Thread: supreme court strikes down stolen valor act

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Is it possible that part of the distinction between the way we treat police vs military impersonation has to do with where their authority applies?

What I mean here is that the law is pretty clear that the military has no power within the United States (with a few exceptions; on bases, some other federal land, possibly crazy national emergency scenarios). If I'm in the mall parking lot and a Marine orders me to show him some ID, I'm pretty much in the clear to tell him to go fuck himself. The police are endowed with authority to detain, search, etc. I might be in a position to tell a cop to go fuck himself, but clearly there are situations where I'm not.

So impersonating a police officer is a real threat to the domestic legal structure we live in. Even so, a lot of dress-up and cop paraphernalia are legal. The law here (maybe different where you live, or not, how the hell would I know?) is pretty clear that the crime requires an intent to deceive.

But impersonating a US Army major isn't a threat to any authority, and neither is wearing any particular badge or ribbon.

Just wondering if that's what's going on here.

The points made about respect, and the concept of "stolen valor", are things which make sense to me. But the way I see it, having a law that attempts to require respect, or attempts to preserve the honor of heroes by protecting and sanctifying bits of metal and cloth, would diminish the value of that respect. People have it, or they don't. They might learn it, but not from a law. If you meet someone who was awarded a Silver Star, you can't appreciate that unless you know what that means.

Likewise in the case of someone claiming (or wearing) a Silver Star that they didn't earn - you can't feel the proper scorn for that unless you have a clue what it's about. A law can't make you understand it. "That's bad because it's against the law" is the wrong thought process. "That's bad because you're shitting on the valor of others" is how it's supposed to work. And you can't legislate that. I think it only works if it's a social process.

Cheers,


AetheLove

If your thoughts were correct as to where authority applies there wouldn't be numerous other jobs that have laws in the same manner. These laws were in place imo for 2 main reasons. First to retain a level of respect for them. Second each job will get you things when never doing will leave you with a disadvantage. Personal gain in other words.

The crime as i proved in several states (the only ones i checked) is all about intent to deceive. Thats what impersonating anything is all about.

Once again i say if this one is free speech so are the rest.

Originally Posted by Gumby

I agree that the real thing is intent to deceive. But if you claim false military service for employment or benefits, are there not already things to deal with that? For employment, I know that every application I have ever signed said that if anything was untrue, I would be immediately terminated and I am sure that filing for benefits you are not entitled to is illegal.

Theres more to it the just applying for a job.

Please elaborate.

Sent from the land of bier and bretzels using Tapatalk