Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, federal judge rules
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1217974" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>This is pretty amazing. Common law and statutory<strong> FRAUD </strong>has been actionable both civilly <strong><em>and criminally</em></strong> for hundreds of years. It too is based on speech (specifically, lying). </p><p></p><p>Fraud is (a) a misrepresentation made (b) knowing it its false, (c) with intent to deceive, (d) for pecuniary gain. That sounds precisely like what this guy was doing - he was using a falsehood to raise money, and presumably took some of the $$ for himself (??). If he did not financially gain, then maybe that's why they charged him under this law, instead of state law fraud, because the elements could not be met.</p><p></p><p>People are prosecuted for fraud all the time. In fact, crimes such as bogus check, uttering a forged instrument, etc., are all based on what is in essense, telling a (written) lie - known false, with intent to deceive, for pecuniary gain -- and free speech has never protected them.</p><p></p><p>I'm all for a strong 1st amendment, but I don't see how this judge distinguished these other crimes that have never been able to hide behind the 1st.</p><p></p><p>Also, it is absurd for this judge to suggest soldiers, sailors, and airpersons are not motivated to be good at their jobs on the battlefield at least in part by the desire to earn recognition for their skills and bravery - of course they are! And how does he even think he knows - did he poll them?</p><p></p><p>Man this defendant needs an ass-whuppin, in any event.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1217974, member: 7123"] This is pretty amazing. Common law and statutory[B] FRAUD [/B]has been actionable both civilly [B][I]and criminally[/I][/B] for hundreds of years. It too is based on speech (specifically, lying). Fraud is (a) a misrepresentation made (b) knowing it its false, (c) with intent to deceive, (d) for pecuniary gain. That sounds precisely like what this guy was doing - he was using a falsehood to raise money, and presumably took some of the $$ for himself (??). If he did not financially gain, then maybe that's why they charged him under this law, instead of state law fraud, because the elements could not be met. People are prosecuted for fraud all the time. In fact, crimes such as bogus check, uttering a forged instrument, etc., are all based on what is in essense, telling a (written) lie - known false, with intent to deceive, for pecuniary gain -- and free speech has never protected them. I'm all for a strong 1st amendment, but I don't see how this judge distinguished these other crimes that have never been able to hide behind the 1st. Also, it is absurd for this judge to suggest soldiers, sailors, and airpersons are not motivated to be good at their jobs on the battlefield at least in part by the desire to earn recognition for their skills and bravery - of course they are! And how does he even think he knows - did he poll them? Man this defendant needs an ass-whuppin, in any event. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, federal judge rules
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom