First Amendment, anyone?
 

So content-based limits on speech are OK if you can engage in other offensive speech? I. don't. think. so.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Cite please.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I said at the outset that the law was nuts. If you concede that the law is nuts as drafted, then you don't disagree, I gather.

One problem with outlawing a broad category of speech and trusting prosecutors to draw the right line is that they may not. (I say this even though some of best friends are in law enforcement.) Another is the chilling effect. Neither of these two propositions is outlandish from a First Amendment standpoint.

(1) I didn't know anything about such conduct until someone posted about it here. The WSJ blog piece that prompted my original post said nothing about it.

(2) Here is the NY Daily News story the WSJ linked to. I hadn't read it until now.

(3) I really don't think there's any conduct described in that article that should be made a federal crime. If people puff other credentials to -- e.g. -- get a job, that's not a crime. If someone pretends to be homeless to get charity, that's not a crime. Not every problem needs to have a legal solution.

eta: Here's the second paragraph of the Daily News article:

• The FBI's Washington headquarters receives at least 15 tips a week about fake heroes - and most of the information comes from veterans who are furious that the scam artists are demeaning real sacrifices, said FBI Special Agent Michael Sanborn.

The gist of this is not that the victims of fraud are complaining about being ripped off. It's about offended veterans.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

(1) The WSJ law blog and the Daily News say the provisions being used to prosecute this guy are new.

(2) Who's blaming Bush? Congress passed the law.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Old law was Medal of Honor, and that was recently expanded. do you see a difference as to con/uncon?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I suppose not, but I have no reason to believe that the prior version of the law was having any effect.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

The bottom line on the constitutionality of all of this is pretty much as Hank eneunciated, although you gave him no credit for it because he did not cite a treatise or a blog.

Yeah -- this is a pure First Amendment case, and "no law" means "no law.' Right.

You. Are. Not. Worth. Talking. To.

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

We all know that would be Slave's favorite.

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Maybe there is some miscommunication going on here because I have yet to see you or Hank make a remotely plausible argument that this is constitutional. Didn't you just concede that, as drafted, the law could be enforced in ways that make no sense? That's a classic First Amendment chilling effect.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

And if you concede that cows are round, then we don't disagree?

I don't think the law is nuts at all, and "a bit overly broad" doesn't mean "nuts."

In theory you are absolutely right. So complain and get some amendments expressly protecting artistic or political expression, and/or focusing on gain/benefits. (The last part is tricky.) That might make the law better.

Chilling effect? Really? Good.

The government gives the awards/insignia per certain criteria. The government can regulate how and when they are lawfully displayed. The government can also punish people who lie about whether the government gave _them_ those awards. Seems simple to me, but I guess I'm just a totalitarian.

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

"The law is based on another law that was around for a while; therefore, it is constitutional."

First Amendment, anyone?
 

ummm, the burden is to prove to you it is okay? you, who couldn't even bother to google why the law was enacted, don't have to show anything. you, whose best argument is that another law, which restricts speech for all employees of the world's largest employer, is "narrow."

First Amendment, anyone?
 

when I'm being stupid it's usually at least somewhat intentional, maybe gross negligence. but i worry about you, honestly, because I think you think this sort thing is thought out.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Ty, he's right. Why should the Government's power be limited in any way unless you can show that the constitution specifically prohibits a law, based on its plain language? Don't you remember that any power not specifically retained by the people is granted to the government?

I give it to Hank. 2007 to 42.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

dumb fuck.

we're not the governemnt.

do you think a law passes Congress, twice, w/o someone doing some sort of constitutional analysis? Ty wants to say it is uncon. he at least has to make some sort of argument, beyond "it is, trust me."

and if you and SS are simply going to post "I agree with Ty" the next time i get money to the board, it will come with strings that the two of you can't take up bandwidth here anymore.