Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you think that's the justification for the Medal Act, isn't it wildly overbroad? Impersonating a service member is one thing; owning a replica medal is another.
|
You seem to have forgotten the text you quoted:
"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.”
So -- the law has nothing to do with collectors, or ownership, or giving legitimate medals away as gifts. And wearing your dad's medals to watch a Veteran's Day parade would be one of those technical pseudo-violations of the law which aren't prosecuted.
What speech are you talking about protecting here, Ty? Wearing the medals -- to the extent it is speech, is implicitly saying "I served in [Armed Force X] and earned [ribbons or medals y]." It may also be an implicit representation that you fought bravely or heroically for your country.
If that statement is false, why should it not be punishable? The public humilation can come along with minor criminal sanctions. We punish false and/or fraudulent speech in the country all the time. Your reaction here is a result of a value judgment about what deserves punishment.
As Hank notes -- the patches/awards/medals/ribbons/etc. are awarded by the government pursuant to certain criteria, and so the government can regulate their display.
If someone is truly using medals to make some kind of a political point, I'd bet they could use a 1st Amendment argument to win an "as applied" challenge in their own case. I'd bet only tiny fraction of the cases involve those situations. You won't get a ruling that the law is unconstitutional on its face.
S_A_M