Posted on 06/28/2012 9:54:34 AM PDT by ColdOne
The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act today, saying that the First Amendment defends a person's right to lie -- even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
But you'll never get away with it unless you inherited your mee-maw's high cheekbones.
Early in the Iraq war my Nephew died in Fallujah.
At the funeral the F.B.I. arrested some baboso who got up close to the parents dressed as a full bird Colonel.
I think John would have beaten the guy had he gotten to him.
For the last 75 years the U.S. Supreme Court and the appellate courts have with consistency favored the criminal element in our society, the pornographer, the foul mouthed, the vice addict, the pervert, the seditious and treasonous
Considering that a corrupt-country wrecking-baby killing-white hating-Black lying muslim-bastard son of a communist whore, can claim that he is a legitimate president, then why not?
Well, freedom of speech, as precious as it is, is a double edged sward.. it cuts in both directions.
“Well, the first amendment is pretty clear”
Oh, really? Then why has fraud generally been illegal throughout the history of our Republic?
I think I'll put graduate of the Vulcan Science Academy on my resume. Always wanted to do that...
Did I ever tell you about the time I sat down with obama and he admitted he was born in Kenya? No? Well, he did! I swear!
After today’s ruling, what good is the Medal of Honor that I received in the Spanish-American War?
“The man committed fraud. I would think he could be prosecuted in that regard if he rec’d money on false pretenses.”
I agree with this part of your post. I believe people can also be prosecuted for falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater and endangering people.
I disagree with this ruling in that I believe the damage done to society and the individuals who actually served in our military is just as severe as if someone had been cheated out of money or had their life endangered. Someone who lies about this is trying to take something deserved by others away from them and gain it for himself. The First Amendment was intended to protect unpopular speech, not stealing something you haven’t earned.
And as for burning flags, the whole concept of “symbolic speech” is utterly ridiculous. Isn’t refusing to pay my taxes, robbing a bank, killing someone I don’t like, etc., etc., etc., every bit as much a symbolic statement?
Emporer?
We don’t need more laws limiting free speech.
We don’t need more laws limiting free speech.
It is legal to lie. It is illegal to commit fraud.
It is legal to own a gun. It is illegal to use it to commit a crime.
Security implications out the yen-yag one has to suppose. With the ruling, am having doubts one could stop or detain an individual in that type of false dress. Same would undoubtedly be okay for those wishing to do harm by having dressed as such. Wonder when dressing as a LEO will be protected speech for those who are impersonators? Opens a hugh can of worms (imho).
I think I was the only Green Beret in the Navy with 4 Medals of Honor, I looked great in my uniform.
Oh, and I was a General too.
Fraud is deception for the sake of personal gain or damaging another. Pretenders decked in unearned military honors arouse our indignation but there are rarely demonstrable damages resulting therefrom.
“The court made the right call here. Lying about military service is obnoxious and cowardly but the law doesn’t (and shouldn’t) go after someone for merely being an obnoxious coward. “
I disagree. It is NOT merely being an obnoxious coward. It really and truly IS what it was called: “stealing valor”. It is fraudulently stealing something you are not entitled to.
“No. Perjury is still perjury. So is fraud still fraud.”
Because they are defined as such in the law. And in these cases a specific type of LYING is specifically deemed illegal. But here the Court is saying you CAN’T separately define a previously unspecified type of lying as a specific unlawful type of lying, based on the First Amendment. Don’t you see that’s not logically consistent? Either all lying is protected by the Constitution, or else the government has the right to apply names (like “fraud” and “perjury” and “stolen valor”) to some types of lying, thereby making them illegal. Which is it?
Mark Levin will be livid this evening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.