Ex-Marine Can Wear Medals He Didn’t Earn. A Court Calls It Free Speech.
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Thanks for answering. The quoted portion of your post is what I'm really questioning. So if they're willing to talk about it and you determine they're lying what is the next steps? SSG indicates the medals are "coming off one way or the other". So are you ripping all the medals off of the guys clothes? That just seems over the top in my opinion. I understand that medals to military people are taken very seriously, but it just doesn't seem worth assaulting someone because they're a liar.
My best reason is that the medal was awarded to someone for exceptional service, valor or heroism, and no one else should be able to convert that award for their own unearned benefit. The ability to use it as some sort of free speech prop does not render this concept moot. I couldn't legally appropriate copyrighted material in order to foster my free speech and protest rights, either.
And that person who was awarded the medal for exceptional service, valor or heroism has decided they want to give/sell/whatever it to someone else. Why would you want to stop someone who earned it from doing so?
And what are these unearned "benefits" you keep talking about? Earlier you said one benefit was being able to use it as speech. Really? That is a benefit?
" I couldn't legally appropriate copyrighted material in order to foster my free speech and protest rights, either." YES, YES, YES YOU CAN. You can buy it, the person can gift it. This is precisely your obtuse misunderstanding of the issue. Nobody is "converting" it, nobody is stealing it, two people came to some sort of transaction.
Link didn't open for me. Found this though: http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/05/if-i-find-an-eagle-feather-can-i-keep-it.html
Not sure anybody has challenged it, nor is it real relevant to this topic. But I'll give it to you so you can have a win.
Go back to the eagle feather example:
Native Americans may give feathers or other eagle items as gifts to other Native Americans and may hand them down within their families. They may not, however, give them to non-Native Americans.
This is exactly like I am proposing concerning legal possession of military medals and decorations. Maybe you could have a deal where the medal can be sold 100 years after the service member earned it or something like that so that history buffs can possess them.
Yeah...don't do that. Possession of any part of a raptor is illegal outside of extremely specific guidelines. Native American hobbyists use painted turkey feathers. If you stopped to pick up a road-kill hawk with the idea of getting it stuffed and you get caught, they can seize your car.
Ok, let's use your example. First, I would challenge the law on basically the same basis, that expressing yourself using a discarded eagle feather is protected. Which is why I said it has probably never been challenged.
But, more importantly, the reasons are very different. Much like possessing things like ivory, the logical/realistic way that people are obtaining these items is through poaching/disturbing the protected species. So the government's "good reasons" are protecting rare (?) animals from being harmed. Whether that is a good enough reason or not I can't really say, but I would strongly oppose punishing the picking up of a discarded eagle feather, presuming that to be the facts.
You don't have the same concern. Your honorific service members still retain all of their benefits, whether they give away their medals or not, and those that choose to keep them lose absolutely nothing. There is, quite literally, no harm to them or their benefits derived. I think your theory is that diluting the medal-field with frauds would make people feel less admiration toward service members ... which is not an actual benefit, certainly not one that can be quantified. People aren't required to feel admiration towards service, you can't and shouldn't even attempt to control that.
You are proposing curtailing speech (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT) because you don't want those frauds obtaining "benefits" which aren't actually, quantifiably benefits at all.
Claiming you're a war hero when you're not, especially when seeking some sort of benefit from the speech, should not be protected speech.
Throwing a medal into a fire or over the White House fence to protest the war should be protected speech, but I would imagine you'd go to jail for throwing objects over the White House fence now days.
Throwing a medal into a fire or over the White House fence to protest the war should be protected speech, but I would imagine you'd go to jail for throwing objects over the White House fence now days.
You keep saying "benefit". According to that, we would have to consider an ENORMOUS range of things as "benefits", which I think is absurd. Also, conclusive statements like something "should not be protected speech" don't do much to further your argument unless you explain why. You have now redundantly repeated that it is because these frauds obtain the "benefit" of speaking, which seems a strange concern because that is precisely what we are protecting.
In essence you want people to be able to easily ignore the speaker because he does not have medals, or put conversely, you don't want people to stop and listen subjectively believing the person was a service member. That is extremely weak reasoning, that somebody may stop to listen to a speaker, not much (or any) harm. Weighing that against stopping a person's speech it should (but I understand it isn't for you) be obvious.
Your second statement shows your intent: You want to pick and choose which speeches are protected, even when using the same elements.
Completely disagree with your tortured logic.
Let's say you falsely claim to have a medal in order to get a federal job.
Free speech or illegal conduct?
Is it time yet to post a face-palm?
Lying on an official form, which I presume one would need to do in order to be hired by the federal government, could be a crime. Do you need reasoning behind that? I would guess you agree with it, so you can come up with your own reasons.
Now let's say that a person stood outside a federal building "speaking" while wearing his medal. Are you pretending that is comparable?
If you make it a non-governmental job, without some sort of official documentation/oath requirement, then I think it is, in fact, free speech to lie to an employer. "Free Speech" that can get you fired, but not arrested/fined.
Except it's not "his" medal. The name of the owner is engraved on the medal itself.
So I take it you agree with the citizens united decision and believe that hate speech should be allowed. If not...you're a hypocrite.
You have heard the disclaimer late in the fourth quarter of any NFL football game you have watched: "This copyrighted broadcast is the property of the National Football League. Any rebroadcast or reproduction without the consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited."
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/facts_5263599_nfl-rebroadcast-rules.html
So, how could I legally appropriate this content in order to use it as "free speech"?
I'd have to get the permission of the hero before I could use his medal for my benefit?
I'd say the medals are the property of the United States, and only those bestowed with these medals may benefit from them.
Except the medal is the property of the person who receives it. When he sells it or gives it away he is giving his permission.
Aside from you, the rest of us thinks that's just dumb. You've blindly shot a bunch of bogus theories of how to justify that out and every one has failed to hit a target.
yes, as long as you don't commit a crime or get someone to assist or submit to you because they think you actually are a cop.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0843/Sections/0843.08.html
No it isn't. You actually have to do something in addition to just dressing up:
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Stolen Valor is very easy to see and pick out. I would never assault someone. But I would very sternly let them know that they have been found out and that they need to take the medals off and either hand them to me, or throw them away. First off.....no true vet, would walk around with his medals pinned to his jacket or shirt. Secondly, if the person is wearing a uniform.......they usually have all the identifying badges screwed up, and units that don't match or go with one another.
One of the fastest ways to find if someone is lying about serving? Ask them what unit they were attached to. Any Vet can spit that out within a second. You KNOW where you've been and who you've been assigned to.
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.
Thank you for you're dad's service.
And more than simply dressing up and saying your a cop. You must actually perform some action for it to be illegal.
No matter how much you want it to be it is not. If you are so sure then prove it. Find me a conviction of someone who did nothing more than wear a uniform or show a badge and claim to be a cop.
WEST COVINA - A man wanted for impersonating a police officer drew suspicion when he turned up at a sporting goods store on Friday wearing a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s jacket, showed a gun and wanted to buy a holster.
Store employees called police who arrested the man, according to West Covina Police Lt. Travis Tibbetts.
He said 23-year-old Steven Roseren of Covina turned out to have a $500,000 warrant for impersonating an officer in San Bernardino County and is on parole for impersonating an officer.
The incident at Turners Outdoorsman was reported to police at 11:13 a.m.
Tibbetts said a man wearing a green sheriff’s jacket entered the store at 357 N. Azusa Ave. with a concealed gun in his waistband. The man pulled the gun out and asked for a holster, he added.
The man couldn’t provide a law enforcement ID. Tibbetts said store employees got suspicious because of the man’s behavior.
Police also found out the man bought the jacket at Keystone Uniform Depot at 125 S. Citrus Ave. in Covina.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20151218/covina-man-accused-of-impersonating-officer
Yes, if you actually impersonate them. I see Kiting already took care of this.
But even then there is a striking difference between a government officer, like a cop, than a service member's medals.
A cop with a badge telling you to stop, put your hands up, and then searching you is a realistic concern.
A person wearing an honorary medal, uh, can't do that.
I basically agree that saying "Im a cop" is action, because it denotes authority, and is usually used for some type of lawful command.
A person with an honorary medal can't do that.
A person at IHOP saying they were a cop to get a free coffee could not, Constitutionally be arrested for that speech. Demanding to see video surveillance would be.
Again, the same concern isn't real for service members.
A person with an honorary medal can't do that.
A person at IHOP saying they were a cop to get a free coffee could not, Constitutionally be arrested for that speech. Demanding to see video surveillance would be.
Again, the same concern isn't real for service members.
Charles Barry went to jail hungry, after Florida police arrested him for allegedly impersonating a cop in an effort to buy discounted doughnuts.
The Trinity, Fla., resident, 48, had previously made multiple visits to Dunkin' Donuts, flashed his deceased father's New Jersey police badge and claimed to be a U.S. Marshal in order to receive discounts on doughnuts, police said.
But cops were ready Tuesday afternoon after a suspicious store clerk tipped them off.
"Yesterday, we had an undercover deputy in the store," Pasco County Sheriff's Office spokesman Douglas Tobin said. "He usually comes in at the same time. This time, he didn't show his badge, but we had enough reason to arrest him."
The previous alleged incidents occurred June 6, 7, and 12.
Police said they found a .38-caliber revolver in his pocket during the arrest, as well as ammunition in the vehicle.
Barry was charged with impersonating a law enforcement officer and improper exhibition of a firearm or dangerous weapon. He was released Tuesday on $5,150 bail.
Dunkin' Donuts released a statement, saying, the company was "aware of the incident that occurred in New Port Richey, Fla. The safety and well-being of our guests and crew members is important to Dunkin' Donuts and we are pleased that the suspect has been apprehended."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...d-of-impersonating-cop-for-discounted-donuts/
Well now I don't think you understand ownership. My name is written in my underwear, yet that guy I sold it to owns them.
Similar threads
