Daktoria
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 397
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Private
Good morning Daktoria - nice of you to join us
The party never gets off without me. What can I say?
Good morning Daktoria - nice of you to join us
I get pissed then I feel pity. How sad are you when you have to pretend to be someone else just to like yourself?
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right
someone says they experienced military action they did not is found to be a lie, not a crime. not illegal. lies are included under free speech (politicians depend on it)I don't get it. How is this protected free speech again? We are living in a backwards world. I think the Supreme Court is ?#*&ing with us. They must laugh at us all over drinks after session.
someone says they experienced military action they did not is found to be a lie, not a crime. not illegal. lies are included under free speech (politicians depend on it)
that differs from fraud. if someone lies about their military service, such that they then realized material benefits because of the lie, then they have engaged in fraud. that fraud remains illegal and subject to criminal prosecution
I haven't followed this, but unfortunately I may have to agree. There may be a hole between the Constitution and the UMCJ that this falls through. People run around wearing uniforms all the time with military rank and insignia that aren't theirs. Nothing has ever been done. It could be that the law allowing the military and/or Congress to confer honors upon the military is difficient in some way; and there is where the remedy lies.
Personally I think it is wrong, fraudulent and shameful for people to do this.
But you are getting something material for it. The person that sparked this case was leveraging the respect from others for his lie, to gain a political seat. That seat comes with a salary, perks, and prestige. Most liars that claim something they are not like this are looking in some way to gain from it.
reprehensible speech - even when stealing valor - is protected speech
roberts got this one right
However, fraud isn't protected speech.
Jesse McAdams, anyone?
How often does this even happen? Why was this worth spending congressional time on in the first place?
In the aftermath of the Obamacare decision, this one flew under the radar, but it is revealing something very important about the political makeup of the court, and the direction that Chief Justice John Roberts is taking. Although the majority opinion was written by Kennedy, Roberts once again sided with the Liberal faction of the court in striking this law down.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy "first amendment" here. Those who wear medals that they never earned do not deserve any of the valor that they steal from those who actually fought and possibly died to earn theirs. This decision is flawed, and although this would have passed without Roberts' vote, I am disappointed that Roberts would side with those scumbag liars who steal what isn't theirs.
And now the question that we are dying to know the answer to - Could John Roberts be the next David Souter?
Article is here.
I think they made the right decision. This is kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church stuff. Yes, it's despicable, but that's what free speech is about.
Although in this case, it's kind of hard to take advantage of, since I would imagine in a lot of cases if you lied about being a soldier to gain some sort of benefit (other than respect you didn't earn), that would be fraud, and you could still be prosecuted for it.
If certain medals & ribbons are made FOUO, it would seem you couldn't even wear them because no one has a "need to know" that you've earned them and/or you're making them "available to the general public" by wearing them. You'd also be possibly exacerbating the problem because, if the medals and ribbons are FOUO, then they can't be "posted on an uncontrolled website" so no one could know what they look like; an impostor wouldn't even need to procure a replica -- they could just make one up.I believe Congress just needs to do a better job of writing the bill. There has to be some gray area to exploit on this. One such way would be to make medals and the citations associated with them a For Official Use Only protected item. An explanation is below:
UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO- is primarily a Department of Defense phrase/acronym, used for documents or products which contain material which is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. It is treated as confidential, which means it cannot be discarded in the open trash, made available to the general public, or posted on an uncontrolled website. It can, however, be shared with individuals with a need to know the content, while still under the control of the individual possessing the document or product
From a military member point of view, this makes it much harder for me to properly wear my uniforms. The reason being that this would require all medals, ribbons, and devices that are associated with any sort of military award or accomplishment be pulled from the PX. Then, it would require a tighter hold on them by an outside agency that has some sort of military liaison (because you know it would get contracted to civilians) that knows how to read FOUO documents. It would also require personnel in isolated locations to jump through hoops to get their uniform items. It would require a new, joint service database with all awards in it so all award/device distribution centers can see if someone rates the medal they are attempting to buy. I'm sure there is a myriad of other issues I'm not thinking of as well. You know what? Thats all good with me if it keeps some dirt bag from posing.
I disagree. I feel the law as written was applied to broadly. If they limited it to only cases where lying about MOH were fraud I'd be alright with it. But when it criminalizes speech where there is no material gain, it overreaches.
It's not illegal for the same reason making any other self aggrandizing but relatively harmless claims about yourself isn't illegal. It would set a seriously bad precedent to criminalize such things.
I don't know why anyone would want to misrepresent themselves in this manner, unless they were seriously lacking in character in the first place. Do you?
It's not illegal for the same reason making any other self aggrandizing but relatively harmless claims about yourself isn't illegal. It would set a seriously bad precedent to criminalize such things.
That would be to the discretion of the DOD at that point. They can make it a blanket need to know while still maintaining the requirement that it be under the control of the person it was issued to.If certain medals & ribbons are made FOUO, it would seem you couldn't even wear them because no one has a "need to know" that you've earned them and/or you're making them "available to the general public" by wearing them.
1) The image of the medal is not FOUO, the actual medal is. Big difference. 2)When someone in the military sees someone wearing an non-existant medal, they simply call them out on it. Also, the erroneous citation would not be marked as FOUO. The way it is now, someone can simply go to the local Army/Navy Surplus and purchase a legitimate medal. They can then find a citation online, alter it, and no one can prove it isn't valid unless they do some serious leg work. With this system, when some guy shows up at the VFW with a Coke bottle cap bent into a medal and calls it the Libya Campaign Medal, he'll be out on his can with a quickness.You'd also be possibly exacerbating the problem because, if the medals and ribbons are FOUO, then they can't be "posted on an uncontrolled website" so no one could know what they look like; an impostor wouldn't even need to procure a replica -- they could just make one up.
I almost agree with you, think I think of how impersonating a police officer is always a crime no matter if you're trying to get something out of it (legal fraud) or not. But being awarded the MOH in this country does brings advantages. People are eager to give you a job, or virtually anything because we revere our heroes. So claiming you are a MOH recipient when you are not - it's always fraud.
I'd just as soon the penalty under law be the public posting of your name, picture and what medal you falsely claimed, repeated for months. Let nature take it's course. :mrgreen: