First Amendment, anyone?
 

The remedy to speech you don't like is usually more speech. Those people should be embarrassed.

You don't seem to get the justification for the Hatch Act.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

i do. And I followed it when i was a quasi-judicial ofiicial at the US Commerce Dept. But, you don't seem to get the justification for the Medal Act.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

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.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

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

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You can drive a truck through the difference between wearing a medal and impersonating a medal-winner. For one example, that law criminalizes portraying a medal winner on stage.

And the First Amendment does not protect only speech making what you seem to think is a "political point."

First Amendment, anyone?
 

isn't the Hatch act?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

why do you think making a political point makes it protected? Hatch act?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

How so?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I don't think I said that.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

you know, the same way the medal act is. or is it different to you?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Basically this is one of the laws where the government tries to legislate morality and it gets absurd. Of course you are a jerk to wear medals you didn't earn, but there is no law against being a jerk. As there should be no law against wearing these medals.

The impersonating a police officer or active duty soldier is a whole other issue, but this law is way out of bounds. Let’s get all the child molesters of the streets before we start using tax payer dollars to prosecute people because they are wearing medals they are not supposed to.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

What?!? And ignore the flag burners? And those who make fun of Jesus? We might as well consign our glorious country to hell and perdition ... whatever that is.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I don't see the overbreadth with the Hatch Act, but it's quite possible that I'm not as familiar with it as you are. Preventing government employees from using government resources to engage in political speech doesn't seem to me to be overbroad. They can still engage in speech on their own time.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Yes, the wild popularity of rent-a-cop mimickry threatens to tear the fiber of our national fabric.

Rock and Roll is Noise Pollution (And We Need to do Something About It)
 

And what of those who'd call someone a nappy-headed ho, or prank call a Chinese deli using crude ethnic slurs for laughs? And the second hand smoke from cigarettes on the beach!

Who. Will. Think. Of. The. Children!?!?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Spanky -

So you suggest we should pragmatically legislate first and primarily against that which truly threatens us. Oh, OK. Well then, tell me smart guy, how would we get get to deride and make bogeymen out of people whose morality we don't like, but isn't a threat to anyone (or is maybe at most a threat to themselves). If we don't throw grandstanding moral laws at the populous, how will we ever have a good wedge issue?

How do you expect those of us who sit in the front pew every Sunday to be able to judge everybody else if we have laws only targeting what's actually dangerous?

If those people don't have laws against flag burning and man on man marriages, how are they ever going to be able to scold others in the public forum? Where's the teeth in controlling their women if they can't control how often those women issue New Sons and Daughters of Abraham?

Your crazy talk would kill the hypocrisy market. Then what would we export? You want our money to say "In Rational Thought and the Scientific Method We Trust?"

You're a damned relativist is what you are.

Darwin bless,
Sebastian

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Hank, if you're ever in town around Veteran's Day, you can wear my grandfather's purple heart and silver star.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You say this like's it's a bad thing?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

First off, the Hatch Act applies only to people who accept employment from the federal government. That's a significant distinction from a generally applicable law. Second, it's tailored fairly carefully not to restrict all political speech, just some. It may be overbroad--for example it prohibits federal employees from running for partisan political office--but it's a lot more limited.

Compare that to a law that makes it criminal to wear a military medal you didn't win. How is that narrow, or otherwise justified as a restriction?

First Amendment, anyone?
 

You say this like you left your sarcasm/parody meter at home.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

I think there should, at a minimum, be a flair exemption.

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Please note that the law about military decorations and insignia would not prevent their being publicly burnt in a large bonfire of American flags, or tossed, or trampled, or used in artwork, or even (Slave's favorite) pinned to the nude flesh of a woman dipped in chocolate and on public display pursuant to an NEA grant.

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

We don't mind if you impersonate a communist.

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

Gee, thanks for the tip. I'll have to study harder in school before I wade back into this highly competitive arena.

A few final points, though: You and I both know the law would never be enforced in an example such as the one you cite. Really. So why did you cite it?

You and I both know that the law is directed against the many, many cases where people impersonate medal winners for some tangible or intangible benefit. I think that it is legitimate to penalize such conduct, you may or may not.

You may have some reason to argue that the law as drafted is a bit overly broad, but I can't think of a simpler/better way to get at the core conduct at issue.

Given all of this -- why the parade of horribles? Why did this even bother you in the least? This whole conversation is nothing more than desultory intellectual masturbation.

S_A_M

First Amendment, anyone?
 

ummm, don't you get it? this law that was first enacted in probably 1920, and was enforced by the FBI throughout the 90s is another example of how Bush has run roughshod over all the rights that were strongly defended by all prior Presidents.

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.