Return to Answer

“Is X legal?” is profoundly different from “Are there any examples of X being illegal?”

The answer no to the latter does not imply yes to the former.

Statutes and cases can be cited to prove something is illegal. But, in the U.S., the default condition is for things, in general, to be legal; unless there is a law against it. So we do not have statutes authorizing behaviors as legal. We only have laws and regulations which make them illegal.

Although, some amendments empower the government with certain authority, much of the language of constitutions is generally crafted in a way to prevent the government from passing certain laws that make certain behaviors illegal (e.g., the Bill of Rights, for example).

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As a matter of practice and logic, it is impossible to ever make a definitive, affirmative claim that X is legal (equivalent to X is not illegal — hence proving a negative). By contrast, however, one can, definitively conclude X is illegal. In the case of the former, the best one can ever do is research then report, if true, a lack of any (known) successful prosecutions or civil claims made against X.

That, however, this is a far cry from claiming X is legal. In such a case, X might, in fact, be highly illegal. It depends on the facts of the case. The jurisdiction. The statutes and regulations in effect. (Many regulations are often unknown to the general public and sometimes not available without a FOIA request.) How new any anti-X regulations are or might be. How common X is. (The last two combine into the frequency of opportunities for prosecuting X). The aggressiveness of the prosecutors and/or regulators with those opportunities. These can be affected by public sentiment, politics, corporate and lobbyist influence. And on and on. And on.

But what about cases that have been successfully prosecuted, then overturned on appeal and / or on constitutional grounds?

These are non-determinative. Because they are fact dependent. And subject to future exception. For example, one of the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — the First Amendement right to freedom of speech — stood unqualified for over one century (from 1791 to 1919) before it was limited by Schenck v. United States.

If illegal, why would X have not yet yielded any examples of successful prosecution or claim?

Saul Goodman says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E&t=43s

“Is X legal?” is profoundly different from “Are there any examples of X being illegal?”

The answer no to the latter does not imply yes to the former.

Statutes and cases can be cited to prove something is illegal. But, in the U.S., the default condition is for things, in general, to be legal; unless there is a law against it. So we do not have statutes authorizing behaviors as legal. We only have laws and regulations which make them illegal.

Although, some amendments empower the government with certain authority, much of the language of constitutions is generally crafted in a way to prevent the government from passing certain laws that make certain behaviors illegal (e.g., the Bill of Rights, for example).

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As a matter of practice and logic, it is impossible to ever make a definitive, affirmative claim that X is legal (equivalent to X is not illegal — hence proving a negative). By contrast, however, one can, definitively conclude X is illegal. In the case of the former, the best one can ever do is research then report, if true, a lack of any (known) successful prosecutions or civil claims made against X.

That, however, this is a far cry from claiming X is legal. In such a case, X might, in fact, be highly illegal. It depends on the facts of the case. The jurisdiction. The statutes and regulations in effect. (Many regulations are often unknown to the general public and sometimes not available without a FOIA request.) How new any anti-X regulations are or might be. How common X is. (The last two combine into the frequency of opportunities for prosecuting X). The aggressiveness of the prosecutors and/or regulators with those opportunities. These can be affected by public sentiment, politics, corporate and lobbyist influence. And on and on. And on.

But what about cases that have been successfully prosecuted, then overturned on appeal and / or on constitutional grounds?

These are non-determinative. Because they are fact dependent. And subject to future exception. For example, one of the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — the First Amendement right to freedom of speech — stood unqualified for over one century (from 1791 to 1919) before it was limited by Schenck v. United States.

If illegal, why would X have not yet yielded any examples of successful prosecution or claim?

Saul Goodman says:

The possibilities are limitless!

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As a matter of practice and logic, it is impossible to ever make a definitive, affirmative claim that X is legal (equivalent to X is not illegal — hence proving a negative). By contrast, however, one can, definitively conclude X is illegal. In the case of the former, the best one can ever do is research then report, if true, a lack of any (known) successful prosecutions or civil claims made against X.

That, however, this is a far cry from claiming X is legal. In such a case, X might, in fact, be highly illegal. It depends on the facts of the case. The jurisdiction. The statutes and regulations in effect. (Many regulations are often unknown to the general public and sometimes not available without a FOIA request.) How new any anti-X regulations are or might be. How common X is. (The last two combine into the frequency of opportunities for prosecuting X). The aggressiveness of the prosecutors and/or regulators with those opportunities. These can be affected by public sentiment, politics, corporate and lobbyist influence. And on and on. And on.

But what about cases that have been successfully prosecuted, then overturned on appeal and / or on constitutional grounds?

These are non-determinative. Because they are fact dependent. And subject to future exception. For example, one of the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — the First Amendement right to freedom of speech — stood unqualified for over one century (from 1791 to 1919) before it was limited by Schenck v. United States.

If illegal, why would X have not yet yielded any examples of successful prosecution or claim?

Saul Goodman says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E&t=43s

“Is X legal?” is profoundly different from “Are there any examples of X being illegal?”

The answer no to the latter does not imply yes to the former.

Statutes and cases can be cited to prove something is illegal. But, in the U.S., the default condition is for things, in general, to be legal; unless there is a law against it. So we do not have statutes authorizing behaviors as legal. We only have laws and regulations which make them illegal.

Although, some amendments empower the government with certain authority, much of the language of constitutions is generally crafted in a way to prevent the government from passing certain laws that make certain behaviors illegal (e.g., the Bill of Rights, for example).

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As a matter of practice and logic, it is impossible to ever make a definitive, affirmative claim that X is legal (equivalent to X is not illegal — hence proving a negative). By contrast, however, one can, definitively conclude X is illegal. In the case of the former, the best one can ever do is research then report, if true, a lack of any (known) successful prosecutions or civil claims made against X.

That, however, this is a far cry from claiming X is legal. In such a case, X might, in fact, be highly illegal. It depends on the facts of the case. The jurisdiction. The statutes and regulations in effect. (Many regulations are often unknown to the general public and sometimes not available without a FOIA request.) How new any anti-X regulations are or might be. How common X is. (The last two combine into the frequency of opportunities for prosecuting X). The aggressiveness of the prosecutors and/or regulators with those opportunities. These can be affected by public sentiment, politics, corporate and lobbyist influence. And on and on. And on.

But what about cases that have been successfully prosecuted, then overturned on appeal and / or on constitutional grounds?

These are non-determinative. Because they are fact dependent. And subject to future exception. For example, one of the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — the First Amendement right to freedom of speech — stood unqualified for over one century (from 1791 to 1919) before it was limited by Schenck v. United States.

If illegal, why would X have not yet yielded any examples of successful prosecution or claim?

Saul Goodman says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E&t=43s

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As a matter of practice and logic, it is impossible to ever make a definitive, affirmative claim that X is legal. (By contrast, however, one can, definitively conclude X is illegal). In the case of the former, the best one can ever do is research then report, if true, a lack of any successful prosecutions or civil claims made against X.

That, however, this is a far cry from claiming X is legal. In such a case, X might, in fact, be highly illegal. It depends on the facts of the case. The jurisdiction. The statutes and regulations in effect. (Many regulations are often unknown to the general public and sometimes not available without a FOIA request.) How new any anti-X regulations are or might be. How common X is. (The last two combine into the frequency of opportunities for prosecuting X). The aggressiveness of the prosecutors and/or regulators with those opportunities. These can be affected by public sentiment, politics, corporate and lobbyist influence. And on and on. And on.

But what about cases that have been successfully prosecuted, then overturned on appeal or constitutional grounds?

These are non-determinative. Because they are fact dependent. And subject to future exception. For example, one of the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendement right to freedom of speech stood unqualified for over one century (from 1791 to 1919) before it was limited by Schenck v. United States.

If illegal, why would X have not yet yielded any examples of successful prosecution or claim?

Saul Goodman says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E&t=43s

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As a matter of practice and logic, it is impossible to ever make a definitive, affirmative claim that X is legal (equivalent to X is not illegal — hence proving a negative). By contrast, however, one can, definitively conclude X is illegal. In the case of the former, the best one can ever do is research then report, if true, a lack of any (known) successful prosecutions or civil claims made against X.

That, however, this is a far cry from claiming X is legal. In such a case, X might, in fact, be highly illegal. It depends on the facts of the case. The jurisdiction. The statutes and regulations in effect. (Many regulations are often unknown to the general public and sometimes not available without a FOIA request.) How new any anti-X regulations are or might be. How common X is. (The last two combine into the frequency of opportunities for prosecuting X). The aggressiveness of the prosecutors and/or regulators with those opportunities. These can be affected by public sentiment, politics, corporate and lobbyist influence. And on and on. And on.

But what about cases that have been successfully prosecuted, then overturned on appeal and / or on constitutional grounds?

These are non-determinative. Because they are fact dependent. And subject to future exception. For example, one of the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — the First Amendement right to freedom of speech — stood unqualified for over one century (from 1791 to 1919) before it was limited by Schenck v. United States.

If illegal, why would X have not yet yielded any examples of successful prosecution or claim?

Saul Goodman says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E&t=43s