Law Against Faking Receipt of Military Medals is Unconstitutional

[BombTaxi]

To me it's just outright fraud.

So let him be prosecuted for that (if he can be), but let's not have freedom of speech curtailed. These situations always bring a great irony; the soldiers whose deeds are being degraded fought precisely so that others would have the right to say whatever they wanted, even if that led to the degredation of the soldiers themselves (the same point as i brought up in the BC memorial thread). Ultimately, there's no point fighting to introduce freedom of speech to other countries if you are going to curtail it in your own.

Like many here, I am utterly disgusted by what this guy did (and I have NEVER been a member of any armed force). But I think that freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin, and to curtail that freedom in defense of soldier's rights would actually be a much greater show of disrespect to those who fell defending freedom of speech, than the actions of this clown and his ilk ever could be.

 

[mikewint]

BombTaxi, i am in total agreement with you. i have a gut reaction to this and i have been doing a lot of thinking about it.
i don't like laws about everything. i understand that freedom of speech does not allow the shouting of fire in a theater. i want to rip the arms off flag burners but that is their right as much as i detest it.
how many people have you seen who do not stand as the flag goes by? i was at a parade and not one person sitting on the curb got up as the color guard went by. How many people do you see at games who keep their hats on during the national anthem.
lastly i have one question to all of you: What does any Military Award REALLY mean or stand for?

 

[diddyriddick]

So let him be prosecuted for that (if he can be), but let's not have freedom of speech curtailed. These situations always bring a great irony; the soldiers whose deeds are being degraded fought precisely so that others would have the right to say whatever they wanted, even if that led to the degredation of the soldiers themselves (the same point as i brought up in the BC memorial thread). Ultimately, there's no point fighting to introduce freedom of speech to other countries if you are going to curtail it in your own.

Like many here, I am utterly disgusted by what this guy did (and I have NEVER been a member of any armed force). But I think that freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin, and to curtail that freedom in defense of soldier's rights would actually be a much greater show of disrespect to those who fell defending freedom of speech, than the actions of this clown and his ilk ever could be.

An eloquent post, BT. Thank you!

 

[parsifal]

For me, its a travesty on the rights of every person who earnt their medal fair and square.

In my country, many people wear the medals of their fathers and grandfathers. Thats allowed and encouraged. Ther is an accepted protocol in our country....you wear medals that are not your own on the right side, generally with a sprig of rosemary, to say "I am remembering him".

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lying about service or about a medal is not freedom of speech. I don't understand how it can be covered in that.

 

[BombTaxi]

Lying about service or about a medal is not freedom of speech. I don't understand how it can be covered in that.

The principle at stake is whether speech creates an immediate risk of harm to those addressed in it. So making a death threat, or falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre are not covered by the amendment. But while the speech of someone lying about military service or medals may be distressing for veterans (as it obviously is), it does not occasion any immediate risk of harm, so is not exempt from the provisions of the amendment. In coldly legal terms, it falls into the same bracket as someone saying they earn 100K a year when they reall earn 10K. It's a lie and it's rather pathetic, but it is still protected under the amendment and cannot lead to a prosecution. You can't even build a case for slander or libel as no-one else was named in the speech act who could act as a complainant. (Apologies if I just made that word up )

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It still should be illegal in my opinion. It is no different than impersonating a police officer in my opinion.

 

[BombTaxi]

You've hit the nail on the head there. Impersonating a police officer cause an immediate risk of physical harm to bystanders who may be injured as a result of false instructions from a person they believe to be a police officer. Were a person to impersonate a soldier in a context where the soldier was involved in public safety (martial law or disaster relief, for example) would no doubt be viewed the same way. But pretending to be an ex-soldier poses no immediate risk of bodily harm to anyone, so is covered by the First Amendment.

 

[Colin1]

In coldly legal terms, it falls into the same bracket as someone saying they earn 100K a year when they reall earn 10K. It's a lie and it's rather pathetic, but it is still protected under the amendment and cannot lead to a prosecution.

You can't even build a case for slander or libel as no-one else was named in the speech act who could act as a complainant

Not really
over-egging your salary isn't really aimed at anyone else, whereas defrauding combat veterans generally of their achievements is

Any and every combat veteran who sacrificed something is named by these people, every time they falsely claim to have done what they have done

 

[BombTaxi]

Not really
over-egging your salary isn't really aimed at anyone else, whereas defrauding combat veterans generally of their achievements is

Any and every combat veteran who sacrificed something is named by these people, every time they falsely claim to have done what they have done

But not all combat veterans will necessarily feel that they have been harmed, so who's side does the law come down on?

Don't get me wrong, I think this guy is an a**hole, but the issue at stake is much broader than the distress caused to a specific segment of the community. This is a thin end of the wedge issue. Once the law is changed to shield one group from being offended, how long before everyone claims to be offended by something someone else says, and all freedom of speech is curtailed for fear of people being offended?

 

[RabidAlien]

For me, its a travesty on the rights of every person who earnt their medal fair and square.

In my country, many people wear the medals of their fathers and grandfathers. Thats allowed and encouraged. Ther is an accepted protocol in our country....you wear medals that are not your own on the right side, generally with a sprig of rosemary, to say "I am remembering him".

I can understand that. In your country, there is a definite tradition and a "right way to do it"....wear your medals on the left, as usual, and someone else's on the right, with/without the rosemary as your allergies permit. With your tradition there, nobody is claiming that the medals on the right are their own, and they are worn TO HONOR AND RESPECT those who earned the medals. That, my friend, is about the most awesome thing I can think of, and wish we had the same tradition over here in the US. What this douchewrapper is doing, is claiming medals and awards and even military service that he never earned nor served....as his own. Not "I'm wearing this in honor of my brother, who fell in battle on ___ date at ____ location." It was all for his own self-centered glory.

 

[B-17engineer]

So let him be prosecuted for that (if he can be), but let's not have freedom of speech curtailed. These situations always bring a great irony; the soldiers whose deeds are being degraded fought precisely so that others would have the right to say whatever they wanted, even if that led to the degredation of the soldiers themselves (the same point as i brought up in the BC memorial thread). Ultimately, there's no point fighting to introduce freedom of speech to other countries if you are going to curtail it in your own.

Like many here, I am utterly disgusted by what this guy did (and I have NEVER been a member of any armed force). But I think that freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin, and to curtail that freedom in defense of soldier's rights would actually be a much greater show of disrespect to those who fell defending freedom of speech, than the actions of this clown and his ilk ever could be.

I wonder if any judges ruling served in the military?

I think they should just make a right to lie but its not fraud if he's just bragging, right?

 

[BombTaxi]

I wonder if any judges ruling served in the military?

I think they should just make a right to lie but its not fraud if he's just bragging.

Whether judges have served in the military or not is irrelevant. Changing the law to suit the armed forces is exactly the kind of thing the US Army tries to stamp out in foreign countries, so why would you want to do it at home? Much is made of the integrity of the US Constitution, but if you change the First Amendment to protect the military more than any other segment of society, you rapidly pull the whole thing down.

 

[B-17engineer]

Sorry I was going to address the freedom of speech limitations but someone else did and forgot to erase the 'quote'. Those were my own thoughts not in response to you, sorry for that.

 

[B-17engineer]

So let me get this straight....

I can be a teacher

I can be a Neurologist

I can be a cardiologist

I can pretend to be anything I want as long as I don't cause harm to anyone,?

Its just disturbing anyone can run around with medals and say they earned them..those may not be the best examples but I hope you get the point

 

[Colin1]

Changing the law to suit the armed forces is exactly the kind of thing the US Army tries to stamp out in foreign countries, so why would you want to do it at home? Much is made of the integrity of the US Constitution, but if you change the First Amendment to protect the military more than any other segment of society, you rapidly pull the whole thing down.

Are you possibly getting the imposition of martial law in a banana republic dictatorship confused with the rights of veterans in a democracy?

In the US as anywhere, you can't pretend to be a medical doctor or a police officer. In France, you can't pretend to be an engineer. We're not talking about wholesale revisions of domestic law, just the right of combat veterans to have protected what it is that they have achieved.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you possibly getting the imposition of martial law in a banana republic dictatorship confused with the rights of veterans in a democracy?

In the US as anywhere, you can't pretend to be a medical doctor or a police officer. In France, you can't pretend to be an engineer. We're not talking about wholesale revisions of domestic law, just the right of combat veterans to have protected what it is that they have achieved.

And you hit the nail on the head again.

Sorry but this is not about taking someones freedom of speech away. You are not saying anything by pretending to be a combat veteran. What you are doing is taking the honor away from them. That is why it is illegal. I personally would rip the medals off of this guys chest. It makes me want to vomit.

 

[Glider]

If I had the money I thnk that I would take some photo's of the guy and have them posted on bill boards across the state. In particular where he lives and works.


However no doubt that would be an infringement of his rights somewhere along the road and of course I don't have the money.

 

[mikewint]

Bombtaxi, keep it up you are 110% corrrect
Guys, I am as disgusted and angry at this a-wipe as you but we have a much larger issue here. one of the things we fought for is the rights of the individual. all individuals not just the ones we like or agree with. in fact is is the ones we disagree with that we have to be the most careful with. it's very easy to start on that slippery slope. one easy step leads to another after another after another. pretty soon we have all the "undesirables" behind barbed wire.
have you ever known anyone to promulgate a law to stop himself from doing something. notice that it is always the "other guy" who needs to be stopped

 

[RabidAlien]

Yes, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. You can take "free speech" and push it to the point where nobody is allowed to say anything in defense of themselves or their beliefs, because it 'may' offend someone else or their beliefs. At that point, all you have is anarchy. There has to be a moral line drawn in the sand somewhere, and we elect our governing officials in the trust that they will draw that line for the best of the country as a whole. Yes....some will end up on the other side of that line, and probably get their feelings hurt in the process. Guess what, that's life. Your feelings will get hurt. But to say that one man is allowed to live a lie, and we will accept that lie and do nothing about it because he has the right, at best moves that line in the sand several feet closer to anarchy. At worst, it obliterates the line completely. Our kids are bombarded constantly by commercials, cartoons, TV shows, 'reality' shows, movies, music, and a thousand other examples that tell them that the occasional little white lie is okay, because in the end we feel better about ourselves and the hero will always get the smoking hot chick before the credits start rolling. No matter what faith you practice (or don't, that's your choice), there is still that line of common decency and morals, and this dude's crossed it. Flagrantly and blatantly. The idiots at Westboro (?) Baptist who protest anything and everything are repugnant, but they, at least, are forthright with what they believe and don't pretend to be anything other than misguided. That kind of free speech I will support. And puke. But support nonetheless. This guy I have no sympathy for, and protest the overturning of his conviction.

Heh. Please don't read that as anything but a philosophical discussion over a cup o' joe, I'm not tryin to belittle or bombass-t (just had to throw that word in there, with its clever spelling....sometimes I amaze even myself! har), just voicing my opinion. I agree with Mike and BT, but still think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.