Md. judge rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

layoutshooter · Sep 9, 2011

Tennesseahawk said:
Maybe Greg didn't serve; but I did. And I still agree with him.

So, and please correct me if I am wrong, you believe that under the guise of "free speech", that people have a RIGHT to defraud others? That they somehow have a RIGHT to claim to be something that they are NOT and as a result may harm others? Did you read that article?

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

Camper · Sep 9, 2011

Tennesseahawk said:
Maybe Greg didn't serve; but I did. And I still agree with him.

Then you understand(or should) that this issue is about more than lying and that there are victims when these acts are created.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

layoutshooter said:
So, and please correct me if I am wrong, you believe that under the guise of "free speech", that people have a RIGHT to defraud others? That they somehow have a RIGHT to claim to be something that they are NOT and as a result may harm others? Did you read that article?

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

Fraud.....

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

Camper said:
Then you understand(or should) that this issue is about more than lying and that there are victims when these acts are created.

.....Fraud

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

F
r
a
u
d
.
.
.
.
.

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

F...F
.r.r.
..a..
.u.u.
d...d

scottm4211 · Sep 9, 2011

It seems that those who complain about excessive laws suspend that when it hits close to home.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

scottm4211 · Sep 9, 2011

Gimme an F...

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

layoutshooter · Sep 9, 2011

scottm4211 said:
It seems that those who complain about excessive laws suspend that when it hits close to home.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

How does this law affect you?

layoutshooter · Sep 9, 2011

Tennesseahawk said:
F...F
.r.r.
..a..
.u.u.
d...d

Yes, I understand fraud. What I DON'T understand is why you think this is a Constitutional issue? I don't get it. Please explain, so I can understand, why YOU think that there is a RIGHT under our Constitution to attempt fraud?

tbubster · Sep 9, 2011

layoutshooter said:
Yes, I understand fraud. What I DON'T understand is why you think this is a Constitutional issue? I don't get it. Please explain, so I can understand, why YOU think that there is a RIGHT under our Constitution to attempt fraud?

Never mind the fact that if what this guy and so many others have done is protected under the constitution that how is he guilty of fraud.After all everything he did is protected free speech right

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

layoutshooter said:
Yes, I understand fraud. What I DON'T understand is why you think this is a Constitutional issue? I don't get it. Please explain, so I can understand, why YOU think that there is a RIGHT under our Constitution to attempt fraud?

I don't think it's a Constitutional issue. That's the point. If the guy can be charged with fraud, leave it at that. We don't need anymore laws dealing with specific issues, which COULD fly in the face of the Constitution, which this one apparently has.

Do you agree if a white guy murders a black guy, he should be charged with a hate crime? Me neither. Murder is enough. Likewise, fraud is enough in this case. We don't need a different flavored law. Just keep it vanilla.

layoutshooter · Sep 9, 2011

tbubster said:
Never mind the fact that if what this guy and so many others have done is protected under the constitution that how is he guilty of fraud.After all everything he did is protected free speech right

I am just SO confused.

How is criminal behavior protected under the Constitution?

Maybe it is generational, I just have a totally different way of looking at everything.

scottm4211 · Sep 9, 2011

Who said it did?

layoutshooter said:
How does this law affect you?

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

tbubster said:
Never mind the fact that if what this guy and so many others have done is protected under the constitution that how is he guilty of fraud.After all everything he did is protected free speech right

He sold a bill of goods. Snake oil salesman. Con artist.

Fraud.

Tennesseahawk · Sep 9, 2011

layoutshooter said:
I am just SO confused. How is criminal behavior protected under the Constitution?

Maybe it is generational, I just have a totally different way of looking at everything.

It has nothing to do with his speech, and everything to do with the result of said speech. It's not a freedom of speech issue. It's a fraud issue.

Geez.

scottm4211 · Sep 9, 2011

Gimme an R...

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

layoutshooter · Sep 9, 2011

Tennesseahawk said:
I don't think it's a Constitutional issue. That's the point. If the guy can be charged with fraud, leave it at that. We don't need anymore laws dealing with specific issues, which COULD fly in the face of the Constitution, which this one apparently has.

Do you agree if a white guy murders a black guy, he should be charged with a hate crime? Me neither. Murder is enough. Likewise, fraud is enough in this case. We don't need a different flavored law. Just keep it vanilla.

I understand where you are coming from. I just see it as a bit more narrow. This type of impersonation harms a very small group of people compared to the general population. The harm this causes is aimed at a group that often NEEDS certain funds and services. It is NOT a hate crime, in other words NOT a "thought crime". It is a crime designed to harm a very narrow group.

Any who, we are likely not going to agree.

My beliefs on Rights have already been ridiculed by many in here (not you) so I will just drop it.

Turtle · Sep 9, 2011

The lying and the fraud are two separate issues. The Constitution protects the lie, but it doesn't necessarily protect what you do with the lie, like when you use the lie to defraud. It's no different than claiming to have an advanced degree from Harvard when you don't have one. You can claim that all you want, and it's protected speech. But if you use that claim to defraud, then you've committed fraud. Two separate issues that this law tries to meld into one.

layoutshooter · Sep 9, 2011

Turtle said:
The lying and the fraud are two separate issues. The Constitution protects the lie, but it doesn't necessarily protect what you do with the lie, like when you use the lie to defraud. It's no different than claiming to have an advanced degree from Harvard when you don't have one. You can claim that all you want, and it's protected speech. But if you use that claim to defraud, then you've committed fraud. Two separate issues that this law tries to meld into one.

Your ideas and mine split there. I guess I was just taught different and my ideas will never change. I quit this one.