Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was trying to avoid the Schechter Poultry thing, so let's pretend we're talking about a state government.

Oooh! Burger was whipping out the "Schechter Poultry?" wpp

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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!]

I'm not persuaded. In fact, it seems to me my tax dollars would be better spent buying the body armor than prosecuting some little gutter-rat for tagging the local Social Security office. Plus, it creates more job security for the GSA guy who paints it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
No I am not. I think it is universally morally wrong for people to wear military medals to deceive other people into thinking they have earned them when they have not earned them. I also think it is universally morally wrong for governments to institute laws making the wearing of such medals illegal.

Where is the relativism?

You and Greedy are killing me here...

I was fucking around, addressing in the voice of an absurd moralist your argument that we should not waste time on silly laws like the medal act when our law enforcement instrumentality should be out chasing serious crimes like child molestation.

The sort of moralists who love those medal laws love them because they give them a wedge issue or pedestal from which to spew their judgments about others...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski If the g can restrict speech that way for its employees then it can restrict how its medals are used.

(1) That doesn't follow, as Burger pointed out.

(2) When the government gives you a medal, it gives you a medal. You can then sell it to someone else, who can use it as they like. Unlike the Hatch Act.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) That doesn't follow, as Burger pointed out.

(2) When the government gives you a medal, it gives you a medal. You can then sell it to someone else, who can use it as they like. Unlike the Hatch Act.

Microsoft can sell you software and say you can't let anyone else use it. The government gives it that right. If the government can give others the right to limit use, why can't it have the right to limit it itself?

Oh, and how come the statute has stood for 80 years and the ACLU has been around too?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Microsoft can sell you software and say you can't let anyone else use it. The government gives it that right. If the government can give others the right to limit use, why can't it have the right to limit it itself?

When you find someone who was awarded a medal by the government and who received a license with it that limited subsequent uses, you just let me know. And even so, the license wouldn't be binding on an unwitting bona fide purchaser, right? So how could that be the basis for criminal liability?

Oh, and how come the statute has stood for 80 years and the ACLU has been around too?

Maybe because it applied only to the Medal of Honor? Or maybe it was never enforced? I dunno.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

What color is that horse? Why couldn't the government pass a law that protected only government property? You can't kill animals in Yellowstone that you can kill on your ranch.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Microsoft can sell you software and say you can't let anyone else use it. The government gives it that right. If the government can give others the right to limit use, why can't it have the right to limit it itself?

Oh, and how come the statute has stood for 80 years and the ACLU has been around too?

On 1. Huh? It's not all about IP law here. The government is limiting fake medals, not real ones.

On 2. Isn't slavery still legal in Mississippi? Or miscegination illegal? Or something like that? The fact that a law hasn't been challenged could mean only that it hasn't been enforced. I don't think anyone here has argued the law is facially unconstitutional--that is, there are circumstances in which it could be constitutionally enforced.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you find someone who was awarded a medal by the government and who received a license with it that limited subsequent uses, you just let me know. And even so, the license wouldn't be binding on an unwitting bona fide purchaser, right? So how could that be the basis for criminal liability?

Say I'm the King: and i give you a medal (suspend disbelief here), AND I've enacted a law that says "only the people I give the medals to can wear them outside," that's very much like a use based license.

oh, and bona fide purchasers are still infringers, and the guy who buys the medal and wears it? are you making like a "mistake of law is okay" argument?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

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 have no dog in this fight, but what makes you think there are "many, many cases?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On 1. Huh? It's not all about IP law here. The government is limiting fake medals, not real ones.

I'm talking about the power to limit use. of course the g can limit fakes- or is counterfeiting "free speech?"-

On 2. Isn't slavery still legal in Mississippi? Or miscegination illegal? Or something like that? The fact that a law hasn't been challenged could mean only that it hasn't been enforced. I don't think anyone here has argued the law is facially unconstitutional--that is, there are circumstances in which it could be constitutionally enforced.

again, google and read. it was being enforced. I don't think Ms. is still holding slave auctions even if the law still exists.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
I have no dog in this fight, but what makes you think there are "many, many cases?"

GOOGLE

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you think a law passes Congress, twice, w/o someone doing some sort of constitutional analysis?

Again, I really don't care about this discussion, but yes, I think nearly every law that passes Congress gets through without much (credible) constitutional analysis.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What color is that horse? Why couldn't the government pass a law that protected only government property? You can't kill animals in Yellowstone that you can kill on your ranch.

I think that in the absence of general laws governing the defacement of property, a law that applied only to governmental property might change the applicable test from rational basis, with the focus being the protection of property generally, to strict scrutiny, if the government is seen as only restricting the political or artistic expression of citizens with respect to the seats of power.

I'm not saying this is the right answer, but the restriction of protection to governmental property does change one's point of view.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

You don't think the status of employees as employees might have something to do with it?