Friday, January 22, 2010
A Working Definition of Freedom
Of course any Government, including ours, should, indeed, must prohibit malum in se behavior--rape, robbery, theft, murder etc., but every prohibition of citizen behavior merely malum prohibitum (that is, behavior that is bad because they say it's bad--like prostitution, drugs, almost all business regulation, etc.) is an affront to the idea of ordered liberty, our country's first founding principle. Malum prohibitum laws are almost always bad.
So it's an increase in freedom when the Supreme Court says, as it did in the very long decision in Citizens United v. FEC, that the free speech part of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech) means just what it says and takes away narrow parts of really stupid laws (McCain-Feingold) and reverses old stupid case law (Austin) which did, in fact, abridge free speech, and political speech at that, the first among firsts in the First Amendment free speech clause. The decision decreases a malum prohibitum law and therefore increases freedom. That's a good thing, as victim of a malum prohibitum prosecution, Martha Stewart always says.
So it's an increase in freedom when the Supreme Court says, as it did in the very long decision in Citizens United v. FEC, that the free speech part of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech) means just what it says and takes away narrow parts of really stupid laws (McCain-Feingold) and reverses old stupid case law (Austin) which did, in fact, abridge free speech, and political speech at that, the first among firsts in the First Amendment free speech clause. The decision decreases a malum prohibitum law and therefore increases freedom. That's a good thing, as victim of a malum prohibitum prosecution, Martha Stewart always says.
Labels: Freedom; malum in se; malum prohibitum;
