First Amendment violation?

POSTED BY: fredgiblet
UPDATED: Saturday, January 19, 2008 03:24
VIEWED: 5722
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:03 PM

And if they feel that way, they're well within their rights to file for slander/defamation.

This whole mess is basically using a bulldozer to do a shovels job.

-F

HERO

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's written in such (intended) iron-clad terms for just these kind of instances, the interpretation is always supposed to come down on the side of no, unless explicitly and expressly authorized.

The Constitution is not a list of things WE can do, with all else prohibited.

It's a list of things the Government is allowed to do, with all else expressly forbidden.

But try tellin that to the Supreme Court... grr

Much of your frustration comes from not reading the entire Constitution. For instance, the Govt can restrict speech under certain limited circumstances...such as the 'fire' in a theater argument or 'time, place, and manner' arguments. It really comes down to due process and whether or not the law in question meets that standard.

In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.

Your overbroad argument would make it legal for another person to claim ownership of your property and sell that property even though they had no right to do so simply because the law of fraud restricts their 'free speech' right to lie. That makes no sense.

As a veteran, who never served, and a winner of not one but seven seperate Medals of Honor in five different conflicts spanning two centuries, I hereby claim all of Fremdfirma's property and am offering it for sale. Its mine and I can sell it...you have my word. Any takers? No? Because its not really mine to sell, just like I never served, just like I NEVER won any medals, and to claim otherwise is a lie and to lie to another in order to obtain a benefit is FRAUD.

H

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.

You know I actually hadn't thought of that angle.

Quote:
Your overbroad argument would make it legal for another person to claim ownership of your property and sell that property even though they had no right to do so simply because the law of fraud restricts their 'free speech' right to lie. That makes no sense.

Funny thing, not too long ago my grandparents neighbors filed a claim of some sort (forget the name) basically stating that they owned about a quarter to half an acre of land that belonged to my grandparents, not that the property lines were incorrect, but rather that they were simply claiming the land. There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.

HERO

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.

Its called Adverse Possession and generally only applies to real property (ie Real Estate). You claim it by action...like mowing or farming or improving. If the owner does not respond in some fashion (including simply giving you written permission to mow or whatever) then its yours. Its a common law notion and the rule is generally seven years. Check your local laws though, the times and manner vary and in most cases you can't adverse possess govt property.

Oddly it was my favorite chapter in Property 1 back in lawschool.

H

MILFORD

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
For instance, the Govt can restrict speech under certain limited circumstances...such as the 'fire' in a theater argument or 'time, place, and manner' arguments. It really comes down to due process and whether or not the law in question meets that standard.

In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.

Since you're up on the law, do I remember correctly that there are instances in which the military operates under a different set of rules than civilian society? If I remember correctly (which after a longish morning is doubtful) that this is true, then could the military bring charges against him, perhaps for impersonating an officer, or something similar?

Either way, the guy is a complete tool. Complete, lacking nothing in terms of tool-essence. In fact, I propose that we declare him Tool Prime, by which all future tools can be measured.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre

KWICKO

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:12 PM

Oddly enough (and much as it pains me to say it), I agree with Hero. This douche is a fraud.

My remedy would be a little more poetic, though. I say if he's claiming he served in the military and won the Medal of Honor, then by all means let's let him try to make it right. Suit him up in desert cammies and drop his old ass deep into the shit in the badlands of Afghanistan. If he comes back alive, he's probably EARNED that medal! If not, it's no real loss to humanity...

HERO

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by milford:
Since you're up on the law, do I remember correctly that there are instances in which the military operates under a different set of rules than civilian society? If I remember correctly (which after a longish morning is doubtful) that this is true, then could the military bring charges against him, perhaps for impersonating an officer, or something similar?

The military operates under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is a seperate and distinct legal code from the United States Code. It is very rare that a civilian would be within military jurisdiction, but it is possible.

However, in this case, I think that the US Code and perhaps the California state law, would apply. In that he is NOT impersonating an officer, but rather a FORMER officer, I don't think the laws apply. Thats part of the reason the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was passed (and I note the act was unusual in its simple, easy to understand format, lack of pork, and large amount of bipartisan support).

If your interested there was a JAG episode on this subject that starred Montel Williams as a Navy SEAL who went and kicked a politicians ass for claiming to be a former SEAL. Silly show, but they did good legal writing for those parts of the show. Catherine Bell...

H

BADKARMA00

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:11 PM

True, Frem, which is why I suspect that this particular episode of bueripidity (that's a word I invented btw:) will reach at least the 9th circuit, which will of course rule as liberally as possible, something they are famous for.

And I agree, it's using a dozer for spade work.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

SIMONWHO

Friday, January 18, 2008 12:07 AM

I think most people supporting this under free speech might feel differently if someone printed 50,000 leaflets with their picture and personal details on it labelling them a paedophile and distributed them round their neighbourhood.

There are libel and slander laws for a reason.

BADKARMA00

Friday, January 18, 2008 12:31 AM

Oh Im not arguing that, Simon. I dont feel that free speech covers this idiots actions in any way. It's an insult to every man and woman who has ever served this country, and especially to the very few who have been recognized with the Medal of Honor.

My, issues, I guess, are just with how this will get so blown out of proportion, and the court's used to 'rule' on whether or not 'free speech' includes fraud.

There's no doubt this man is slime, imo. Or that his actions definitely call for some form of punishment. For my part, put him in a room with families of those who HAVE been recognized, posthumously, for their valor, and let them take care of it.

Poetic Justice.

Fedup-Karma

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE