And it’s worth every penny!
Oh, no: I was being critical of the notion that cadging drinks by dint of spurious claims was “fraud.”
Same if, for instance, I went into a bar and showed off my (counterfeit) Super Bowl Ring, and somebody said, “Wow! Lemme buy you a drink!” It’s slimy, but it doesn’t actually fall to the level of criminal fraud.
Buying drinks for people isn’t a commercial exchange, but a private one. That’s why I also compared it to giving birthday gifts.
(However…I do disagree with the SVA, and was happy when it was overturned.)
Tell her what she’s won!
You win one interweb! Don’t spend it all in one place.
And so they’ve ruled. I would’ve dissented, and there’s already some talk that a more narrowly-crafted law would’ve passed muster, but eh. What’s done is done.
My opinion is exactly the same as it was when the Ninth Circuit ruled: good decision.
Do you also believe the Federal government should have the authority to criminalize lying on a resume? Should have the authority to make lying under any circumstances that meet the following 5 criteria (taken from the dissentingopinion):
- Objective facts that can almost always be proved or disproved with near certainty;
- Facts that are squarely within the speaker’s personal knowledge;
- Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker actually knew that the representation was false;
- Statements that could reasonably be interpreted as communicating actual facts; and
- Ban would be strictly viewpoint neutral.
Beyond resumes, this set of criteria would make it Constitutionally permissible to criminalize all falsehoods regardless of context.
Good decision for a reprehensible law.
I’ll stand by what I already wrote in post #132, but I accept that the Supremes - and you - don’t agree.
Looks like the House passed a new version. Nearly unanimous; only three against. It’s not clear from the article how they changed it to get around the courts this time. I’m still disgusted that people are even bothered by this speech, let alone that they want to make it a crime.
Does the Senate show any signs of having greater wisdom?
(Greater wisdom than today’s House of Representatives? My little doggy’s claw clippings have more wisdom!)
Looks like they added an element of intent to defraud which the previous version lacked. I hope it passes muster this time.
So under this version if you went to a bar that has a policy of giving free drinks to decorated servicepeople and put on some fake medals so that you could get free drinks too, they could nab you?
If so it sounds reasonable to me. Next up, people who drive alone in the carpool lane.
Why? Are existing fraud laws insufficient? Do you think the government should have the power to criminalize lying or just lies that offend someone’s particular fetish?
Bump.
Wearing unearned medals is protected by 1st Amendment, appeals court rules
military veteran persuaded a federal appeals court Monday to overturn his conviction for wearing a medal he didn’t earn.
The yahoo testified on in a criminal case while wearing a medal.
Should be roundly mocked, made fun of, pitied, insulted, and disdained, but should not face criminal charges.
America 1; 'murica 0
Absolutely the correct decision.
Note that Swisher was convicted under the prior version of the Act, though a separate portion than that addressed by SCOTUS (that was lying about being awarded the medal; this part is just about wearing an unearned medal). Opinion is here. So there was no requirement that he intended to defraud anyone.
It’s also important to note that Swisher’s conviction was one of several stemming from an original offense of forging a DD-214 in order to obtain VA benefits, and that the remaining convictions stood.
I’ll bet your fellow lawyers would scream to high heaven if he claimed to have a JD and be a lawyer- even if he wasnt trying to practice law!
Can them someone claim to be a MD or a CPA or a police officer or a Lawyer?
He can claim to have a JD all he wants. No law against that anywhere that I know of. In fact, you can call yourself a lawyer all you want, too. You just can’t do it for economic gain in most jurisdictions.
ETA: the same is true of physicians in some jurisdictions. Impersonating a police officer is an offense nearly everywhere regardless of motive.