What benefits do the frauds receive that hinders the benefits of those who earned it?
Ex-Marine Can Wear Medals He Didn’t Earn. A Court Calls It Free Speech.
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
What benefits do the frauds receive that hinders the benefits of those who earned it?
Not the point. Even if you're using it to "protest the government" you're deriving a benefit of the possession of it.
Only those who earned it should be able to derive the benefit of using it as a protest prop (hello, Lt. John Kerry...)
That was exactly your point. I asked for your point and that is the point you have.
You are trying to punish "benefit" for the, somehow, benefit of those who still get that benefit.
Again, you don't get to use that for your free speech unless you've earned it.
If someone stole money from the Koch brothers, should the use of that stolen money be able to be legitimately used for "free speech" purposes? Of course not.
Who cares? You don't have the liberty of using something that is not yours in order to benefit from it. That's known as the crime of conversion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion
Wow, what a complete misunderstanding of conversion. This isn't complicated.
For someone that dislikes liberals so much, I'm surprised that you are all for stealing their tactics.
Shall we use common sense and logic or your own link?
"Criminal conversion is a crime, limited to parts of common law systems outside England and Wales, of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property, at a minimum personal property, but in some jurisdictions also applying to types of real property, such as land (to squatting and/or holding over) and/or to patents, design rights and trademarks. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of permanent possession of that property. "
So I guess you want to outlaw theft and conversion - unauthorized taking of someone's property and using it without their permission.
Is that what you think these people have done? Stolen medals from people?
It tickles me that small government types want to regulate decorations. Put in a no polyester amendment and I'm in. Let's get a real fashion police bill going.
I guess you could probably outlaw selling your medals, I just can't figure why you'd want to do that.
My only counter is...the uniform could be considered an official document. There are regulations that determine what you can wear on the uniform...ie stripe size, placement and wear of decorations ect. The medals you earn are part of your official record and the 214 you use for veterans benefits ect.
I just think if this is allowed it pretty much calls into questions all service members decorations...ie if we allow a bunch of a$$holes to run around sporting unauthorized decorations...doubt is cast on all servicemembers/veterans.
Just can't agree that it's "free speech".....we have limitations on "free speech"...I see no problem on placing a prohibition on this form. It effects nobody's constitutional "rights" as I see it.
To go a little further...why couldn't this be considered a form of "hate speech"....it definitely effects and hurts service members.
Those apply to people who are in the military.
Hate speech? Our roughest toughest cowboys are hurt by this? How is the same people saying shit like this while simultaneously crying about the "pussification of America"?
Why in Sam Hill would it call in to question people's medals?
Are doctors called in to question on Halloween when all the slutty docs are scampering around?
Good grief. I get it, it is important to you and your family, etc. that doesn't control other people. I think, with all due respect, you simply want everyone else to know your honor, which isn't a good reason to curtail someone's speech.
The uniform can't be considered an official document anymore than a pair of scrubs is an official document of health care providers. Sorry, at this point it's not. And I think most Americans can realize what is authentic and what isn't (unlike doctors, where a bunch of people still think Dr. Oz is useful, but I digress).
These people are dirtbags, no doubt. But I am not willing to make lying in an normal, pedestrian circumstance a crime.
Way to categorize all veterans.
This isn't about me even though I am a veteran. I didn't see direct combat during my 26 years (acft mx/weapons specialist) It's about what's right and the sacrifices folks made to earn those decorations.
If folks are allowed to parade around with them it certainly diminishes their meaning.....
Finally, I just don't see how this is considered "free speech"...just don't see it that way.
No....because vets don't just "wear" their medals around town. They are kept with your uniform, or locked away with your other military documents.
However, when I meet another vet and I learn that he has medals for valor or a purple heart, I do...in fact....ask them now they earned their medals, if they are willing to talk about it.
It's the old saying......Do you know how you're talking to a combat vet? He never mentions he was in combat. It's always the POG's and the guys who "almost" got there, that talk about all the battles they were never in.
True about my dad. Served under Patton in WWII and NEVER once talked about the combat. He would tell the goofy stuff. I asked him once if he had ever shot anyone and he got real quiet and said he never had to fire his weapon. He was a radioman (which I knew) and he said he always had a guy assigned to him.
They had Germans advancing up a hill toward them once and he was ready to open up when they got word that there were more GI's coming up behind the Germans so they held fire and the Germans surrendered. He never said it, but I think he was real happy it turned out that way. He ended up diving out of a half-track that was flipping after hitting a shell hole. Broke his wrist and the war ended while he was in the hospital.
He turned down the Purple Heart because he didn't think he deserved it. After the war he was working as a clerk when he saw his own papers come across his desk. He was a few points short of going home and the PH would have done it...so he gave himself the Good Conduct medal and got shipped home.
My best friend served in Nam and he's the same way. Funny thing is he was a radioman, too. He and my dad would get together and talk but if anyone else came around, they'd change the subject.
So can I just choose "what's right" and outlaw the rest?
You keep quoting free speech like it is something that has to become speech first, when the opposite is true. It is expression, by any definition, the question is whether it should, basically, be exempted from protection. You need compelling reasons to do so.
You seem to think it is the other way around. Constitutionally (which you swore to uphold, right?) all speech is protected.
Actual military medals do in fact have the name of the service member to whom the medal was awarded engraved on the back. It is in fact someone's property and I doubt any such service member wants someone else to steal their honor.
Then, if they sold the medal, does the honor attach? You can go to pawn shops and thrift stores and find all kinds of medals.
That was my question. What if we made it illegal to acquire ownership of someone's medal except through inheritance or donation to a museum or something like that? Any constitutional problems?
For someone who supposedly wants a smaller government this seems like quite an intrusion over a rare and trivial matter.
You keep up with the twisted logic. Let me try caps:
IF IT IS STOLEN THEN IT IS ILLEGAL AND THEFT.
If it is not stolen it is not illegal, it is not theft, it is not conversion, it is someone using property that they NOW own and are using for expression.
Christ, it isn't complicated. YOU may doubt that some service member wants someone else to "steal their honor", but YOU don't get to make that determination. It is either theft ... or it is not, and the proper ruling is that it is protected speech.
As I said before, the same problem, you are just moving up the timeline of banning protective speech, moving it from the time of wearing it to never allowing them to possess it.
You MAY be able to outlaw selling it ... I don't think you can outlaw acquiring it. Is that the same result? Sure, but it punishes the proper party, the one selling, not the one trying to engage in a protected activity.
But, again, WHY? If a service member has EARNED his medal, who are you to tell him what to do with what he EARNED?
Now apply that to gun control and tell me how it's different? We have outlawed whole legions of people from being lawfully allowed to acquire a gun.
But back on topic, WHY can't you prohibit possession of a military medal that was not awarded to you or a member of your family? We have banned the possession of all sorts of things. This is actually something that the government confers upon someone, unlike the poor dude who picks up a feather not knowing it's illegal to possess it.
Well one, you are trying to do so to circumvent rulings like this ... i.e. you are doing it to suppress protected speech, which is unconstitutional.
But really you are just missing the burden and framework of this. Speech is protected UNLESS there are "good enough" reasons to ban them. You, and the other poster, are trying to turn that around and say that you can simply ban it unless someone has a reason not to.
Feel free to cite, but picking up a feather and keeping it wouldn't be illegal, the question, likely, is whether you just "picked it up" or if you came by it another way, like killing the bird. But I'm not up on bird law, you'd have to ask Charlie.
List your best reasons for banning possession of military medals (that those military members are actively getting rid of, not wanting themselves).
Silly rabbit, I have posted on here enough about gun control. The 2A is clear and we have violated it time and time again. Will you agree with me that Felons have a Constitutional right to carry firearms?
But still, you miss the framework, the question is whether you can demonstrate enough "good reasons" to suppress someone's C rights.
Similar threads
