Hacker News Reader

Comment by shabble | Hacker News Reader

Going completely off topic, there are, at least in some places, irrevocable rights which cannot be overruled by consent. In the UK, R v Brown[1] "ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm".

I believe there is also law (again, varying by jurisdiction and treaty obligations) to prevent a person from consenting to their own slavery. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_se... seems to cover it briefly, but I can't find a better reference immediately.

[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spa...

View on HN

Sigh. I emphasized "basically" precisely to avoid this discussion.

Basically? Saying basically just avoids any real discussion of legal distinctions.

When you said "basically" did you also mean to prevent discussion of duress? False pretenses? Fraud?

Oh come off it, calm down a bit.

He said basically IMO because he meant "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".

It's an internet forum not rendition of statute.

He can't say anything that "prevent"s proper discussion on an open internet forum. If you wanted to discuss informed consent, duress or fraud why not just do that.

If he wants to make a comment discussing giving away your rights, he should damn well be prepared to discuss it's legality.

Oh please. Use a little common sense next time you post. Anyone who attends, what sixth grade, knows there are some rights you can't give up and my comment was merely an attempt to avoid some tired lengthy discussion of that.

From what we know the "suspect" consented to a search of his apartment. That's the end of at least this part of the story.

The general population barely knows what rights they have, let alone what rights they cannot give up. It is an important aspect of the conversation.

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by:

"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".

I do not understand the "consent to the further subset..." Part. Its not a sentence construction I am familiar with.

Sorry that would be my legal training. Perhaps you can attempt to construe the sentence in the spirit it was written (like with badly drafted law ;0), you sound like you're intelligent enough to do that. Commas aren't free you know ...

No worries. I was not trying to be a jerk, I really did not understand how the two parts of the sentences worked together.

>"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to, the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed" //

http://imgur.com/AK6Cu

Thanks. That's exactly what my use of "basically" meant and FFS since this is HN I will be sure to note that in the future. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com