@Poison Trail
I find it incredibly difficult to understand how anyone would translate requiring legal contact information for companies with more than 250 employees as requiring the company to “offer up literal hostages”.
Is this about having a problem with holding owners, CEOs, etc, of companies responsible for the illegal actions of the company or something?
Like, Donald Trump shouldn’t be held responsible for things his companies did at his order or with his signoff or something like that? Some sort of “if you can afford to do it you have the freedom to do it” with no repercussions of any kind?
Because I am hearing people talk about that kind of thing. To me, allowing anyone to do anything via a corporate entity to do anything they want without any accountability of any kind sounds like a direct path to the dark timeline. And requiring officers of companies to do ‘due diligence’ to their responsibilities to their company and the laws under which their company operates makes good sense to me.
At the least, sure - they are ‘literal hostages’ to the law for not doing illegal things.
Is that how you are using ‘hostage’ in this case?