First Amendment, anyone?
 

WSJ Law Blog:

• Under the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. Section 704), signed into law by President Bush last December, “anyone who knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the U.S. armed forces, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
  
  On April 30, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan arrested Lowell Craig McGuinn for wearing service medals and badges, including the silver cross, purple heart, and silver star, that he did not earn. He pleaded not guilty. Here’s the government’s complaint and the story from the Daily News. The News says that McGuinn is the first person in the nation to be prosecuted under the new law, which broadens the provisions of a federal law that only covered the Medal of Honor.

OK, that's nuts.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I agree that's nuts.

Didn't some guy just give W his Purple Heart? Is he being investigated?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Is that law even constitutional?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I would think one could make a pretty good first amendment argument, at least as applied. Dunno why he was wearing the badges, but I'll bet he can come up with a first amendment protected reason.

It would be another matter if the law required that there be fraud involved (e.g., used the medal to get cheap movie tickets).

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I know a couple of people who wear medals earned by ancestors on Veteran's Day. I suppose I should let them know that they're felons.

ETA: It looks like they could have prosecuted the guy under some sort of fraud in the inducement charge instead.

ETAagain: and I suspect people who really earned the Silver Star would be mightily pissed off at someone who wore it for show.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

wiki says the 1903 design was patented and when the patent expired Congress passed the original law. Why can't the government regulate the use of things it issues? it looks like there have been regular prosecutions, and I'm sure you guys aren't the first to come up with the "not constitutional" argument so I'm sure it's all okay.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Excellent analysis.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

The government can grant patents and copyrights and trademarks. if you violate one of these the governement can stop you, I think EVEN IF you were only copying to exercise your free speech rights. The copyright law even has criminal sanctions.

I don't do defendant cases often, but next time should I add "IP law is unconstitutional" affirmative defense?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Yes, I think you should. Let us know how it turns out.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Excellant analysis. Have any of your client ever had legal problems?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Yes, thankfully.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I would have been more pointed, but that would be outable/cruel.

Try this: can a Jew in the military exercise his first amendment right to wear a Yamulka? in a world where that got tested, believe me, the MofH law would have been tested if there was an argument.

And just to help you get your pointy brain back onto Hatch act violations or something, Ty posted because the law seemed strange, not as an anti-Bush hit. just so you know, the prosecution continued through clinton admin, so you know, it isn't another huge scandal.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Yeah, whatever.

So what?

The prosecution is nuts. I said that. I further pointed out that W recently accepted someone else's PH. Should he be prosecuted for copyright infringement? Or do you take the position that the President can't violate the law*?


*Except for the serious, serious crime of perjury about a blowjob.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

What if the medals were merely tossed over a fence?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You say it is unconstitutional w/o any support. I am certainly not an expert on Con law. But ACLU does tend to look for shit to challenge, no?



Go google why they do this rather than speaking solely based on ignorance.

2 questions:does Hatch act carry prison time?

Are you generally against sexual harassment, or just against it when it is Billy?