SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Faking of military medals no longer illegal in CA..

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Faking of military medals no longer illegal in CA.. (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=173802)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1471235)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1471388)

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.

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.

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.

How can one define "lie" in the context of freedom of expression?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1471779)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1471682)

You missed my point. Please re-read my previous comment.

Well i'm still missing it then. Perhaps you should explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fred8615 (Post 1471715)

What you mention are two different subjects. As one of the judges said:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1471803)

Well i'm still missing it then. Perhaps you should explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1471317)

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?