Talk:Stolen Valour Act 674

Stolen Valour Act 674 Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) OP

— 18/12/2024 11:10 PM

Tabled by Minister Christopher Blackadder II.

Stolen Valour Act 674 A bill to declare 'stolen valour' and other fraudulent claims about military service a federal crime.

https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Stolen_Valour_Act_674 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Stolen Valour Act 674 A bill to declare 'stolen valour' and other fraudulent claims about military service a federal crime. ACTIONED on DD MMM 2024 with XX Aye, XX Nay, and XX Abstain. Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) OP

— 18/12/2024 11:11 PM

@Assembly Member Debate is open for the Stolen Valour Act.

@Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] You are invited to stand before the GA and make your statements regarding the proposed act. Tiberius Brown — 18/12/2024 11:12 PM Not this again. Brook Vonz [KEP] — 18/12/2024 11:21 PM Oh boy... Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] — 18/12/2024 11:35 PM Blackadder looks across the chamber. Oof, some mixed reactions already. Well, this bill seeks to criminalise those who claim military service, despite never having served or have exaggerated their record. Tougher penalties will be enforced for those found to have exaggerated or falsified service for monetary gain. Tiberius Brown — 18/12/2024 11:37 PM So, clarification. Ensuring that corporations don’t lie to their consumers about the environmental impact or safety of their products is an extreme violation of free speech. But individuals are not permitted to pretend that they served in the military? Brook Vonz [KEP] — 18/12/2024 11:39 PM While it's certainly dishonorable there is no way in seven seas and hells that it should be criminally penalized. And what, if you say you served one month more you either have to fork over your savings or go to the gutter.

Brook pretends to cough

Hmh, Free speech violation Malia Mackenzie Marshall [CAP] — 18/12/2024 11:40 PM Rich coming from you Brook Vonz [KEP] — 18/12/2024 11:41 PM Well I'm just applying the same logic you did. Malia Mackenzie Marshall [CAP] — 18/12/2024 11:42 PM This bill will get a definite no from me. The Court of Public opinion is enough punishment Spade Wilson (CAP) — 18/12/2024 11:43 PM This bill is a violation of free speech, if a person who just jokes about being in military, they'll have to pay a fine? This is ridiculous if you ask me Exergerating their service shouldn't even be an offense, it's not like they are making terrorist bomb threats That's a defintive no from me Malia Mackenzie Marshall [CAP] — 18/12/2024 11:47 PM This bill right here is proof that the NUP and KEP are after Kodiak's right to free speech. The KEP wants to limit your speech when it comes to advertising and now the NUP wants to ban speech about faking military service. People are allowed to lie as long as there is no mental harm to others. This government should be ashamed for bringing this bill and it should be withdrawn Spade Wilson (CAP) — 18/12/2024 11:48 PM The NUP has been infiltrated by the Socialist deep state agents and now they are secretly working against the people's interest of free speech Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] — 18/12/2024 11:54 PM This is just ridiculous. You are attacking me for a point made by Mr Ryle and Ms Marshall and not myself or even a member of my party. And, I might add, is one I have not supported. The provisions of this bill are no different from that of someone who has committed fraud, as is the case for so called "stolen valor". It should not be classified under free speech, especically if the individual is in violation of Article 2. Tiberius Brown — 18/12/2024 11:55 PM While I may agree that tricking consumers by portraying yourself as a veteran or a decorated war hero may be fraudulent, simply pretending to be a veteran or decorated war hero is free speech. What about actors? Live roleplayers? Are they stealing valor by dressing up and play acting as soldiers? Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:02 AM And telling tall tales is a occupational pastime in the military. We’re going to penalize that? Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:02 AM The CAP is a strange party, conservative but not in the usual conservative values. Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:04 AM I’m sure Mr. blackadder could make an exception clause for such actors, role players, etc. however there would need a clear process for these people to have paperwork that shows this so they are not punished wrongly That would probably be the only compromise for the issues that Mr. Brown speaks of Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:07 AM I feel the easier alternative would be, I don’t know, not prosecute acts of free speech. Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:07 AM sigh that’s not what this bill is targeting It clearly targets individuals who may be portraying that they were apart of the Kodiak military at some point in their life. They could be using this lie to falsify claims for veteran benefits and such. I’m sure this bill clarifies and makes sure that loophole is closed and the exploiters are punished. Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] — 19/12/2024 12:09 AM Again another ridiculous point. No, "jokes" will not be grounds for fines or prison. If a judge were to sentence an individual for "joking" about their service under this bill, then the judge should probably be investigated. But then again, how do you define "a joke" in the law? If I were to "jokingly" send a bomb threat, would that be a joke if a few friends and I had a laugh over it? This is not to equate stolen valour with terroristic threats, but it gets the point across. Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:09 AM It does not target actors or role players. If it seems like it does the. Mr. Blackadder could use my suggestion of an exception clause to make sure that these creative individuals are not punished Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages. — 19/12/2024 12:10 AM Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:10 AM I’m not sure what bill you’re reading, but the one in front of us makes it clear that the author intends to punish the simple act of saying that one was in the military when that’s not true. Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] — 19/12/2024 12:10 AM I shall add said exemption. Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:11 AM Then it seems he needs to be more detailed on the answer. Like if such individuals who are falsely stating themselves to be a veteran on official government documents and insurance claims then they should be punished.

I’m sure a little more detail from the author could help clear up this confusion. Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:12 AM There’s a difference between falsely representing oneself on official documents and simply making “claims”. One is perjury. The other is an act of free speech. Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:13 AM Then again the Author should clarify that Free speech card here is definitely not being violated. I’d like to inquire this question to the Chief Justice Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:17 AM How is “you can’t claim to have been in the military here is a fine and jail time” not a violation of free speech? Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:18 AM I think clarification from the Chief Justice would be better but I do believe the author could clarify more specific ways in which punishment is deserved like falsified documentation for gov, insurance, etc. @Chief Justice Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] — 19/12/2024 12:20 AM If I were to remove Article 1, so that the bill is exclusively for criminalising welfare or charity fraud, would that have the member's approval? Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:23 AM It would be less in violation of free speech, certainly. Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) OP

— 19/12/2024 12:26 AM

Technically free speech isn't a defence for crimes, so presumably Article II is covering fraud.

I'm not the CJ but Article I is at it stands a slippery slope, yes. Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 19/12/2024 12:27 AM Yes I’d say the author and Madam President is correct. Article 1 being removed would certainly end the worry of free speech violations and of course no need for the extra clause that I suggested either Samuel Blake (CAP) — 19/12/2024 12:42 AM Is this even applicable when people say it for fun? Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:49 AM The first article didn’t specify. “Your Honor, I did it for fun” is hardly a legal defense. Samuel Blake (CAP) — 19/12/2024 12:53 AM I said while taking to a child Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 12:54 AM That sentence doesn’t make any sense. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 19/12/2024 2:34 AM I’m in support of this bill.

I think a missed point is that this is not banning of wearing military clothing which is a protected act. It is a criminal charge against those who stand to gain off lying about their service. Which is textbook fraud, clear as day.

I think Mr. Brown’s straw-man attack of this bill could also easily be addressed by introducing additional legislation he can present to the assembly. Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 2:42 AM I don’t think responding to “saying this thing is punishable by fines and jail time” by saying “that’s a clear violation of free speech” is a straw-man. It’s literally responding to the text itself and applying it to real world situations. Pointing out that a bill has flaws or violates constitutional rights isn’t a logical fallacy. It’s debate. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 19/12/2024 2:53 AM Your first argument is exactly a fallacy. You classified business’ actions as an example, which is not remotely discussed by the bill in debate.

Freedom of speech has never protected false factual statements. Much like yelling “fire” in a movie theater. The action is not protected because it may involve harm. Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 2:59 AM Claiming that you have served in the military does not involve any harm. Outside of perjury, which is not protected under free speech anyway, making a false statement of military service harms no one. There is a vast difference between yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater with the intent to cause panic or harm and claiming you were a military hero for social clout. Again, the first article of this bill explicitly punishes any claim of military service that is false. It even penalizes exaggeration of military service. And, keep in mind, this is not “on an official document” or “for illicit gain”, but simply claim. A kid on the street simply making believe would be, by the application of this bill, subject to fines or jail time. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 19/12/2024 3:52 AM There are implicit gains from the claim of being a veteran or service member though. Be it a discount at a store, a better seating placement, boarding a plane first. There is an assumption of status with that claim. Which can be monetarily or not.

Disagree all you may, but a kid saying they are a military member is also presuming there is an air of legitimacy to it. Common sense dictates that a child could not be a service member. Coleman Ryle — 19/12/2024 4:06 AM I agree with Mr. Brown. The first article is a clear violation of free speech. The second article also seems unneccessary to me. If someone lies about military service for major financial gain, charge them with fraud. Sentencing someone to six months for lying to get a 5% discount on a cheeseburger is excessive. Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 4:06 AM Most of those cases require the use of military identification. Falsifying those is fraud, which is punishable. I will, again, point out that the bill says "claim". Even if a person falsely declares that they are a veteran in passing, for no gain whatsoever, that is illegal. If a veteran simply claims that their military service was more impressive than it really was, that is also punishable. Which, again, makes less than no sense and violates basic understandings of free speech. Coleman Ryle — 19/12/2024 4:07 AM I'm sure many of us have had a grandparent who exaggerated war stories for the kiddos. It is insane to criminalize that. Brook Vonz [KEP] — 19/12/2024 4:08 AM I suggest Mr. Blackadder to pull the bill and save us the trouble as I think everyone can clearly see that this bill is more than heavily opposed Alaric Holt (NUP) — 19/12/2024 4:11 AM I believe to say this in an ongoing debate is unnecessary, at the very best it’s rude and at worst it’s unhelpful. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 19/12/2024 4:12 AM I can concede that there are issues with the language and there are reasons to make adjustments. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 19/12/2024 4:21 AM However, I do not believe this bill is on its face bad. I believe it would be more fruitful to address and make changes to the majorities concerns.

From my gathering you most had issue with Article 1. I would then say to remove that section or reword it to include “a tangible benefit.” Perhaps combine that language into article 2 thus removing any freedom of speech concerns. Tiberius Brown — 19/12/2024 4:25 AM I would prefer to remove article 1 entirely and focus on article 2 Viktor Adler [KWA] — 19/12/2024 6:01 AM Once again, not a government bill. Malia Mackenzie Marshall [CAP] — 19/12/2024 6:03 AM And yet you hired them to your government! Viktor Adler [KWA] — 19/12/2024 6:06 AM Ms. Marshall, I believe you fail to understand the difference between "A bill made by a government minister, in their capacity as an MGA" and "A bill made on behalf of the government and supported by it" Carlisle Arthur H.J.A. Tudor — 19/12/2024 6:22 AM I'm the son of an Army Major, and I take stolen valor as a very serious offense. Any bill that addresses this will have my unequivocal support, providing the wording and the punishments fit the crime. Christopher Blackadder II [NUP] — 19/12/2024 3:37 PM The bill has been amended to remove the previous Article 1 and an article exempting actors and the like. Coleman Ryle — 20/12/2024 5:11 AM I still question the legality of the current Article 1. If someone commits "charity fraud," then they would be charged under fruad. Charging them additionally under this seems to be a violation of double jeopardy protections. The whole bill seems unnecessary to me. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 20/12/2024 1:04 PM There’s a case to be made that making the claim isn’t fraud if there’s nothing making it illegal to begin with. Tiberius Brown — 20/12/2024 9:47 PM That’s not how fraud works. If I go to a job site, claim I’m an engineer, and pass off designs of my own in order to get paid for them, I have committed fraud. Claiming to be an engineer isn’t illegal. Claiming to be an engineer in order to defraud people out of money is. Fraud isn’t “is the pretense illegal”. Fraud is “did you use a false pretense to gain money”. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 21/12/2024 2:16 AM Yes, but as I mentioned above, the act of boarding first, better/faster seating, veteran employment advantages are non-monetary ways of obtaining benefits.

Additionally, we keep bringing it up, but I cannot find any definition of fraud in our current legal system. Ergo, not a criminal charge in Kodiak currently. It is only classified as a felony under cyber crime using the internet. Tiberius Brown — 21/12/2024 2:58 AM Two responses. If a business is willing to give preferred employment to a person without checking their veteran status with the government, that seems like their problem. Second, if a business is willing to give advanced boarding or preferred seating to any person based on a simple claim of veterancy without checking identification, then those things are either not important enough to warrant taking a few minutes to check ID or not worth the bother in the first place. Alaric Holt (NUP) — 21/12/2024 3:19 AM Even so, again, fraud isn't illegal in Kodiak. Secondly, the action of showing ID isn't illegal, fraudulent or not. If a business or the government finds an individual with a military ID that is fraudulent, they could not be charged anyway. The amended bill now redresses the fact if you do commit fraud and it is for monetary gain it is a crime. Faking a military ID will now be considered fraudulent and you can be arrested and charged with a crime. Tiberius Brown — 21/12/2024 3:42 AM The issue seems that there is no law against fraud, not that there is no law against “stolen valor” Alaric Holt (NUP) — 21/12/2024 3:44 AM Categorically, no. Both can be an issue. Fraud existing and lying about military service can be equally as severe. It is only a convenience that this would also be the only fraud protection our government has if this bill is passed. Coleman Ryle — 21/12/2024 3:57 AM ((I thought it was assumed that most normally illegal things are still illegal even if not mentioned in the Felony Act.)) Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 21/12/2024 12:35 PM With the changes made by the author, I will be voting for this bill. Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) OP

— 23/12/2024 11:25 AM

@Assembly Member Are there any other takes? Tiberius Brown — 23/12/2024 11:26 AM Other than the fact that this is a bad take, no Viktor Adler [KWA] — 23/12/2024 11:34 AM I for one don't have an issue with this bill. Phoenix Adams [Ind] — 23/12/2024 11:19 PM I will make a motion for a vote. Samuel Blake (CAP) — 24/12/2024 2:04 AM I second Andrew Williams (KSDP) — 24/12/2024 2:51 AM I third EasyPoll APP

— 24/12/2024 10:42 AM

Question Does the General Assembly approve the Stolen Valour Act?

Choices

letter_a: Aye

letter_b: Nay

letter_c: Abstain

Final Result

letter_a: ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ | 41.7% (10)

letter_b: ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ | 54.2% (13)

letter_c: ░░░░░░░░░░ | 4.2% (1)

24 votes from 24 users

Settings

stopwatch: Poll already ended (8 hours ago)

anonymous: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

roles: Allowed roles: @Assembly Member

lock: No other votes allowed

Poll ID: 4264fe6b Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) OP

— 24/12/2024 10:42 AM

@Assembly Member Voting may commence for the Stolen Valour Act. Ensure you are up to date with the proposed act and discussions, and then vote! Joanna Sousa [KWA](Juliette/Sil) OP

— Today at 6:12 PM

With 10 Ayes, 13 Nays, and 1 Abstain, the Stolen Valour Act has not been approved by the General Assembly.