From the civil rights act of 1964:

"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."

http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/826/

If the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits something, I think that that fits the common definition of "illegal" that a normal person would use.

Maybe a lawyer would use a different word, but who cares, everyone understood what you meant.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's an abuse of the site, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't use HN this way.

The key test is 'primarily'. Commenting occasionally on political topics, among others, is fine. But using the site primarily for political battle is not fine, regardless of which politics you favor. It's destructive of the intended use of the site, which is the gratification of intellectual curiosity. Since we can't have both kinds of site, we have to be careful about this.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...

I have to reply to your comment, since I don't find his comment to be political at all, more pointing to the semantical point of things being illegal. Second, I've browsed through the comments and their submitters comments. I find it striking some people's accounts have been banned on the basis of very few comments.

Lastly, the political debate is often the thing I find interesting about the comment threads on HN, Its getting to see the different viewpoints which interests me. Ofcourse we have to be civil and respectful towards each other, but when we are, I don't see any problem on any topic, how can any topic be destructive to the intended use of the site?

I also have no idea what was wrong with that comment. I wonder if dang replied to the wrong commentator?

I also find it crazy they do this in the threads and not by email, very easy to miss if you don't religiously check your /threads. I got a warning from dang once and he claimed I'd been warned before, which from my perspective I'd never been warned. They have my email.

I think I should have been more clear. I really wasn't trying to nitpick.

Just thought some people might be surprised that the retaliation was not criminal, and at best results in injunctions, fines, civil liability, etc.

Because I didn't word it better, I find myself in the odd position of arguing with people who probably share my high level opinion on the matter.

Denny Crane

Sigh. Arguing logic of proper behavior on these matters on HN always results in apologists making excuses as to how it should have been handled.

Well, no. I specifically pointed out that perhaps it should be criminal. I felt it worth noting not for pedantry, but because we have a fair number of readers that might wonder why nobody was being prosecuted if it is indeed a crime.

"Illegal" and "criminal" are not the same thing.

Illegal is most often, though not always, used in the context of something criminal. The ambiguity is why I commented. I thought I included enough couched language, apparently not.

... and always results in holier-than-thou ideologues trying to shut down any discussion through shaming tactics and pedantry.

What's your point?