Posted on 02/06/2010 3:31:30 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
DENVER (AP) - The federal courts are wrestling with a question of both liberty and patriotism: Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes?
At issue is a three-year-old federal law called the Stolen Valor Act that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military. It is a crime even if the liar makes no effort to profit from his stolen glory.
Attorneys in Colorado and California are challenging the law on behalf of two men charged, saying the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn't hurt someone else. Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who is not involved in the two cases, said the Stolen Valor Act raises serious constitutional questions because it in effect bans bragging or exaggerating about yourself.
"Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkrn.com ...
Do you believe there is a God given, Natural Law right to deceive? That is the issue before the court.
I believe in the right of people to tell "fish tales"... as it's a natural-born instinct of every human being that I've ever come across.... LOL...
But, do I think God wants us to tell lies and fish stories, no... but then again, he already knows that we're all liars anyway... so that's why He sent His Son for our salvation (we just can't stop lying, doncha know... :-) ...).
However, do I think the state should be enforcing "lying penalties" for stuff like this... nahhh! sorry... :-)
Do I think we should turn our government into a "theocracy" now... naaahhh! once again -- not until the Messiah arrives here on earth and He sets it all up (which he will do...).
So, lying and fish tales are "safe" for the time being.... :-)
And... of course, I've already covered the other areas where lying and the results from it would make a difference and should result in penalties, so I won't go over those again...
Tell you what, go to your local Sheriff’s office and call the receptionist/deputy behind the desk a f*****g b!tch or mo**** f****r and see how far your silly opinion on free speech goes.
ASB: “Under this authority, Congress has the right to regulate who can wear specific ribbons. This also gives them the authority to say who cannot wear the specific ribbons.”
An interesting point and plausible argument. I wonder if the government prosecutors will use it.
To me, that gives Congress the right to set rules for the military, not necessarily set rules for private citizens who are not in the military. A military member could be punished under the UCMJ for wearing the wrong rank, but I don’t think that authority extends to punishing private citizens who want to play colonel.
The stolen valor act does not deny anyone a constitutional/natural law right. There is no right to deceive.
BTW, the term “Compelling State Interest” is a radical leftist construct designed to prevent a sovereign and supposedly free people from making law that reflects our traditions.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Under this authority, Congress has the right to regulate who can wear specific ribbons. This also gives them the authority to say who cannot wear the specific ribbons.
The power you cited only covers the regulation of land and naval forces, not all persons in the U.S.
An argument could be made that the "necessary and proper" clause authorizes restrictions on the wearing of awards by non-land or naval forces (i.e. all persons in the U.S.) since awards have less "value" if many people falsely claim to have earned them, and that less valuable awards will result in a reduced ability to regulate the land and naval forces.
However, that seems like a very tenuous argument. If the "necessary and proper" clause can be stretched that far then there is really almost nothing beyond the scope of Congress's power, which is not what the Founders intended.
Even if these restrictions are technically Constitutional, it seems obvious that they are being imposed because people are offended by phony veterans, not because anyone is really worried that the lies of a few dirtbags will hinder the operation of the armed forces. As people who value liberty, we should not support using legal technicalities to achieve ends that are contrary to the principles of limited government.
Jacquerie: “Do you believe there is a God given, Natural Law right to deceive?”
What’s deception? Better have a very good definition for it, because you could be covering a whole lot of speech!
“Honey, do I look fat?” Oh, no dear. You look great. (CRIME)
“You should have seen the one that got away.” (CRIME)
Here’s the First Amendment: “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.”
It doesn’t say “abridging the freedom of HONEST speech,” does it?
Simple test to that question:
Can a private citizen walk onto a secure military installation?
If not, does it follow that the authority of the Federal Government extends to civilians when it comes to military property?
(Do you see where this is going?)
If the ribbons are protected intellectual property under the Lanham Act of the U.S. Military (and they are), then the extension of the protection of that property from unauthorized use does extend to civilians.
In other words, wearing a ribbon that has been trademarked by the U.S. Military extends the control of the U.S. Congress to the wearer. Just as stepping onto a secure military installation puts you under the rules that govern that property.
And just as there are stiffer penalties for trespassing onto a secure military installation than, say, trespassing on your neighbors property, the U.S. Congress can establish stiffer penalties on wearing certain trademarked items without authority than might otherwise be established in local or State laws.
At least that is how I would argue the case from the Federal Government's point of view.
Answer my question and I will answer yours.
I learned what deception is well before elementary school.
Tell you what, go to your local Sheriff’s office and call the receptionist/deputy behind the desk a f*****g b!tch or mo**** f****r and see how far your opinion of HONEST free speech goes.
That is irrelevant to the Constitutional matter at hand. What you or I consider to be silly law is not necessarily unconstitutional.
Jacquerie: “BTW, the term “Compelling State Interest” is a radical leftist construct designed to prevent a sovereign and supposedly free people from making law that reflects our traditions.”
It may (or may not) have originated with leftists, but the idea of a compelling state interest is a legitimate attempt to try and determine how to apply the US Constitution. That’s why we have hundreds of years of the courts trying to figure out how to apply freedom of speech in unusual cases, such as this.
For example, does freedom of speech mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater and not be held liable for what ensues? Ah, one could argue the US Constitution protects that speech, but that would be taking the freedom to the absurd, wouldn’t it?
So the justices have tried to develop tests so that there can be a black and white line in the law. I’m all for that, so long as the burden always falls on the state to prove a restriction is constitutional.
In this particular case, the freedom of speech is protected. It doesn’t say dishonest or honest speech. It says speech.
You think lying isn’t protected. OK, so draw a line, develop a constitutional test, that can be applied here that doesn’t completely subvert the First Amendment protections. Or, are you seriously implying the government could make any deception whatsoever a federal crime????
Wow, was surprised to see Dave Ward is still anchoring at 13 in Houston.Go Dave!
So then it would be legal to say you were going to kill someone if you did not hurt them.
If it *was* a crime, 99.5% of politicians would go to the joint. Though that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is, we allow too many silly laws to fill too many law books as it is, Constitutional or not.
BTW, while there are only less than a million of us left of the 2.5 million who served in Vietnam, there are 9 million claiming to be. Again, if you have the orders to support your claim, no problem. If you don't, perhaps a penalty is in order.
We are not too kind to the wannabes. However, they are easy for us to spot.
ASB: “Can a private citizen walk onto a secure military installation?”
Not if they claim to be a member of the military when they are not, but that’s not the same thing as bragging in a bar.
ASB: “In other words, wearing a ribbon that has been trademarked by the U.S. Military extends the control of the U.S. Congress to the wearer.”
No more so than wearing a jacket with “Mt. Dew” on it puts you under Pepsi Co corporate rules. It depends on how a trademark is used. If you use it for personal gain, such as selling jackets marked “Mt. Dew” that you made on your own, then you have a point. Otherwise, no.
In my opinion, the only person potentially harmed would be the redhead who goes home with the fake war hero. Perhaps she could sue for damages?
timm22: “Even if these restrictions are technically Constitutional, it seems obvious that they are being imposed because people are offended by phony veterans, not because anyone is really worried that the lies of a few dirtbags will hinder the operation of the armed forces. As people who value liberty, we should not support using legal technicalities to achieve ends that are contrary to the principles of limited government.”
Very well stated! The leftists aren’t apparently the only ones who like twisting the US Constitution to fit their personal agendas!
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.