Hacker News Reader

Comment by discardorama | Hacker News Reader

> it should lose the case, not win it.

Problem is... the government is not even a party to the case! They can't win or lose; they're like the guy objecting at someone else's wedding.

View on HN

That is a bit of a wrinkle, but it's easy enough to extend the basic principle to that type of situation. If the government objects to person A suing person B for $10 million, it should have to pay person A the ten mil to make the case go away.

And if A sues B not for money, but for some kind of action? Or injunctive relief?

The government can either take the action itself if it makes sense, or compensate B for its costs.

So the government can somehow hack into the NYTimes editing process and put a retraction of some earlier claim into the newspaper, all without the NYTimes staff cooperating?

Similarly, if A is constantly harassing B, B should just shut up and take the money the government pays him in compensation, along with the harassment that isn't being stopped?

Are you sure that is the outcome you are advocating for?

> So the government can somehow hack into the NYTimes editing process and put a retraction of some earlier claim into the newspaper, all without the NYTimes staff cooperating?

Can you come up with a concrete example of how such a court order might come about in a case that the government is intervening in in this manner?

> Similarly, if A is constantly harassing B, B should just shut up and take the money the government pays him in compensation, along with the harassment that isn't being stopped?

See above.

> Are you sure that is the outcome you are advocating for?

It's difficult to know, since these seem to have no relationship to any hypothetical case I can come up with.

You're moving goal posts.

My example is: A sues the NYT, demanding that they rescind something.

Your solution: The government steps in and takes the action itself.

You want the government to get involved. I don't. I want A and the NYT to fight it out in court.

No, I don't want the government to get involved. I hold the (probably far more radical position than you) that government is not entitled to secrets at all, and that all government employees should be live-streaming their activities to the public Internet at all times while on duty.

I was presenting an alternative on the assumption the government would anyway.

We're not talking about secrets and government employees!

You have expressed your desire to not have any judgments except monetary compensations.

And I'm pointing out that harassment victims would rather live in peace than get some money in exchange for their state-sanctioned(!) victimhood.

> We're not talking about secrets and government employees!

Actually, that is the core premise of the conversation I am having.

You probably have a reasonable point, but I'm disinclined to discuss it if we're not actually having the same conversation. All the more so since you have made a false accusation about my desires.

Seems to be entirely unreasonable to say "I have an objection but you can't hear it."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com