norml21 - Page 63
Page 63
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
The Court in Mud was merely recognizing the principle
enunciated by Mill only a few years before:
Acts, @f whatever kinds which without
justifiable cause do harm to others, __!9_Y___
9_!_d_i_t_the___ore important cases 9bsol___tg__f
required to be_ controlled by the un___fav___o_rable
sentimen%s_ andL when needful, h y the active
_interfereD ce to maL_kindo The liberty of the
individual must be thus far limited; he must
not make himself a nuisance to cther people°
But if he refrains from molesting others in
what concerns them_ and merely acts according
to his own inclination and judgment in things
which concern himself, the same reasons which
show that_opinion should be free prove also
that he should be allowed, withcut
molesJ__a%io____ to carrf£ his ooinicz_s ipto
practice at his own cost__
Mill, sups_, at 68 (emphasis added).
Mill's principle has retained its vitality to the present
day; "At the core of (the concept of liberty) is the notion of
total personal immunity from governmental control: the right 'to
be let alone' That right is not absolute, however ..o (T)his
liberty' must yield where it 'intrude(s) upon the freedom of
others.'" Ravin v. Stat___9, 537 P.2d 494, 500 (Alaska 1975)
(citing Breese v. Smith, 501 P.2d 159 (Alaska 1!)72), and BishoT)
v. Cola__w, 450 F°2d 1069 (Sth Cir. 1971)).
Bo Precedent for the Mill's Standard Exists in Other
Areas of Criminal Law.
The concept that the only standard by which a competent
adult's conduct may legitimately be regulated by the State is
63
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index