Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (29624)	2/17/2005 10:50:31 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Chinu explains the First Amendment to us: Message 21055852 Good post of yours there, counselor. Got one right for a change. :-) :-)

To: mph who wrote (29624)	2/17/2005 11:06:34 PM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 90947

Thanks, you said exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put it into words. I guess it helps to be a lawyer... At any rate, I think anyone would have a hard time justifying doing anything that would be detrimental to a child...and as a person of trust, it would seem to do even more long term damage to the child...IMHO law.cornell.edu en.wikipedia.org Malum prohibitum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong because prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to crimes made so by statute, as opposed to crimes based on English common law and obvious violations of society's standards which are defined as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards: an example is the law against insider trading, where the simple act of sharing information is clearly not wrong in itself, but only because of its context in a larger framework of regulated trading. There is a controversy whether copyright infringement is malum prohibitum or malum in se. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in Washington v. Anderson [1] (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=678260di1&searchval&invol=1): "Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories -- malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905) ... "Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.' " This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malum_prohibitum&action=edit). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum"