Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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."

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.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know, the same way the medal act is. or is it different to you?

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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".

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
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.

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!?!?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know, the same way the medal act is. or is it different to you?

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield



You're a damned relativist is what you are.

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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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 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?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You say this like's it's a bad thing?

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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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?

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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by LessinSF
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.

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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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

We don't mind if you impersonate a communist.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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."

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

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.