4 ms·

I can't even imagine there is a valid legal argument. If somebody calls me, I can say whatever I want. If I want to answer the phone by saying "Department of D

I can't even imagine there is a valid legal argument. If somebody calls me, I can say whatever I want. If I want to answer the phone by saying "Department of Defense, how can I help you?" the First Amendment guarantees me the right to do that. Now, I certainly could not call other people and claim to be the Department of Defense. That's fraud. The same applies if I had done something like put up flyers claiming my phone number was related to the DoD or something like that. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see it.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lb1lf 7y ago
I am in Norway, so the First Amendment carries little weight around here; our equivalent is 'Article 100' (of the Constitution) stating pretty much the same thing as the First Amendment. (This is hardly relevant; I just grasped the opportunity to stress that the HN crowd resides in the most peculiar places...)
- jaywalk 7y ago
  Ah, I just assumed you were in the US because we actually have a Department of Defense.
  - pantheon 7y ago
    Every country has a Department of Defense.
    - jaywalk 7y ago
      But it's not necessarily called the Department of Defense. That's literally the name of it in the US.
      - outworlder 7y ago
        Wasn't it the Department of War, a long time ago?
- Jenz 7y ago
  Now, I definitely am biased, being a norwegian myself. But I see people mentioning themselves being norwegians everywhere here on HN. I don’t recall seeing half as many people going around saying, «I’m a dane» or similar; this seems peculiar, Norway is small. I wonder if it actually is at it seems to me, or if I just miss these seemingly non–but—actually-not–non-existant remarks.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    They just like to point it out. :-D I suppose they are afraid someone would take them for a Swede, that'd be embarrassing.
    - tephra 7y ago
      Not so long ago there were people who were born when Sweden and Norway were in a union together.
      - Jenz 7y ago
        That was ages ago, from my perspective
  - jlgaddis 7y ago
    > The frequency illusion is that once something has been noticed then every instance of that thing is noticed, leading to the belief it has a high frequency of occurrence (a form of Selection bias). The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon is the illusion where something that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards. The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon is sometimes conflated with frequency illusion and the recency illusion. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I'm not Norwegian, and I think you're right. Perhaps only the French mention their nationality on HN more than the Norwegians. Although, in fairness, even more common are EU people noting the consequences of EU rules that attempt to govern non-EU websites.
- SllX 7y ago
  You got me interested so I looked for the English translation. Taken from Constitution.org > Article 100 > There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. I always get interested in how other free speech laws are worded because I enjoy the way Madison worded the First Amendment so damn much. When somebody points to an Article # or something like that, it makes my pursuit of this hobby a bit easier. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Compare and contrast. One is a grant, essentially a permission, to the people of Norway, and the other is basically telling the US Congress to fuck off because it has no right nor permission and not even a wink and a nod to make any law on the matters which follow. The liberty is inherent, Congress’ powers are not. Mind this is a translation, I unfortunately do not know any Norwegian to verify the original Article 100. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x... Now compare and contrast with the California State Constitution. I’m providing a link because it is much wordier, and starts at Sec 2 and runs for a few more sections. While California is under the same structures of as the First Amendment in modern times, that wasn’t always the case. If you read the wording here, it is downright inferior to both the US First Amendment and the Norwegians Article 100, spares too many words, and phrases it’s equivalents mostly in a manner of a permission under the CA Constitution rather than telling the State legislature to fuck off. An unfortunate choice, but most of the State’s Constitution is a long tragedy of errors and poor choices, one of the most unfortunate being the choice to grant voters the right to amend the bloody rag by referendum.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    Yeah, Norway's Article 100 isn't anywhere near as powerful as the First Amendment. So many broad and vague exceptions are carved out, and as you pointed out it's granting the people of Norway a right instead of enshrining an inherent right.
aspenmayer 7y ago
There are laws against representing yourself as military (active or former) when you are not a member; these laws are pretty narrow in scope and likely would not affect you answering the phone in this manner. Another concern is to avoid (mis)representing yourself as any kind of law enforcement or emergency services involved capacity, as I believe there are federal regulations forbidding this. I'd be more concerned with making false statements to federal agents, which is a crime, when answering the phone using those words. At that point in the call, you are announcing yourself and making verifiable statements, although in jest. But if you're talking to someone who wants to ruin your weekend, they will find a way to do so.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lb1lf 7y ago

I am in Norway, so the First Amendment carries little weight around here; our equivalent is 'Article 100' (of the Constitution) stating pretty much the same thing as the First Amendment. (This is hardly relevant; I just grasped the opportunity to stress that the HN crowd resides in the most peculiar places...)

jaywalk 7y ago
Ah, I just assumed you were in the US because we actually have a Department of Defense.
- pantheon 7y ago
  Every country has a Department of Defense.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    But it's not necessarily called the Department of Defense. That's literally the name of it in the US.
    - outworlder 7y ago
      Wasn't it the Department of War, a long time ago?
Jenz 7y ago
Now, I definitely am biased, being a norwegian myself. But I see people mentioning themselves being norwegians everywhere here on HN. I don’t recall seeing half as many people going around saying, «I’m a dane» or similar; this seems peculiar, Norway is small. I wonder if it actually is at it seems to me, or if I just miss these seemingly non–but—actually-not–non-existant remarks.
- jacobush 7y ago
  They just like to point it out. :-D I suppose they are afraid someone would take them for a Swede, that'd be embarrassing.
  - tephra 7y ago
    Not so long ago there were people who were born when Sweden and Norway were in a union together.
    - Jenz 7y ago
      That was ages ago, from my perspective
- jlgaddis 7y ago
  > The frequency illusion is that once something has been noticed then every instance of that thing is noticed, leading to the belief it has a high frequency of occurrence (a form of Selection bias). The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon is the illusion where something that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards. The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon is sometimes conflated with frequency illusion and the recency illusion. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
- jessaustin 7y ago
  I'm not Norwegian, and I think you're right. Perhaps only the French mention their nationality on HN more than the Norwegians. Although, in fairness, even more common are EU people noting the consequences of EU rules that attempt to govern non-EU websites.
SllX 7y ago
You got me interested so I looked for the English translation. Taken from Constitution.org > Article 100 > There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. I always get interested in how other free speech laws are worded because I enjoy the way Madison worded the First Amendment so damn much. When somebody points to an Article # or something like that, it makes my pursuit of this hobby a bit easier. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Compare and contrast. One is a grant, essentially a permission, to the people of Norway, and the other is basically telling the US Congress to fuck off because it has no right nor permission and not even a wink and a nod to make any law on the matters which follow. The liberty is inherent, Congress’ powers are not. Mind this is a translation, I unfortunately do not know any Norwegian to verify the original Article 100. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x... Now compare and contrast with the California State Constitution. I’m providing a link because it is much wordier, and starts at Sec 2 and runs for a few more sections. While California is under the same structures of as the First Amendment in modern times, that wasn’t always the case. If you read the wording here, it is downright inferior to both the US First Amendment and the Norwegians Article 100, spares too many words, and phrases it’s equivalents mostly in a manner of a permission under the CA Constitution rather than telling the State legislature to fuck off. An unfortunate choice, but most of the State’s Constitution is a long tragedy of errors and poor choices, one of the most unfortunate being the choice to grant voters the right to amend the bloody rag by referendum.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  Yeah, Norway's Article 100 isn't anywhere near as powerful as the First Amendment. So many broad and vague exceptions are carved out, and as you pointed out it's granting the people of Norway a right instead of enshrining an inherent right.

aspenmayer 7y ago

There are laws against representing yourself as military (active or former) when you are not a member; these laws are pretty narrow in scope and likely would not affect you answering the phone in this manner. Another concern is to avoid (mis)representing yourself as any kind of law enforcement or emergency services involved capacity, as I believe there are federal regulations forbidding this. I'd be more concerned with making false statements to federal agents, which is a crime, when answering the phone using those words. At that point in the call, you are announcing yourself and making verifiable statements, although in jest. But if you're talking to someone who wants to ruin your weekend, they will find a way to do so.