[tigershark]

It’s a slippery slope. If you risk the life of all the passengers with your behaviour because you can’t be bothered of following the basic rules of civility you should definitely be in a no-flight list. Following your nonsensical slippery slope, we already put behind bars people that are a danger to the fellow citizens, and in some cases, yes, you are banned indefinitely from all the streets. It’s called “death penalty” and Americans should know one or two things about it. If you ask me, putting someone on a no-fight list makes definitely more sense than killing someone.

[xyzzyz]

Yes, if you do something deserving death penalty, it makes sense to also be banned for life from flying. However, if you are alleged to risk life of people on the street because "you can't be bothered [to follow] the basic rules of civility", there is a complex and prolonged process to put you off the street, you have plenty of opportunity for recourse, and you'll unlikely to be taken off the street for life. On the other hand, when it comes to no-fly list, there is no due process and zero recourse.

I find it commendable that you are trying to protect me from unruly passengers on a flight. Do you also want to protect me from unruly people on the street, by locking those who can't be bothered to follow basic rules of civility out of public space for life, or are planes somehow special? I mean, if you just willy-nilly shoot a gun on the street, you'll be banned from the street for shorter than you'd be banned from flying for refusing to wear a mask on the plane. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

[ziml77]

And if you look at the actual article instead of the HN headline, you can see that this is about putting people who have been convicted for their behavior on the no-fly list. So you have a proper trial before you get put onto that list.