Faking of military medals no longer illegal in CA..

fred8615 · 08-18-10, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

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:

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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....

Platapus · 08-18-10, 07:16 PM

Of course it is silly. That was my point.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

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.

Platapus · 08-19-10, 09:30 AM

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

Sailor Steve · 08-19-10, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fred8615

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:

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.

August · 08-19-10, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

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

Platapus · 08-19-10, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Of course it is silly. That was my point.

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?

08-18-10, 04:58 PM	#2
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-18-10, 07:16 PM	#5
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Of course it is silly. That was my point. 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? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-19-10, 08:44 AM	#8
fred8615 Saint of the seas Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Sorrento, Louisiana Posts: 1,320 Downloads: 265 Uploads: 127	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. __________________ Frederick J. Barnett Radio Stations & Music Captain's Desk Photos FJB Camera Pre Pearl Harbor Career Start Office links, Info Boxes, & 50 cal Crew Rank Fix Sub Class Info Real Subs SH4 Randomizer Sub Images Office Images Sub Pinups & Pics 24 Hour Clocks Office Posters Nav Map Make-Over Add-ons FJB Navigation Maps Office Window Chronographs Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done! Do you think that's easy?! - Gregory Peck, The Guns of Navarone.

08-19-10, 09:30 AM	#9
ETR3(SS) Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Between test depth and periscope depth Posts: 3,021 Downloads: 175 Uploads: 16	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. __________________ USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine.

08-19-10, 09:30 AM	#11
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	How can one define "lie" in the context of freedom of expression? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.