You seem to be refusing to acknowledge why he banned the account tracking his plane. It's because someone else using the plane was targeted.,(reply>), @madstork91 Fair enough. Thanks for using the phrase "limiting principle". I really love that concept. I really should have used it in my comment. I appreciate you understanding where I was coming from. Thank you for the civil discussion.,(reply>), @Michael DeHaven The limiting principle is "real time tracking" - It's nebulous, and I don't like the limiting principle being an unspecified amount of time.<br><br>So, you're right. I don't think it's a good rule because it isn't clear.,(reply>), @madstork91 I get your argument but where does it end with this logic? Ban all guns to save lives, since they can be used to kill people. Ban all "hate" speech because someone else might do something? Nope, better to hold the party that actually takes action to account. Or, in some rare cases, people who DO encourage/incite violence get held accountable. At one point, even Elon claimed to have the same values I'mexpressing. If you ask me, this just shows how this could be abused by people with power. Too risky to let anyone have that power, let alone one unelected person!,(reply>), @Michael DeHaven <br>1) It was his kid. Most crime organization leave family out of it. This is worse than a crime organization.<br>2) Person A: "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" <br>Person B: That person is currently located at 42 Wallaby Way"<br>Person C: *Targets the people at 42 Wallaby Way.<br><br>Every person in this chain could have stopped the chain. Person A gave motive. Person B gave direct information required to carry out the targeting. Person C did the act.,(reply>), Did they incite someone to do so, or did a random person just use the information made available? Big difference between the two. If it's the first then ban 'em. If it's the second then tough, they stay, that's not their responsibility. Curious as I'm not familiar with the details.