PDA

View Full Version : Faking of military medals no longer illegal in CA..

SteamWake
08-18-10, 10:42 AM
Are the courts intentionally trying to divide the country?


A three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/17/appeals-court-panel-law-faking-receipt-military-medals-unconstitutional/
August
08-18-10, 10:44 AM
If it goes to the Supreme Court the law will be upheld I hope.
Gerald
08-18-10, 10:45 AM
It does not sound good, are certainly one or two who have a different view :hmmm:
Dowly
08-18-10, 10:46 AM
That's stupid. :yep:
Ducimus
08-18-10, 03:18 PM
A link that is not fox news:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/17/BA541EVG92.DTL&aaa

Regardless of news source, I think there should be some penalty if one decides to lie about having recieved the highest decoration this country has to offer.
antikristuseke
08-18-10, 03:22 PM
Wait, what?
Unconstitutional how?
frau kaleun
08-18-10, 04:03 PM
Freedom of speech.

As much contempt as I have for anyone who'd lie about such a thing, I can see where being subject to prosecution for just saying it would violate the First Amendment.

I'm assuming that any attempt to capitalize on the lie that results in fraudulent activity to the detriment of others would still be a punishable offense.
antikristuseke
08-18-10, 04:20 PM
Hmm, as much as I don't like it have to concede the point to you, Frau.
fred8615
08-18-10, 04:34 PM
Freedom of speech.

As much contempt as I have for anyone who'd lie about such a thing, I can see where being subject to prosecution for just saying it would violate the First Amendment.

Except, as noted in the Fox News article, the U.S. Supreme court has already said the 1st Amendment does not give you a right to lie.
frau kaleun
08-18-10, 04:39 PM
Except, as noted in the Fox News article, the U.S. Supreme court has already said the 1st Amendment does not give you a right to lie.

I was referring to the report at Ducimus' link, which gives "freedom of speech" as the reason for the ruling:


A federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor or other military decorations violates freedom of speech, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
fred8615
08-18-10, 04:43 PM
I was referring to the report at Ducimus' link, which gives "freedom of speech" as the reason for the ruling.

From the Fox News article:

The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.
Platapus
08-18-10, 04:58 PM
Just remember that if you make it illegal for anyone to wear military medals/ribbons they have not earned, it has to apply to TV, Movie, Stage, and Re-enactments too. Do we really want to stop re-enactors from wearing medals?
mookiemookie
08-18-10, 05:19 PM
Just remember that if you make it illegal for anyone to wear military medals/ribbons they have not earned, it has to apply to TV, Movie, Stage, and Re-enactments too. Do we really want to stop re-enactors from wearing medals?

Oh stop it. No it doesn't. Actors in cop shows are not arrested for impersonating police officers, are they?
SteamWake
08-18-10, 07:08 PM
Just remember that if you make it illegal for anyone to wear military medals/ribbons they have not earned, it has to apply to TV, Movie, Stage, and Re-enactments too. Do we really want to stop re-enactors from wearing medals?

Oh for cryin out loud you have got to be kidding me.... :stare:
Platapus
08-18-10, 07:16 PM
Of course it is silly. That was my point. :yep:

This is why laws preventing citizens from dressing up are not only stupid but unconstitutional.

Now if a person dressing up tries to exercise any authority, or tries to gain money or profit from the impersonation, that is illegal. Which is why we have laws that prevent people from impersonating a official and taking an action based on the presumed authority of the costume. That is a smart and constitutional law.

If I want to dress up as a police officer, I can. But if I try to exercise the authority of a police officer, that's illegal. Not the dressing up, but the attempt to exercise authority that is unauthorized.

The same goes for dressing up as a military member. Actors do it, re-enactors do it, and citizens do it. Nothing illegal about it, until they try to exercise any authority without authorization.

Now do you understand why dress up laws are not good, but attempting unauthorized authority laws are good?
August
08-18-10, 08:53 PM
Just remember that if you make it illegal for anyone to wear military medals/ribbons they have not earned, it has to apply to TV, Movie, Stage, and Re-enactments too. Do we really want to stop re-enactors from wearing medals?

I don't see why it has to apply. Are actors or re-enactors attempting to make you believe they actually earned those medals?
Platapus
08-19-10, 08:10 AM
I don't see why it has to apply. Are actors or re-enactors attempting to make you believe they actually earned those medals?

You missed my point. Please re-read my previous comment.
fred8615
08-19-10, 08:44 AM
I thought about something last night. If there really is a constitutional "right to lie," how in the world do you EVER charge someone with fraud or perjury?? Laws against that kind of lying would infringe upon a person's overall "right to lie," and thus would be struck down.

And don't say it's because money changes hands or a guilty person might go free. The Constitution supercedes all laws, as this case demonstrates. And if a criminal's rights are found to have been violated, he can be released, regardless of the evidence against him.

So there really is no "right to lie." Those two judges are either idiots, or rabidly anti-military.
ETR3(SS)
08-19-10, 09:30 AM
Well if he is claiming to have received the CMOH, ask to see it. AFAIK you can't buy a replica. Also there would be some sort of public record of the award.
Platapus
08-19-10, 09:30 AM
How can one define "lie" in the context of freedom of expression?
Platapus
08-19-10, 09:36 AM
Well if he is claiming to have received the CMOH, ask to see it. AFAIK you can't buy a replica. Also there would be some sort of public record of the award.

yeah, unfortunately, there are not all that many living people who are awarded the Medal of Honor. It would not be difficult to verify.
August
08-19-10, 09:48 AM
You missed my point. Please re-read my previous comment.

Well i'm still missing it then. Perhaps you should explain it.
Sailor Steve
08-19-10, 10:02 AM
I thought about something last night. If there really is a constitutional "right to lie," how in the world do you EVER charge someone with fraud or perjury?? Laws against that kind of lying would infringe upon a person's overall "right to lie," and thus would be struck down.
What you mention are two different subjects. As one of the judges said:
The majority said there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there's no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.
And the other:
If lying about a medal can be classified as a crime, Smith said, so can lying about one's age, mesrepresenting one's financial status on Facebook, or telling one's mother falsehoods about drinking, smoking, or sex.

So it's not about a "right to lie". Lying to the government is a crime, if not necessarily a sin, but only because they say so and they have the power to make it stick. Lying to anyone else may be a sin, but the government doesn't have the right to make it a crime.

Which is what they're saying, anyway. I'm still a liitle up-in-the-air over the issue.
Platapus
08-19-10, 10:11 AM
Well i'm still missing it then. Perhaps you should explain it.


Of course it is silly. That was my point. :yep:

This is why laws preventing citizens from dressing up are not only stupid but unconstitutional.

Now if a person dressing up tries to exercise any authority, or tries to gain money or profit from the impersonation, that is illegal. Which is why we have laws that prevent people from impersonating a official and taking an action based on the presumed authority of the costume. That is a smart and constitutional law.

If I want to dress up as a police officer, I can. But if I try to exercise the authority of a police officer, that's illegal. Not the dressing up, but the attempt to exercise authority that is unauthorized.

The same goes for dressing up as a military member. Actors do it, re-enactors do it, and citizens do it. Nothing illegal about it, until they try to exercise any authority without authorization.

Now do you understand why dress up laws are not good, but attempting unauthorized authority laws are good?

A law that is solely based on a person wearing an unauthorized medal would be difficult to enforce as there are many legitimate reasons why someone would wear an unauthorized medal. Actors being one of them. There is also freedom of expression issues. As a citizen I should be able to wear something just because I wanna.

Laws that are based on the action of impersonating someone AND attempting to use an unauthorized authority for personal gain is much easier to enforce and removes any defense about actors, reenactors, or "I just wanna".

Having a law based solely on the action of wearing allows too many loopholes and fallacious arguments that can make successful prosecution difficult.

Having a law that requires both the wearing of the article and the action of attempting to use unauthorized authority for personal gain (to include non-monitory) involves intent to deceive.

A person just wearing a medal can make the argument that they did not mean to deceive but just to honour the medal. It would be up to the prosecutor to prove intent to deceive.

A person how both wears an article and attempts to garner a benefit via unauthorized means, is clearly demonstrating intent to deceive and will be easier to prosecute.

Did this help?