Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
which, hatch act or the medal law? or intellectual property?

The medal law.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is that law even constitutional?

Yes.

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
WSJ Law Blog:

• Under the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. Section 704), signed into law by President Bush last December, “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.”
  
  On April 30, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan arrested Lowell Craig McGuinn for wearing service medals and badges, including the silver cross, purple heart, and silver star, that he did not earn. He pleaded not guilty. Here’s the government’s complaint and the story from the Daily News. The News says that McGuinn is the first person in the nation to be prosecuted under the new law, which broadens the provisions of a federal law that only covered the Medal of Honor.

OK, that's nuts.

2. But something needs to be done about dudes dressing in quasi police/FBI or whatever mode knowing some people mistake them for the real thing. Some of them do it to get closer to their rape/murder victim. The other day I saw some dude pulled aside by federal agents and local police near Penn Station. The guy was riding a bike around in pants with an orangey stripe down each side, some sort of fake badge on his shirt, an FBI hat and 2 huge walkey talky thingeys, one on each side sticking out of his waistband. The cops/agents were looking at his walkey talkeys and I overheard them remark that they were fake. Surprisingly, they let him go after calling in his id or something on their (functioning) walkie talkies. And they gave him back his "gear".

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
2. But something needs to be done about dudes dressing in quasi police/FBI or whatever mode knowing some people mistake them for the real thing. Some of them do it to get closer to their rape/murder victim. The other day I saw some dude pulled aside by federal agents and local police near Penn Station. The guy was riding a bike around in pants with an orangey stripe down each side, some sort of fake badge on his shirt, an FBI hat and 2 huge walkey talky thingeys, one on each side sticking out of his waistband. The cops/agents were looking at his walkey talkeys and I overheard them remark that they were fake. Surprisingly, they let him go after calling in his id or something on their (functioning) walkie talkies. And they gave him back his "gear".

I'd also better be careful wearing those medals (and Red Army hat) I picked up at a street bazaar in Riga.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The medal law.

I didn't read why congress passed the law, twice, but I did read about enforcement. It seems like there are twice as many people claiming to be medal of honor winners as there are alive. there are 3 times as many people wearing Navy Seals patches as there are former Seals. And all of these people use the fake status to get free stuff, or acclaim or whatever, from their towns and local businesses etc.

I could see whatever justifies the Hatch act being met by the medal law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I didn't read why congress passed the law, twice, but I did read about enforcement. It seems like there are twice as many people claiming to be medal of honor winners as there are alive. there are 3 times as many people wearing Navy Seals patches as there are former Seals. And all of these people use the fake status to get free stuff, or acclaim or whatever, from their towns and local businesses etc.

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

I could see whatever justifies the Hatch act being met by the medal law.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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.

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."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you think that's the justification for the Medal Act, isn't it wildly overbroad?

isn't the Hatch act?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
isn't the Hatch act?

How so?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
why do you think making a political point makes it protected?

I don't think I said that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How so?

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