Law Against Faking Receipt of Military Medals is Unconstitutional (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It isn't the same thing at all - in cases of false advertisement, an individual has paid a business for a service or product which is not as advertised - basically, they've been conned. Fraudulent behaviour is not covered by freedom of speech either. But again, our lying hack had not defrauded anyone - even if someone had donated to his campaign on the grounds that he was supposedly an ex-Marine, I do not believe they would have had any legal recourse to get the money back, as they were not 'buying' his claim to be a Marine - they were simply giving money voluntarily to a candidate whose campaign they supported.
 
B-17, false advertising is not a felony hence people are not arrested for it. this then becomes a civil matter involving fines but not jail time. most companies are smart enough and there are enough loop-holes in the law to allow for "deceptive" advertising to be quite common.
 
Hey Harrison, ask your dad what he would do if he caught someone impersonating a police officer.

Nevermind. I see that this has already been covered. This topic is so simple in its solution that it is not even worth debating. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
matt308, a totally different matter since this falls into the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
you must not make a law to prevent someone form doing something you don't like or find offensive.
everyone here does not like and finds alverez offensive but he has a right to make such statements. why were so many so gullible as to accept him at face value. do you really expect a politician to tell the whole truth. caveat emptor!
 
When I asked him about this he said its just like impersonating a police officer, you don't necessarily are physically harming anyone, its just against the law. Also he'd be pretty pissed at the individual who does it. Only insecure cowards would do such things...

I don't even understand how its consider freedom of speech to be honest. Mike, I was using that example as if we were in a perfect world......and people didn't use all the loops holes.
 
matt308, a totally different matter since this falls into the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
are we sure it falls into this category, or is that just where we've conveniently parked it?

you must not make a law to prevent someone form doing something you don't like or find offensive
I doubt anyone likes and most people find offensive the fact that people impersonate doctors and police officers, their professional identities are protected by law; I would therefore suggest that there is no connection between what people find abhorrent and that which has legal ramifications

everyone here does not like and finds alverez offensive but he has a right to make such statements.
Mike, he has NO right to make such statements - the issue is whether he should be punished by law

why were so many so gullible as to accept him at face value
that doesn't necessarily make people gullible, only trusting. Most otherwise intelligent and reasonably streetwise people might only wonder, after the fact, why anybody would choose to lie about such a thing in the first place
 
B-17, false advertising is not a felony hence people are not arrested for it. this then becomes a civil matter involving fines but not jail time. most companies are smart enough and there are enough loop-holes in the law to allow for "deceptive" advertising to be quite common.

It doesn't matter if its a felony or misdemeanor my point is its against the law. And if all these loopholes werent there, its lying. So they can't do it but when your impersonating someone its alright to lie?
 
It doesn't matter if its a felony or misdemeanor my point is its against the law. And if all these loopholes werent there, its lying. So they can't do it but when your impersonating someone its alright to lie?

Basically, yes. There is no law against lying, unless you do so under oath in a court of law. The First Amendment covers all speech, regardless of it's accuracy and veracity, unless the speech in question is specifically and explicitly exempt from the terms of the Amendment. Exemptions are very few and generally involve circumstances where a speech act creates an immediate danger to persons and/or property. Claiming to have served when you have not done so does not fulfill these criteria, and therefore is protected under the Amendment.

QED, the Stolen Valor Act compromises free expression and as such is unconstitutional, and this guy, while a complete moron, has not made an illegal statement.
 
Alright you say it has to be under oath....

Lying to the police, you don;t have to be under oath and no one has to be immediately in danger... but it still against the law.

Police read you your Miranda your not under oath...
 
Colin B-17, police officers have a tremendous amount of power and influence. The vast majority of people unquestioningly obey them. Thus a person impersonating a police officer has the potential to do a tremendous amount of harm. Several months ago a man, pretending to be a police officer, telephoned a Burger King and literally had employees strip searching, just by giving verbal orders over a phone. Think of stopping people on a highway or taking little children into a car. The same principle holds for doctors thus the potential for physical harm (fire in a theater) cancels freedom of expression.
Saying that you were a marine or that you have an MOH carries no such threat of immanent harm and as reprehensible as it my be, is free speech.
Gullible and/or trusting are pretty much the same coin. I'm old and have seen way too much but do you actually trust any politician? They all promise the moon, stars, and a chicken in every pot until they get elected.
Loop-holes and/or deceptive advertising, B-17 you are a young man but to you actually believe all those glossy ads? Yes, the FDA does monitor claims but no where near the degree to which most people think. The word "Natural" has no meaning whatever. "Low fat/sodium" or "Reduced" only mean below what their normal product has, so if their regular soup has 4000 mg sodium their Low sodium can have 3900mg.
Again, it is precisely the offensive, that have to be protected. What is or is not offensive is subject to definition. The Jews were offensive in Germany, then the Trade-unionists, etc. It is a very slippery slope we embark upon until the day you are defined as being offensive.
 
Alright you say it has to be under oath....

Lying to the police, you don;t have to be under oath and no one has to be immediately in danger... but it still against the law.

Police read you your Miranda your not under oath...

Okay, bad wording - if you lie in the course of a criminal investigation, you can be prosecuted under a clutch of laws. Point is, like Mike said, impersonating a cop is in an entirely different league to claiming you used to be a Marine, due to public safety issues. And the SVA is still unconstitutional, and therefore likely to be struck down.
 
Lying about being a Marine DOES carry inherent safety risks. Just let any Marines hear you falsely claiming to have been a Marine (much less having earned the CMH during your fake service)....the person falsely claiming thus is now in imminent danger of having the errors of their ways beat into them.
 
Lying about being a Marine DOES carry inherent safety risks. Just let any Marines hear you falsely claiming to have been a Marine (much less having earned the CMH during your fake service)....the person falsely claiming thus is now in imminent danger of having the errors of their ways beat into them.

100% agreed RA... but I bet that would never get to court :twisted:
 
Of course. I just assumed everyone knew that.

'Course....they hitched a ride on subs to get there....:evil4:
 
Richard Avila, went in the navy two years before i got drafted in the summer of '63. he was on diesel subs first then nuclear after the navy sent him to u of iowa to finish his BS so i'm guessing some time in late '60s early '70s he would have been at pearl on the patrick henry. big navy i know but perhaps depending on your time in
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back