing as rule-breaking.

For example, I have a first amendment right to stand on the street and cry out "that store over there has awful working conditions," and I'm not breaking any rules, but I'm well aware that the store may well not let me in anymore.

More like you go in the middle of the street and say, America shouldn't support south american dictators, and as a result all ISPs refuse you provide you with internet service. They're private companies they have the right do to so but good luck navigating todays world with out it.

What a ridiculous comparison. The rule he broke here was literally "don't offend any portion of the public." The rule you're referring to is much more justifiable.

If the rules are ridiculous, then the reaction to them should be to dismantle the rules and disavow the rule-makers.

You are claiming that morality is irrelevant if there is a rule involved, and your action is substantially worse if you break a rule for a moral reason deliberately instead of accidentally?

Sometimes the moral choice is to break the rules.

Agreed. But you have to enforce the rules to make sure that people don't start breaking the rules over something trivial. The people making a moral choice to break the rules can live with a 12 month ban from the game.

It sounds like you agree with the measure. Is that the case?

I do. I don’t want sporting events, conventions, etc. to become platforms for advocacy about controversial politics.

I support non-disruptive actions like kneeling at an anthem, but advocacy about a political issue during a post-match interview streamed by the event organizer certainly crosses the line.

Crossing lines is the point of activism, we wouldn't have any of the rights we enjoy (and soon we might lose if we're not careful) in the west if not for people that systematically crossed lines and used high visibility occasions to make a point.

It might be worth checking this out:

https://theundefeated.com/features/mexico-city-olympics-prot...

Were rules already established in the terms of service that would prevent him from protesting against a country or supporting oppressed people? If it was during the broadcast, then cutting the broadcast is sufficient punishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com