If your position is "Well they should involve the courts first," we are probably reaching agreement, but we're all aware of how weak the legal system is regarding online harassment, right? Most cyber-crime falls way outside the jurisdictions that are traditionally designed to handle harassment (as harassment was traditionally a very geographically-localized crime).
I'm personally willing to let the bar for "Disclosing enough information about someone's handle that they can be found IRL" lower than "a warrant is out for their arrest."
(This does raise an interesting question: perhaps we do need some kind of new cross-jurisdictional legal organ to decide when harassment raises to the bar of "doxxing acceptable" whether or not it raises to the bar of "prosecutable." That'd be nice to have; then we could have a generally-accepted standard for when it is and is not okay).
It may be a component of another crime, such as slander or incitement to violence.
If the individual in question believes this organization has done either of those things, they are welcome to involve the law (as the other party is doing).
Can you please make your substantive points without snark or swipes? We ban accounts that do the latter things since they destroy what HN is supposed to be for.
My apologies; I'm trying to follow you, but as best I can tell 15 USC 43 is "The principal office of the Commission shall be in the city of Washington, but it may meet and exercise all its powers at any other place. The Commission may, by one or more of its members, or by such examiners as it may designate, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its duties in any part of the United States." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/43)
Do you have some snippets of the text of the law you're thinking of that I can search to see what you mean?
