First Amendment, anyone?
 

huh? I can't put a stop sign in the road in front of my house, can I? that's what a guy faking Medal of Honor status is doing.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Can you think of a good reason to impose more severe criminal penalties for defacing a government building instead of a privately owned building? I can't.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You can't put a stop sign in the road, and if you if you sell tickets to a speaking tour featuring a fake Medal of Honor winner, you can be prosecuted for fraud. But if you put a stop sign on your rec room wall, or if you dress up as Audie Murphy for Halloween, you're not harming anyone.

You seem to think I'm saying that the government can never prosecute anyone for wearing fake medals. Not so.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I can think of a reason why one may be a federal criminal offense and the other may not.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

can we move on? don't you guys have a new scandal? maybe a Bush appointee tore a "Do Not Remove" tag off a mattress or something?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I was trying to avoid the Schechter Poultry thing, so let's pretend we're talking about a state government.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

An Illustrated Guide to GOP Scandals.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You're the only one who's brought up "scandal" or "Bush" or "Clinton." I just think it's stupid.

Oh. I can see why you thought I was talking about W. My bad.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Are we now talking about medals issued by a well regualted militia? If you change the analogy so that it's not an analogy, it's easy to make an argument look unpersuasive.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

And to show that I can play even in "change the analogy":

Why can a state not conclude that it should have enhanced penalties for defacing government buildings because (a) defacing government building belong to everyone, and defacing public property is particularly demoralizing and (b) there is an agency/incentive problem with government property that is likely to result in reduced enforcement as compared with private parties who have full incentive to stop and/or apprehend those who deface private property. A government might conclude it will balance the lower likelihood of being caught with a higher fine/penalty.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I was just talking about your graffiti hypo.

(a) doesn't make sense to me. Government buildings may belong a little bit to everyone, but is it worse to harm everyone a little than one private property owner a lot? I don't see it.

(b) seems empirically baseless. Sure, a legislature could conclude that, and it would be immune from a rational-basis challenge, but do you really think that's right? And can you think of criminal sanctions that work this way? Civil sanctions, sure (antitrust treble damages, e.g.), but criminal?

hatch act
 

someone said it only limits speech that uses gov't resources. is that true? I remember Harvey Pekar on Letterman wouldn't tell Dave who he was voting for because of the Hatch act. was he ill-informed?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

No I am not. I think it is universally morally wrong for people to wear military medals to deceive other people into thinking they have earned them when they have not earned them. I also think it is universally morally wrong for governments to institute laws making the wearing of such medals illegal.

Where is the relativism?

hatch act
 

The Office of Special Counsel's web site suggests he is misinformed. There are two categories of federal employees listed, both of whom may "express opinions about candidates and issues." But I'm a little embarrassed to be relying on materials like that when you are citing a cartoonist appearing on a late-night talk show, but what can I do?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

OK

How about: The government can regulate how and when they are lawfully displayed by employees of the federal government.

How about: The government can also punish federal employees who lie about whether the government gave _them_ those awards.


Why do you need to include civilians?