TexasCHLforum.com

Javier730 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It's wrong, morally and ethically. But it's not criminal.
if I was going to put limits on free speech, I'd toss Whoopie Goldberg in jail first.

Is it a limit on free speech to impersonate an officer? To impersonate a police officer? To impersonate a public official? If not, why is this free speech? It's called fraud, and there are laws against it. Only when it comes to veterans to we cry free speech.

My son breaks the law everyday then. He wants to be a LEO and dresses like one all the time.

And how old is your son?

WildBill wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It's wrong, morally and ethically. But it's not criminal.
if I was going to put limits on free speech, I'd toss Whoopie Goldberg in jail first.

Is it a limit on free speech to impersonate an officer? To impersonate a police officer? To impersonate a public official? If not, why is this free speech? It's called fraud, and there are laws against it. Only when it comes to veterans to we cry free speech.

My son breaks the law everyday then. He wants to be a LEO and dresses like one all the time.

And how old is your son?

7.

RoyGBiv wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It's wrong, morally and ethically. But it's not criminal.
if I was going to put limits on free speech, I'd toss Whoopie Goldberg in jail first.

Is it a limit on free speech to impersonate an officer? To impersonate a police officer? To impersonate a public official? If not, why is this free speech? It's called fraud, and there are laws against it. Only when it comes to veterans to we cry free speech.

It rises to fraud if you try to gain some benefit from it... It's not illegal to dress up as a LEO and go to a Halloween party. It's illegal when you dress up as a LEO and pull over a motorist. It should be illegal for someone who didn't earn a Purple Heart to put a PH license plate on their car... because they did not earn the free tag, not because they falsely claimed to have earned the PH.

IMO. YMMV.

mojo84 wrote:As despicable as it is, I am not sure it should be illegal. Once the person derives financial benefit from the despicable act, then it becomes fraud in my mind. In other words, as long as he only receives accolades, I do not believe it is a crime. If he applies for or receives any kind of monetary benefit tied to the falsely claimed valor, I believe it becomes a crime.

Pawpaw wrote:Like many others on this board, I am a veteran. I agree with everyone who said it should not be illegal unless the person gains from it - and then only because it becomes fraud.

Does it tick me off? Of course! But unlike the libtards, I do not believe everything that ticks me off should be illegal.

The right to free speech is the only one of our enumerated rights that the framers listed ahead of the right to keep & bear arms. There is a very good reason for that... Without the 1st Amendment, the 2nd becomes irrelevant. I don't want free speech limited any more than is absolutely necessary, period.

Ridicule and humiliate the person, yes. He earned that much. Throw him in jail, no.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:As despicable as it is, I am not sure it should be illegal. Once the person derives financial benefit from the despicable act, then it becomes fraud in my mind. In other words, as long as he only receives accolades, I do not believe it is a crime. If he applies for or receives any kind of monetary benefit tied to the falsely claimed valor, I believe it becomes a crime.

I agree. Everyone must remember that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech because what is popular and accepted doesn't need protection. No, I'm not saying the First is limited to what is distasteful. I'm saying we can't limit it to speech we like.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:
As despicable as it is, I am not sure it should be illegal. Once the person derives financial benefit from the despicable act, then it becomes fraud in my mind. In other words, as long as he only receives accolades, I do not believe it is a crime. If he applies for or receives any kind of monetary benefit tied to the falsely claimed valor, I believe it becomes a crime.

I agree. Everyone must remember that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech because what is popular and accepted doesn't need protection. No, I'm not saying the First is limited to what is distasteful. I'm saying we can't limit it to speech we like.

Chas.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Both points...exactly right!

OK, this guy applied for benefits from the VA claiming PTSD. His application was denied for lack of corroborating evidence. So he fabricated a new DD-214 claiming a Purple Heart, Silver Star, Bronze Star with V and several other medals including the Marine Expeditionary Medal. The VA reversed itself and began paying him $2,366 a month in benefits. Later it was discovered that the DD-214 was fraudulent and the Marine had received no medals at all. The VA reversed itself again and demanded repayment. That was the basis of this case.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/6710+ ... f47768ad18

Still feel he didn't commit a crime by wearing the medals? Still feel it's free speech?

This is the legal "logic".

According to Justice Breyer, § 704(b) lacked these
narrowing features because it was not limited to a subset of
lies causing specific harm to identifiable victims, or to a
specific context where foreseeable harm to others is likely to
occur. Id. at 2555–56. Because “[f]alse factual statements
can serve useful human objectives” in a variety of contexts
and “the threat of criminal prosecution” could have a chilling
effect and could encourage or permit selective prosecution for
political ends, id. at 2553, Justice Breyer concluded that
§ 704(b) “risks significant First Amendment harm,” id. at

So apparently veterans who have earned medals are not "identifiable victims" of a fraudulent display of medals. And the "threat of criminal prosecution could have a chilling effect on people falsely wearing those medals.

Well, I disagree. There is most certainly an identifiable victim. It is all the veterans who have earned medals in the crucible of war, at extreme risk to their life and well being. And there is an identifiable harm. By falsely displaying medals, the value of those medals is reduced and the valor of those who earned them is clearly stolen. As it stands now you cannot impersonate a government official, but you can impersonate a decorated veteran til the cows come home. It stinks.

baldeagle wrote:OK, this guy applied for benefits from the VA claiming PTSD. His application was denied for lack of corroborating evidence. So he fabricated a new DD-214 claiming a Purple Heart, Silver Star, Bronze Star with V and several other medals including the Marine Expeditionary Medal. The VA reversed itself and began paying him $2,366 a month in benefits. Later it was discovered that the DD-214 was fraudulent and the Marine had received no medals at all. The VA reversed itself again and demanded repayment. That was the basis of this case.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/6710+ ... f47768ad18

Still feel he didn't commit a crime by wearing the medals? Still feel it's free speech?

Yes, wearing medals you didn't earn is free speech. The rest of it is fraud and is a crime.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, wearing medals you didn't earn is free speech. The rest of it is fraud and is a crime.

Chas.

It should not be.

He basically stole from the Government. So, he's harmed the US Government and possibly by extension all of us. And so far a court has given a free pass on this saying it was free speech. I don't understand how they concluded that he did not gain from what he did to defraud the government.

C-dub wrote:He basically stole from the Government. So, he's harmed the US Government and possibly by extension all of us. And so far a court has given a free pass on this saying it was free speech. I don't understand how they concluded that he did not gain from what he did to defraud the government.

The fraud charges remained. Those were not overturned. What I don't understand is the "speech" they are protecting was the use of medals to defraud the government. It just makes no sense to me that that is free speech.

baldeagle wrote:

C-dub wrote:He basically stole from the Government. So, he's harmed the US Government and possibly by extension all of us. And so far a court has given a free pass on this saying it was free speech. I don't understand how they concluded that he did not gain from what he did to defraud the government.

The fraud charges remained. Those were not overturned. What I don't understand is the "speech" they are protecting was the use of medals to defraud the government. It just makes no sense to me that that is free speech.

Yeah, seems like there's a whole lotta stuff that's free speech that's an act and not speech.

baldeagle wrote:

C-dub wrote:He basically stole from the Government. So, he's harmed the US Government and possibly by extension all of us. And so far a court has given a free pass on this saying it was free speech. I don't understand how they concluded that he did not gain from what he did to defraud the government.

The fraud charges remained. Those were not overturned. What I don't understand is the "speech" they are protecting was the use of medals to defraud the government. It just makes no sense to me that that is free speech.

The fact that the wore the medals at all is free speech, the fact that he defrauded the government at all is illegal whether medals were used or not.

As much as I hate this ruling, I have to say I agree. To me, laws are the minimum expectations, but I hold my personal morals in a higher regard. Legal doesn't = moral, so we can't always mandate how someone should act versus how they must act.

I donated some money to a group that restores war planes for the Commemorative Air Force. The pilot gave me one of their t-shirts which has a devil dog logo wearing a UMSC hat. I always worried someone would think I was a Marine, and out of respect for family & friends who are current and former Marines I didn't wear the shirt. After 2 years I finally wore it under a sweatshirt. I'm just weird I guess.

The DOD should trademark all medals and ribbon awards. Then they could take legal action against incidents of stolen valor

Vol Texan wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It's wrong, morally and ethically. But it's not criminal.
if I was going to put limits on free speech, I'd toss Whoopie Goldberg in jail first.

Is it a limit on free speech to impersonate an officer? To impersonate a police officer? To impersonate a public official? If not, why is this free speech? It's called fraud, and there are laws against it. Only when it comes to veterans to we cry free speech.

It rises to fraud if you try to gain some benefit from it... It's not illegal to dress up as a LEO and go to a Halloween party. It's illegal when you dress up as a LEO and pull over a motorist. It should be illegal for someone who didn't earn a Purple Heart to put a PH license plate on their car... because they did not earn the free tag, not because they falsely claimed to have earned the PH.

IMO. YMMV.

I'm with RoyGBiv on this one. Just because something is in poor taste, that does not mean it should be illegal. If some dude just pins on a medal, then yes, it is insulting to all those who actually earned it, but I don't personally believe he should face legal ramifications for it. Now, if he uses that medal to gain financially (PH license plate is a good example), then there should be some penalty for that.

Exactly. It IS offensive and disrespectful, but there is no Constitutional protection against offense or disrespect. Public ridicule and shaming is a far more effective, cost free, and proportional response then throwing the weight of the state against social mosquitos.

Impersonating a police officer in the course of executing police actions is and ought to be illegal. Dressing up like a cop isn't, and if it were, Chippendales and bachelorette party strippers would go out of business.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It's wrong, morally and ethically. But it's not criminal.
if I was going to put limits on free speech, I'd toss Whoopie Goldberg in jail first.

Is it a limit on free speech to impersonate an officer? To impersonate a police officer? To impersonate a public official? If not, why is this free speech? It's called fraud, and there are laws against it. Only when it comes to veterans to we cry free speech.

It rises to fraud if you try to gain some benefit from it... It's not illegal to dress up as a LEO and go to a Halloween party. It's illegal when you dress up as a LEO and pull over a motorist. It should be illegal for someone who didn't earn a Purple Heart to put a PH license plate on their car... because they did not earn the free tag, not because they falsely claimed to have earned the PH.

IMO. YMMV.

I'm with RoyGBiv on this one. Just because something is in poor taste, that does not mean it should be illegal. If some dude just pins on a medal, then yes, it is insulting to all those who actually earned it, but I don't personally believe he should face legal ramifications for it. Now, if he uses that medal to gain financially (PH license plate is a good example), then there should be some penalty for that.

Exactly. It IS offensive and disrespectful, but there is no Constitutional protection against offense or disrespect. Public ridicule and shaming is a far more effective, cost free, and proportional response then throwing the weight of the state against social mosquitos.

Impersonating a police officer in the course of executing police actions is and ought to be illegal. Dressing up like a cop isn't, and if it were, Chippendales and bachelorette party strippers would go out of business.