That's correct, they certainly have the right to not answer questions...and the US government has the right to interpret that lack of cooperation any way it chooses, and, say, ban their products.

What government can do is limited by the constitution. Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products. Is it established that they have broken US laws?

Ok 20-day old China stan account.

Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another account is or you feel it is.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Have you read the US constitution? It is very short, easily reeadable in an hour. So if your comment is sincere, you would cite the specific clause of the constitution that you are worried is being violated. There is no such clause.

Not publicly, because they won't step up and answer questions, in public.

> Generally speaking, unless these companies have done something unlawful there is no ground for banning their products.

I don't think the right to sell goods is in the Constitution. What is in the constitution is an explicit grant to power to Congress to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"

It will be if they sell their banned products

> Article I, Section 8

> The Congress shall have Power [...]

> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

When it's some country's Congress questioning, there are usually penalties to not answering. But, of course, one can always just face the penalties.

Americans do have to answer questions posed by Congress or a court in many, many situations. It is commonplace for large public companies for example, to have to answer questions from regulators or Congress.

For example, any time there's a merger, the federal government must approve it to ensure anti-monopoly laws are not violated by the new market arrangement.

Or you may recall the famous cases of auto executives being questioned over car safety, or Zuckerberg being questioned over social media's effects on society.

Are you new to following US business news?

Are you just very confused and think the famous "fifth amendment" applies here? Go back and read it if so.

> Americans don’t have to do this either

I think his point is that you can choose to go to jail for contempt rather than answer anything. If your sit in jail long enough, the world moves on and your testimony is no longer relevant. That’s when a judge releases you (i think).

When called before congress? That's not accurate, beyond you don't have to, but then pay the price - much like these companies have.

Americans have to answer questions if you are issued a legal subpoena, when it's census time, among other situations.

Surprisingly, no.

You have the right to not testify/incriminate against yourself. Beyond that, you can absolutely be compelled to answer questions.

Many people have faced serious legal consequences for not answering questions from Congress, for example related to Jan. 6 riot. You do have the right to avoid testifying against yourself, so often Congress has to grant immunity from prosecution, in order to remove this legally justifiable excuse for not answering questions. I remember in the Iran/contra scandal, Congress was asked not to do this so that some of the people involved could be prosecuted, but chose to proceed for various reasons best known to themselves.

Zuck had to answer questions.