Hacker News Reader

Comment by notavalleyman | Hacker News Reader

One purpose of government in the UK is law writing, so the Communications Act 2003 is absolutely their business.

As to why the behaviour needs legislating: because the British social contract required it, because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things. Lots of reasons, it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law?

View on HN

> it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do.

Why make all of this up? Just so you can call someone a meddling busybody for having an opinion in a thread that you're also posting an opinion in?

The question was - why is (this legislated behaviour) any of the government's business? That's not an opinion.

Ultimately it's a question of consent and the social contract. My answer, which you're critical of here, is that ultimately the government have consent of the people to enforce this law and therefore it's the government's business. It's consented by the Brits, there is not democratic clamour to rewrite that law, and it's not for other countries to impose their values here. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic, I'm just trying to answer the question that was put to me; why, in the UK, is this a regulated behaviour

> So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law?

Probably most people in Iran agree with the laws that gay people should be executed.

Based on your "social contract" theory, that's just fine? I mean, who are you to tell the Iranians that they shouldn't have a law? Right?

No, not right.

UK is democratic and the elected reps' body is sovereign over law.

An Iranian cannot stand for election in her region on the platform of: I am going to repeal "Islamic" law.

A person can stand for election in the UK saying: vote for me and we'll repeat the 2003 Communications Act.

I don't think that you didn't know this, so I don't understand why you asked it really

What you are calling "democratic" and a "social contract" others call "mob rule".

Sorry, no.

> because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things

I doubt it represents British society's desire. It's more likely a case of "when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail". MPs feel that their job is to always legislate. Let's not forget that since the 90s raves have been illegal in the UK.

>MPs feel that their job is to always legislate.

Would you rather pay them to do nothing at all, or maybe adopt the US model where they spend a year of their term campaigning on the public's dime?

This is an underrated comment that made me laugh. Thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com