Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

So content-based limits on speech are OK if you can engage in other offensive speech? I. don't. think. so.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
... 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

Cite please.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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?

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.

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.

(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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

(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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(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.

Old law was Medal of Honor, and that was recently expanded. do you see a difference as to con/uncon?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Old law was Medal of Honor, and that was recently expanded. do you see a difference as to con/uncon?

I suppose not, but I have no reason to believe that the prior version of the law was having any effect.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So content-based limits on speech are OK if you can engage in other offensive speech? I. don't. think. so.

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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Cite please.

We all know that would be Slave's favorite.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The bottom line on the constitutionality of all of this is pretty much as Hank enunciated, although you gave him no credit for it because he did not cite a treatise or a blog.

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.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have yet to see you or Hank make a remotely plausible argument that this is constitutional.

"The law is based on another law that was around for a while; therefore, it is constitutional."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"The law is based on another law that was around for a while; therefore, it is constitutional."

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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."

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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.

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.