This is pretty amazing. Common law and statutory FRAUD has been actionable both civilly and criminally 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 $$ for himself (??). If he did not financially gain, then maybe that's why they charged him under this law, instead of state law fraud, because the elements could not be met.
People are prosecuted for fraud all the time. In fact, crimes such as bogus check, uttering a forged instrument, etc., are all based on what is in essense, telling a (written) lie - known false, with intent to deceive, for pecuniary gain -- and free speech has never protected them.
I'm all for a strong 1st amendment, but I don't see how this judge distinguished these other crimes that have never been able to hide behind the 1st.
Also, it is absurd for this judge to suggest soldiers, sailors, and airpersons are not motivated to be good at their jobs on the battlefield at least in part by the desire to earn recognition for their skills and bravery - of course they are! And how does he even think he knows - did he poll them?
Man this defendant needs an ass-whuppin, in any event.
Fraud is (a) a misrepresentation made (b) knowing it its false, (c) with intent to deceive, (d) for pecuniary gain. That sounds precisely like what this guy was doing - he was using a falsehood to raise money, and presumably took some of the $$ 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.