Technically, that’s correct.  The definition of unintended consequences does not require the consequences to be unforeseen, though in common language we generally use the base meaning of “intention”.   Therefore the phrase has come to mean those consequences which were neither  intended nor unforeseen.

I submit however, that we should start changing our language and call known consequences intended consequences, because like the citizens in the face of the law our politicians should be held to the same standard: ignorance is not a defense.

Regardless of the human failing that pushes people to believe they, or their elected leaders, can ultimately control behavior which is already constrained by the marketplace, acting as if the results weren’t readily understood is disingenuous.

Looking more closely @ McCain-Feingold effects, we see the chilling of free-speech (here), where citizens can’t create a documentary on their beliefs about Hillary Clinton without it being subject to regulation:

…The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated over whether a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton could be classified as an “electioneering communication” subject to regulation.

The FEC contended it was, and that its sponsor, a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, was barred from promoting the film. While nonprofits can be exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limit their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold because it accepts business contributions….

Now.  I haven’t seen the movie nor do I care to, but when individuals get together to use their own money, their own resources, to produce their own political speech, the government has absolutely no right to be involved.  In the marketplace of political ideas, that whole “congress shall make no law” thingy, seemed pretty straight forward.

Regardless of your reading of the 1st Amendment, some will contend this is an unintended consequence.  I contend it was a known consequence and therefore must have been intended.

I will even go further and say this was like a consequence well enough known by politicians who voted for the bill, that they had incentive to pass restrictions on others as this would help them secure the current balance of power.

Using banks too big to fail (here):

…Increased concentration is vexing for regulators. Because systemically important firms can borrow more cheaply thanks to implicit state backing, small and medium-sized banks struggle to compete. A recent Fed study put big banks’ funding advantage at more than 30 basis points. That leads to another possible problem: indiscipline. Private firms with a low cost of funds and the taxpayer behind them are prone to recklessness: just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. America’s leading banks were too big to fail before the crisis. Now they are bigger still….

This was not only easy to foresee, but libertarians, conservatives, small business groups, think tanks, economists, literally, tens of thousands of people wrote and discussed that this is exactly what would happen.

Once you’ve effectively told the market that they will not be responsible for their failures, you’ve written them a blank check to become much more reckless than they would have otherwise.

Not only this, but that action, more reckless businesses, will have it’s own well understood consequence.  The banks will continue to make stupid decisions due to a perceived lack of risk.  As long as people allow it, the government will continue to bail them out until it becomes just too expensive.  Then during that emergency, we will see much greater regulation and control of the financial industry which might include a government takeover.

As Hayek stated and history has shown:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

Maybe it’s time to start holding our politicians & leaders accountable for the known consequences & not just the stated ones.

As reported by FIRE (articles here, here, and here), colleges everywhere & the NCAA believe without question they are entitled to police not only campus speech, but student speech on Facebook and in other public venues as well.

According to the actions of several universities, the mere act of one student placing text someplace that might offend another student, is grounds for disciplinary action.  & apparently, this is also regardless of any potential facts.

@ The University of Chicago:

…On January 19, 2009, University of Chicago student Andrew Thompson posted a photograph “album” on his personal Facebook page. The title of the album was “[Name of ex-girlfriend] cheated on me, and you’re next!” Some of the photographs in the album were of Thompson’s ex-girlfriend, and dozens of the photographs were not. On January 19 and 20, a number of people other than Thompson posted comments about the allegation of cheating. One person wrote, “Seriously though, what a f***ing whore” (language redacted).

On January 20 at about 9:00 a.m., Thompson’s ex-girlfriend sent Susan Art, Dean of Students in the College, an e-mail claiming that the album’s title and the third-party comments on the title constituted “libel.” The woman stated that Thompson had refused to change the title of the album upon her request and asked Art “if this could be removed quietly and quickly from the internet.”

At 2:00 p.m., Art e-mailed Thompson, revealing the entire content of the ex-girlfriend’s e-mail, and demanded the censorship of Thompson’s album:

[Name of ex-girlfriend] has brought to my attention that you have posted her name on [F]acebook and that this has drawn some critical comments from others.  I am writing to ask you to remove her name and remove the pictures you have posted of her.  We have an expectation that members of the University community treat each other “with dignity and respect.”  This kind of post is disrespectful.  I know you think it is a joke, but it is very upsetting to her.

Can you let me know when her name and her pictures are removed from your [F]acebook page?

I expect this to happen right away.

Very shortly afterward, Thompson complied with Art’s censorship demands, but he resisted the idea that a University of Chicago dean could censor his protected speech. On January 21, he asked her by e-mail, “Can the university really regulate internet speech?  I did not say anything subjective or false, so I don’t see how I can be forced to do this…”

In a very troubling response e-mailed to Thompson later that day, Art essentially declared that the university’s Student Manual [of] University Policies and Regulations permits censorship of “disrespectful” speech:

Every member of the University – student, faculty, and staff – makes a commitment to strive for personal and academic integrity; to treat others with dignity and respect; to honor the rights and property of others; to take responsibility for individual and group behavior; and to act as a responsible citizen in a free academic community and in the larger society. Any student conduct, on or off campus, of individuals or groups, that threatens or violates this commitment may become a matter for action within the University’s system of student discipline….

& this is not an isolated incident.  Colleges and universities all over have speech codes to regulate hurtful or offensive speech, as if kind and benevolent speech was in need of protection in the first place.

Even the beloved Professor Noam Chomsky said, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

I think that sums up current academia policies and actions well – they don’t believe in freedom of anything, only in the control of everything.