Hacker News Reader

Comment by lisper | Hacker News Reader

Of course it can. Lack of consent is a key element in many crimes. Rape, for example.

This is not an appropriate analogy. You are reversing the situation.

Terms and conditions and even contracts are often inadmissible. Just because you signed something, doesn't mean it's valid. Being handcuffed to a contract happens only in the movies,

I am not a lawyer.

One can argue over whether Angellist's ToS constituted valid consent. But the original blanket claim that an action "can't be magically made OK by a contract" is just flat-out false. It can.

It can in some circumstances. If the action is illegal in the first place, no contract can make it OK.

But being "illegal in the first place" almost always hinges on consent, at least in the case of crimes that have victims. (Victimless crimes obviously cannot hinge on consent because there's no one to consent.) I think you'll find it very challenging to come up with an example of an action that is a crime with a victim that doesn't involve lack of consent as an essential element. The only example I can think of offhand is statutory rape, and in that case it's only independent of consent because the victim is explicitly barred by law from giving consent.

Here in the UK I can add: assisted suicide, many sexual activities particularly on camera (even between very enthusiastic participants), driving in a vehicle on the public highway without a seatbelt, working for under the minimum wage, corporal punishment and polygamy.

The claim I made was that a specifically criminal action can't be made non-criminal by a contract if the action is inherently criminal.

Question isn't consent here. Consent is part of what constitutes a contract, but you've clearly consented to their TOS. More importantly, their TOS cannot allow or compel a party to perform a criminal or tortious act. If impersonating you is criminal, then the contract is invalid.

But in your example, the act in question would be sex - which is not itself a criminal act.

Impersonating someone isn't a criminal act either. It is impersonating someone without consent that is the criminal act. Read the statute:

"...any person who knowingly AND WITHOUT CONSENT credibly impersonates another actual person..."

(Emphasis added.)

Elvis impersonators.....

Another element of the criminal statute is that the impersonation has to be "credible".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com