Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic

WARNING:

Personal insults are NOT allowed in MPSIMS.

mhendo, you are in MPSIMS and insults are not allowed. Neither is inappropriate language.

You are welcome to have and argue whatever position you want, but in this forum keep it civil.

Consider yourself warned.

Ellen Cherry
MPSIMS Moderator

ETA — Sorry, Wombat and I cross-posted. Warning stands. Everybody, cool it.

Wow. The first paragraph is so laughable it barely deserves acknowledgment. As to the second paragraph, I’d say the onus is on you, since robby is arguing from the side with the law. You’re arguing against it. robby has offered arguments in defense of the law. What have you offered?

I’ll cop to the “feeble mind” one. The “hypocrite” was not an insult, it was a statement of fact. He essentially called me a liar, and then berated me for being insulting. I know of no other term for that except hypocrisy.

As i said, i’ll cop to the personal insult. I did it, and it was against the rules. But what do you mean “inappropriate language”? Are you talking about swearing?

I wasn’t aware of any language restrictions in this forum. The restriction, as far as i can tell, is on personal insults, whether or not they involve swearing.

Fuck. Shit. Piss. Cunt. Those words appear in plenty of MPSIMS thread.

Since I’ve been alive, plumbers have done more for me than members of the armed forces.

But you’re not the one who gets to decide what those rights are.

As it happens, we have a system to do that. You can CLAIM the Constitution protects the right to impersonate a member of the armed forces or wear military medals you didn’t earn, but Congress doesn’t agree with you, and neither did the federal court that has considered the issue.

So what’s your basis for asserting that this law violates the Constitution? Unless the Predsident has appointed you to a federal bench somewhere, I don’t see why we would take your interpretation as the right one, and the actual Congress of the United States and an actual federal district judge’s as the wrong ones.

Given the way this thread’s going, I’m moving it over to Great Debates.

The rules over there are the same on personal insults.

Thank you. And yes, you’re correct. Swearing is allowed in MPSIMS, as long as it’s not in the form of a personal insult.

So, what did EllenCherry mean about “inappropriate language” then, given that she made clear that it was something different than a “personal insult”?

You keep using “hypocrite.” Do you know what that word means?

And you’re gonna cop to the “feeble mind” insult, are you? Let’s check it off this list, then.

Yes.

That was productive, wasn’t it?

As the recipient of a gen-u-wine military medal, I’m offended by this clown, but I’m not sure what the value of imprisoning him is.
-Bryan Ekers, CD

Wow is right.

I find it absolutely astonishing that you and others are conflating the right of free speech with the supposed right to impersonate a member of the military with intent to deceive.

I haven’t read the whole thread, so this may have already been answered, but:

If it’s illegal to impersonate a marine to the degree of wearing medals you haven’t won, then how do actors in movies get away with it?

There is an exemption in the law for actors giving a performance.

See, there you go again, pretending that a moral and philosophical issue can always be reduced, in its entirety, to a legal one. I can recognize that your principled objection to abortion should not be dismissed out of hand simply because the issue has been determined by the Supreme Court. I appreciate that your moral objections to the practice transcend the question of whether the practice is legal.

I recognize what the Stolen Valor law IS, that it was passed by Congress, and that it has been upheld by a federal court.

But this does not preclude an argument that the law itself still violates the principles of freedom of expression enunciated in the Constitution, and the general ideals of free speech that Americans usually claim to hold dear. I believe that it does, and while i recognize that Congress and the federal courts are the ones who determine the law, i am still at liberty (i assume, although with robby around, you never know) to disagree with their judgment on this issue, from a basic standpoint of what i believe constitutes an appropriate level of freedom of expression.

It is possible to speak of rights in a sense that does not rely on the Constitution, on the Congress, or on the federal court system. One of the important contributions of the Enlightenment was the notion that rights come from nature or the creator, and are not something to be endowed by magistrates or monarchs. While i recognize the need for some enumeration and definition of rights within the legal system, i think it is still possible to speak of, and to understand, a concept of rights outside of that legal system.

I’m not arguing that Congress didn’t make the law. I’m not arguing that the federal court didn’t uphold the law’s Constitutionality. Hell, i’m not even arguing that most Americans don’t support the law; for all i know, they do. I’m simply arguing that the law violates my understanding of what the basic principle of freedom of expression is, or should be, about. If there’s no actual fraud involved (in the sense of actual material gain by deception), i don’t think wearing medals should be illegal, and that doing it should, on principle, be protected as freedom of expression.

So if I search on your username, I won’t find you ever, anywhere, arguing that a law passed by Congress or a decision by a federal court is in any way bad, or violates the Constitution?

Freedom of speech extends to things you don’t like, and things that offend you. Intending to deceive someone is not illegal if you are not trying to defraud them.

That would do it. Ignorance fought.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, there is a difference between acting a role in a drama and actually attempting to do things, which is why Matthew Perry and Courtney Cox didn’t become legally married when their characters got married on “Friends.”

These guys are intending to defraud. They wear uniforms and claim medals that they didn’t earn, and they use it for personal gain. Have you ever heard the stories about people buying military men a drink? They’re true. How about having “heroes” speak at ceremonies? Happens all the time, sometimes with financial recompense.

There are varying types of fraud. Sometimes it is financial, sometimes it is material, and sometimes it is emotional. These guys, if nothing else, are abusing the trust of people and causing them to distrust anybody who wears a uniform and actually earned these awards. For instance, if I walked up to you and told you that I earned 3 Air Medals in the last 5 years, would you take me at my word, or would you write it up to a guy “telling war stories”? I ask because it’s absolutely true. But there are people that don’t believe a word of it because of guys like this. We’re all pretenders. And that is a disservice to my comrades-in-arms who have given a hell of a lot, sometimes their lives, in the service of their country.

These guys, simply put, defraud them of their due, and this law gives them the comeuppance that they morally, philosophically, and rightfully deserve.

Now that I’m done with that, it’s worth noting that the law makes it a federal misdemeanor, not a felony, and the maximum penalty is a few thousand dollars and a year in jail. These are much less than I would have recommended and I know much more than you would. It simply means more to me and my fellow servicemen than it does to you, and the government agrees with us.