Since I’ve been alive, plumbers have done more for me than members of the armed forces.
Fake Marine in full uniform at his High School reunion is found out by classmate & arrested With pic
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.
Yes, but in the process of pretending to be a character who wore a medal, the actor would have to actually wear the medal he hadn’t earned (unless you CGI the medal in later, anyway). You don’t have to get a real wedding licence to act out a marriage.
(This all being moot, given the exception in the law, of course.)
It’s stupid that we will have to pay $30,000 plus per year to incarcerate this pathetic loser. I think that the punishment for losers like this would be for the federal government to post their pictures and offenses on a permanent web page that was easily findable.
Because vigilanteism is surely the most just method of meteing out punishment.
If the intent is to defraud, that’s already a crime. It’s called fraud. This law makes merely dressing up a crime, regardless of intent. I don’t see how this guy tried to defraud anybody. Deceive, yes. I deceived my daughter the other day by leaving a dollar under her pillow and taking her tooth. Deceiving is not illegal. If this guy tried to defraud anybody, he should be charged with fraud.
I disagree that people like this make people not trust the status of men and women they see in uniform. It wouldn’t even cross my mind. Have you ever met somebody that didn’t believe you got your medals because of people faking it? Fakers seem to me to be pretty rare; I can only remember hearing about this guy and one other, and I only remember the other because he was the top non-commissioned officer in the Navy at the time. Oh, and they did it in Wedding Crashers too. Not exactly an epidemic, unless there is a whole underworld I’m not aware of.
All that said, I do respect and share your disgust with this low-life and any others like him. Please don’t take my arguments to mean that I think impersonating a soldier is in anyway justified, ever. The guy deserves ridicule, scorn, his face plastered on billboards, ostracism, you name a punishment, I’m on board. Unless it involves criminal charges.