I think OP should think twice before impersonating a governmnet official... (even if its not worded right you know what i mean)
It is an offense in more or less all countries.
So stay away from this forum and you will reduce the illegalness of this forum.
At least in the United States, the law is probably that there must be some kind of fraud or "speech integral to criminal conduct" involved for it to be illegal. See United States v. Alvarez.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdfContent-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech,including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.
Absent from these few categories is any general exception for false statements. The Government argues that cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 52, support its claim that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment pro-tection. But all the Government’s quotations derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to the Court’s analysis, but neither was it determinative. These prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.
Even when considering some instances of defamation or fraud, the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment;the statement must be a know-ing and reckless falsehood. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280. Here, the Government seeks to convert a rule that limits liability even in defamation cases where the law permits recovery for tortious wrongs into a rule that expands liability in a dif-ferent, far greater realm of discourse and expression. The Government’s three examples of false-speech regulation that courts generally have found permissible do not establish a principle that all proscriptions offalse statements are exempt from rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. The criminal prohibition of a false statement made to Government officials in communications concern-ing official matters, 18 U. S. C. §1001, does not lead to the broader proposition that false statements are unprotected when made to any person, at any time, in any context. As for perjury statutes, perjured statements lack First Amendment protection not simply because they are false, but because perjury undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments. Finally, there are statutes that prohibitfalsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or prohibit impersonating a Government officer. These examples, to the extent that they implicate fraud or speech integral to criminal conduct, are inapplicable here.
While this case was about falsely claiming to have received military honors, the principles would seem to be the same with falsely claiming to be a government employee -- mere falsity is not enough.