In the United States, is there a difference between the terms &quot;unlawful&quot; and &quot;illegal&quot;? I heard someone claim that the terms &quot;unlawful&quot; and &quot;illegal&quot; have different meanings. More specifically, they claimed that &quot;illegal&quot; acts are anything expressly forbidden in law (e.g. murder), while &quot;unlawful&quot; acts are anything not expressly permitted in law (e.g. wearing a hat). This seemed unusual to me, and most dictionaries I could defined &quot;unlawful&quot; as basically synonymous with &quot;illegal&quot;. While there doesn't appear to be any real difference between the terms in &quot;normal&quot; speech, is there any difference in &quot;legalese&quot;?
Yes, but the difference is in nuance, not substance Illegal means “not according to or authorized by law” and lists unlawful as a synonym. Unlawful means “not lawful” with illegal as a synonym. So, by definition, they mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Illegal does carry a slight hint of being more egregious than unlawful and would be more often used of criminality than of a parking offense but it’s not wrong to use them interchangeably.
"Tamper" implies action taken with intend to improperly change the meaning. "Alter" simply means "change". "Mutilate" simply means "damage" but in this context implies "Make unreadable". "Obliterates" here means 'make unreadable" or "remove". As a practical matter, there is not much if any difference between these words in this context, and no authority will spend any time at all considering whether some action is 'tampering" or "mutilation". The word "or" is used precisely to avoid such arguments. Any of these shades of meaning is equally forbidden. English-language laws and regulations often specify multiple synonyms or near-synonyms , connecting them with "or" so that anything within the more general scope of the concept is included. Charles Rembar, in his book The Law of the Land, asserted that this dated to the period in England shortly after the Norman Conquest, and that lawyers tended to include equivalent terms from Latin, Norman French, and English. He mentions such combinations as "Give, devise, and bequeath" and "Promise, covenant, and agree" as typical and often-used examples of this tendency. When this sort of multiple terminology is used, it is generally only useful to try to understand what is covered by the combined phrase, and of no value to try to determine which term covers which part of the concept. In the cited cases, anyone who tries to change a passport to say something that the government didn't intend, or who tries to damage or destroy a passport, or anything similar, would be guilty of the forbidden act. And similarly, anyone who tries to make an MVID read differently, or to make it unreadable, would be guilty.
I've never heard the phrase used this way, and it wouldn't make any sense, anyway; &quot;indemnity&quot; is security against a consequence, so the existence of civil and criminal consequences would be a double non-indemnification. Maybe ask the lecturer for a published example of this usage.
No enforceable contract can contain illegal clauses and work Contracts can not remove some rights and never can bypass obligations. Talking to the police at times is a requirement by law, as is taking to the labor board. Responding to a subpoena is legally forced by the court. An NDA might limit the amount what you can say, and a contract might limit who you can sue, but can not ban you from suing at all. In germany, a contract that tries to curtail such requirements would be Sittenwidrig and make all clauses that try to limit the rights fully Void and nill ab initio - in fact, it can be used as evidence against the drafting party that they tried to do so. So to stay legal and keep the clause working in the limited fashion where it is not demanded, the clause cuts the contract to explicitly exclude such situations.
The difference in their treatment is because of the asymmetry in the law. There are "wiretapping" laws pertaining to interception of voice communication, which do not include photographic recording. It is generally illegal to "intercept" an oral, wire or electronic communication (direct conversation, literal wire tap, or listening in on wireless speech): there is an exception that sound can be "intercepted" by a hearing aid or similar device to correct a person's less-than-normal hearing. Using a microphone or any other electronic device is thus "wiretapping". There is no law against taking a photo in public, even using a telephoto lens (however, trespassing to take a photo is illegal). It is true that when a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy, voice recording does not require consent of either party (in Texas). But simply "being in public" does not mean that there is no expectation of privacy – it depends on whether a reasonable person would know that they can easily be heard. In that context, there is still a reasonable expectation of privacy if you're 30 feet from the nearest person. It is hard to say exactly why the law is the way it is. I presume it is partially based on differences in "reasonable expectations of privacy" for sound versus light (sound dies out quickly, light does not). Wiretapping laws are, in the first place (Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968), a reaction to Supreme Court decisions that limited wiretapping on 4th Amendment grounds in Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Since the court did not say that the government taking a picture (without trespassing) is unconstitutional, the US government and states did not construct laws that prohibited that activity.
"Solicit" means "ask for". A solicitation can be refused, and it is still a solicitation. That's why the law says "solicit, accept, or receive".
There are venue restrictions where political speech is restricted, such as on military bases; content restrictions (transmitting classified information to the world); you cannot defraud by saying false things in order to get something, you cannot defame a person, you cannot speak obscenely (though it's hard to tell what counts as "obscenity"). You cannot appropriate other people's property in speaking (i.e. copyright law is a restriction on speech). The type of speech restrictions seem to pertain to speech and violence caused by such speech. A classic limitation is that you cannot speak "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568), which in 1942 meant calling someone a "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist", which the court characterized as "inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". The court subsequently refined its position on "provocative" speech. In Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 a law against cross-burning was found to run afoul of the First Amendment as a restriction on political expression, but it would be fully consistent with The Constitution to outlaw "cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate". This states may "prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm". The current position is that you cannot incite to the imminent use of force. In Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444, the court stated that the First Amendment does not "permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". There are myriad laws against threats, for instance in Washington you may not "knowingly threaten(s) to cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person", and you can't do that ("knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person") in Ohio either. You can't get away with threatening "to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person" in California. This class of restrictions on speech seems to be quite robust. You may not induce panic in Ohio, e.g. shout "fire" in a theater -- I don't know if any other state has such a law.
germany Is there any act of husband or wife which can be considered as rape? The paragraph for sexual offences is §177 StGb. Obviously there are nuances between those offences, not everything is &quot;rape&quot;, but all of it is illegal. To answer your question, yes, the same acts that are considered rape when they are not husband and wife. While marriage had been an exception, this was considered archaic by many and this exception was removed in 1997: Vergewaltigung in der Ehe ist seit Juli 1997 strafbar. Mit dem 33. Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz wurde das Merkmal außerehelich aus dem Tatbestand der Vergewaltigung, § 177 StGB, gestrichen, sodass seitdem auch die eheliche Vergewaltigung als ein Verbrechen geahndet wird. Translation: Marital rape has been punishable since July 1997. With the 33rd Criminal Law Amendment Act, the characteristic &quot;extramarital&quot; was removed from the definition of rape, § Section 177 of the Criminal Code, so that since then marital rape has also been punished as a crime. There is no mention of how consent is to be expressed or even that it needs to be expressed explicitely.