Posing is Constitutional - Page 2

craigepo · 08-19-2010, 20:50

i am not in a place where i can read the opinion. but at first blush, it would seem that a glaring problem with the law is a lack of a criminal intent requirement to get a conviction(which is necessary in most criminal cases). if you stick a clause into the law such as "with intent to deceive for personal gain", might get a different result.

**Richard** · 08-19-2010, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigepo

i am not in a place where i can read the opinion. but at first blush, it would seem that a glaring problem with the law is a lack of a criminal intent requirement to get a conviction(which is necessary in most criminal cases). if you stick a clause into the law such as "with intent to deceive for personal gain", might get a different result.

I wholly agree with your conclusion - and I think that is the crux of the matter.

Richard

BrianH · 08-20-2010, 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

I wholly agree with your conclusion - and I think that is the crux of the matter.

Richard

Which is why the law, as written, IS unconstitutional. Simply locking people up for dishonesty when no quantifiable fraud was involved is a VERY slippery slope. Next thing you know, we'll be locking up actors because they are impersonating soldiers for personal gain.... in the movies! Or perhaps we should lock college students up caught plagiarizing someone's work?

Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks our #1 status on the "most incarcerated per capita" list of Western countries isn't something we should try to solidify more.

**Richard** · 08-20-2010, 07:01

The law states:

Whoever knowingly wears, purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

I'd be worried if I was a hobbiest who collected medals and such.

Richard

1stindoor · 08-20-2010, 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

I have been keeping this to myself since I did not want to make any of you uncomfortable...

Allow me to reintroduce my self.
My name is Billy. I am the President of the United Kingdom of Raefordstan.
Thats is all.... please return to your activities.

I KNEW IT!

greenberetTFS · 08-20-2010, 17:55

Billy's motivated me to request a change in my profile.......... I really should have listed these medals and awards when I came on board however I felt too modest,but here they are: MTT(don't know what it's for but I've seen you guys using it) Jungle Expert,Ranger Tab,Senior Diver,Senior Sniper,Oh shit this really isn't any fun,assigning your self medals you don't deserve!........I can't understand how these guys live with themselves doing it............

Big Teddy

Enigma0122 · 08-20-2010, 22:44

Hey everyone, the courts decision, only effects free speech, in other words "Verbal". Does not effect written or uniform violations. As pointed out to myself, US Code title 18, law before "Stolen Valor", both would apply. In short, impersonation of a veteral or officer by means other than the free speech (verbal content) which the courts in both Colorado and California cases. Colorado at least, has already or will file an appeal to the decision there based on my readings. But will only effect Free (Pure) speech aspect of the law.

In both cases the parties had made verbal misrepresentation of military (Non) achievement.

whocares175 · 10-10-2010, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Does everyone realize that the way the law was written, even someone such as an undercover agent who claims to have been SF or a SEAL and awarded an SF Tab or Trident or Parachutist Badge or BSM or PH or any such award or decoration as a part of their cover story could be charged under the SV Act for making such claims?

S 1998 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1094Wryz2::

The intent of the law is honorable - the law itself, as written, is flawed.

Richard's $.02

how many times has a cop had to pose as an MOH recipient or prior SF guy, SEAL, Ranger etc? these are viewed as honorable careers...cops generally investigate dishonorable people. not only that but even if they were to pose as that undercover i'm sure there's a provision that would allow them to in the nature of justice.

by the way, under the freedom of speach act, i'll be a Supreme Court Justice and overturn the 9th's ruling.

Shadar · 03-25-2011, 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by wet dog

You mean "beheaded", right?

Don't you mean "denutted"

Dusty · 03-25-2011, 08:30

The old Warriors would have "peered" these motherfuckers out of the gene pool. I'm not just talking shit, either...think about it.

GIANITUS · 03-25-2011, 08:46

I wouldn't be mad if the 9th U.S. CoA all got Swine Flu. Dirtbags who defend other dirtbags in order to 'use' the same dirtbags by buying their votes for fractions of a penny.

I laugh at these 'social stepping stones.'