Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think there should, at a minimum, be a flair exemption.

Best Post of the Week.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Office of Special Counsel's web site suggests he is misinformed. There are two categories of federal employees listed, both of whom may "express opinions about candidates and issues." But I'm a little embarrassed to be relying on materials like that when you are citing a cartoonist appearing on a late-night talk show, but what can I do?

Letterman/Pekar fight was '88. Still think he was misinformed?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Letterman/Pekar fight was '88. Still think he was misinformed?

The site I found explains what the law is now, not -- as far as I can tell -- what it was in 1988. I thought we were having a discussion about the Hatch Act as it applies these days. If you have been engaged in background research to better understand the Pekar/Letterman fight, I'm afraid I can't help you just now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The site I found explains what the law is now, not -- as far as I can tell -- what it was in 1988. I thought we were having a discussion about the Hatch Act as it applies these days. If you have been engaged in background research to better understand the Pekar/Letterman fight, I'm afraid I can't help you just now.

according to your site is was amended to make it much looser in 1993.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
according to your site is was amended to make it much looser in 1993.

OK. If all the stuff you were saying about the Hatch Act was about a version that hasn't been the law of the land for 14 years, that may explain why your view of it did not correspond to mine.

[Shape Shifter]

McNulty resigns.

[sgtclub]

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 I don't understand is how a statute trumps the constitution. Certainly, what one wears is expression, no?

[ltl/fb]

When did Bracewell & Patterson become Bracewell & Guiliani? (Answer: 2005; it's more of a rhetorical question).

[taxwonk]

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.

I believe Perdition is a suburb of Malvern, KS.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. If all the stuff you were saying about the Hatch Act was about a version that hasn't been the law of the land for 14 years, that may explain why your view of it did not correspond to mine.

I wasn't posting about the specifics, more the general. If the g can restrict speech that way for its employees then it can restrict how its medals are used. AND I think IP laws are similar.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
McNulty resigns.

so what?
and I just went and searched "McNulty" and none of you have ever mentioned him before. Did some blog tell you this was important or are you taking a shot in the dark that maybe it meant something?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He's decorated by Robert E. Lee. Oddly, KFC does not accept Confederate money.

Are there any woman Colonels? Cause if there aren't, that might be unconstitutional. Assuming of coourse one could find a woman in Kentucky who would want to parade around in that silly white suit.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So a law against defacing a government building with grafitti wouldn't be proper?

I think this hypothetical proves too much. Clearly a law against grafitti would not be improper. However, a law that criminalized defacing a government building in the absence of laws protecting private property is a horse of a different color.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought that the criminal laws were supposed to be about protecting individuals, rather than the government's interest in different messages.

Really?

The criminal laws (and sentencing guidelines) reflect all kinds of policy judgments. I think that is inevitable.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Can you think of a good reason to impose more severe criminal penalties for defacing a government building instead of a privately owned building? I can't.

I can. Though I don't think this is really relevant to the discussion.

I have to pay part of the cost of cleaning up the government building -- as does your widowed Aunt Minnie. Also -- that money could otherwise have gone to buy body armor for our troops in Iraq or to help spy on Iran's nuclear program.

So, bastards like "Cool Disco Dan" are putting American soldiers at risk when they deface American government buildings.

The societal harm is (even) more attenuated when he defaces private property.

The degree of punishment is just a value judgment -- like the different punishments for 1 oz of pot vs. powder cocaine vs. crack.

S_A_M

[eta: dammit Burger!]