Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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."
|
I assumed that it's a small step from agreeing that a restriction on speech is overbroad to agreeing that it is constitutionally problematic. I seem to have lost you on that step. It's another small step, rhetorically, to calling the overbreadth "nuts," if there is no plausible justification for it. I don't see you offering one.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I don't think misrepresenting one's status as a decorated veteran should, per se, be a federal crime. If those misrepresentations are part of fraud, then prosecute the fraud.
Consider two eccentrics. One has a lot of a money and represents himself as homeless. The other never served and represents himself as a decorated veteran. Absent other facts, why is one a criminal but not the other?
Chilling effect? Really? Good.
Quote:
|
The government gives the awards/insignia per certain criteria. The government can regulate how and when they are lawfully displayed.
|
It is simple, but it's also crazy. The government gives stop signs certain criteria, but that doesn't permit the goverment to forbid anyone from displaying a stop sign. Sure, you can be convicted if you misuse one, but the crime is the misuse, not the speech itself.
I wouldn't call you a totalitarian, but you do seem to have a cramped appreciation of free speech today.
