Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Strikes Down 'Stolen Valor' Law
Wall Street Journa;l ^ | June 28, 2012 | Evan Perez

Posted on 06/28/2012 11:26:32 AM PDT by BIGLOOK

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court cited First Amendment rights to free speech in striking down a law that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military-honor medals.

The 6-3 majority opinion upheld a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had declared unconstitutional the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 statute Congress passed "to protect the reputation and meaning" of military honors.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; firstamendment; impersonation; judicialactivism; military; militaryvote; phonysoldiers; revisionisthistory; stalinisttactics; stolenvalor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2012 11:26:37 AM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; American_Centurion; An.American.Expatriate; ASA.Ranger; ASA Vet; Ax; Azeem; ...

Heads up ping


2 posted on 06/28/2012 11:29:27 AM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK; Revolting cat!
Generalisimo Nagin is pleased with this decision.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 11:30:50 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Fools.Damn fools.Welcome to the USSA. Socialism is slavery to the State and the Supreme Court did it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

You may all now begin addressing me as Supreme Allied Commander Gerneralisimo pepsi_junkie


4 posted on 06/28/2012 11:30:50 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

I’m headed down to the bar to pick up some chicks with my 4 Medals Of Honor. Hope I don’t run into any real vets. Better go to a democrat bar.


5 posted on 06/28/2012 11:32:18 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Whoa! Hold on a Minute, I thought The Supreme Court didn’t like to strike down Congressional Law, you know, things like Ubamacare!


6 posted on 06/28/2012 11:32:18 AM PDT by KC_Lion (The Supreme Court issued their ruling on Obamacare. Soon, We the People shall issue ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

John F’n Kerry is now a Viet Nam war hero......


7 posted on 06/28/2012 11:34:00 AM PDT by Bullfrogg (American by birth, Irish by heritage, and hellraiser by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa; mylife; SandRat; HiJinx; MS.BEHAVIN

Hell’s Bells ping!


8 posted on 06/28/2012 11:34:10 AM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
The Supreme Court cited First Amendment rights to free speech in striking down a law that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military-honor medals.

So the Supreme Court just defended the concept of phony soldiers. Remember when liberals got outraged at Rush even mentioning that some of the Iraq protesters were PHONY SOLDIERS? As if no one ever played pretend to grant themselves more credibility?

9 posted on 06/28/2012 11:34:26 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Fools.Damn fools.Welcome to the USSA. Socialism is slavery to the State and the Supreme Court did it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Next we will be told by this court (and the wise latina) that identity theft is merely more free speech by foreign nationals.


10 posted on 06/28/2012 11:35:32 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Fools.Damn fools.Welcome to the USSA. Socialism is slavery to the State and the Supreme Court did it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion; P-Marlowe
Whoa! Hold on a Minute, I thought The Supreme Court didn’t like to strike down Congressional Law, you know, things like Ubamacare!

Sure they could have pulled a rabbit out of their hat on this one too.

Instead of first amendment, they could have said they really meant to say "consumer fraud" which the government has the power to regulate. It's not a mandate, it's a tax, so it's ok. It's not free speech, it's fraud, so the law's ok.

11 posted on 06/28/2012 11:37:12 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Fine, but anyone correcting this bad behavior should be immune from prosecution!


12 posted on 06/28/2012 11:42:05 AM PDT by Jumpmaster (Defund the Left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Next we will be told by this court (and the wise latina) that identity theft is merely more free speech by foreign nationals.

Bamster's now legit.

13 posted on 06/28/2012 11:42:21 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

But the government can tax you for lieing about your military service.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 11:42:39 AM PDT by stockpirate (No longer proud to be an American! SCOTUS is just as corrupt as congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; Bullfrogg
Decorated phonies are going to be strutting around all over now. Having a hard time already trying to deal them and btw no LEOs were dealing with them anyway. Wondering if I can be sued by a fraud for slander when exposing them.
15 posted on 06/28/2012 11:45:10 AM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
SCOTUS screwed us big time today - upholding Obamacare and striking down Stolen Valor. Isn't it wonderful that the First Amendment protects flag-burners, pornographers and posers?

I want my country back - not the socialistic regime that has been loosed upon us! Obama, with the cooperation of Congress, RINO's, perverts and traitors has converted us from a proud Nation of free citizens to a nanny state in which we are nothing more than subjects! 



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

16 posted on 06/28/2012 11:46:12 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

So. It looks like Justice Roberts has come completely out of the closet as a flaming liberal.

The Court is now 5 liberals, 3 conservatives, and 1 swing vote.

And Obama didn’t even need to make another appointment.

I wonder what kind of threat they are holding over Roberts? He has voted conservative in the past, but evidently no longer.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 11:51:24 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Well ... anyone can be sued, if there is the least shred of possibility that it’s valid. If there is absolutely no basis at all, and it’s apparent from the “get-go” - then something will be “thrown out” - but other than that - the lawsuit will go ahead.

HOWEVER “winning” the lawsuit is a completely different matter. And no, they can’t win it - if you expose a fraud and they can’t prove it’s not a fraud - and you can prove it’s a fraud. SO ... the bottom line is that you will prevail in a lawsuit!

But, the other “bottom line” to this issue - is what the Founding Fathers thought about “Free Speech” - in that it’s “free speech” itself which will be what “argues against another’s free speech” - in which that other free speech is FALSE.

The idea here is that truth always rises to the surface and lies sink to the bottom - if all things are equal and the government does not intervene and try to “maintain” one kind of speech over another.


18 posted on 06/28/2012 11:51:49 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Gee, now I don’t have to tell folks I was just a duffus putting up antennas for two years. I can tell them I was a swift boat commander with silver and bronze stars sent home in glory after getting three purple hearts. How exciting.


19 posted on 06/28/2012 11:52:25 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
In my lifetime I've witnessed 3 of the worst USSC decisions:

Roe vs Wade

Kelo

The decision today on the healthcare debacle.

Now we have this.....What's next?

Keep your powder dry!

FMCDH(BITS)

20 posted on 06/28/2012 11:53:44 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
I knew that would be struck down...I think it is tragic that someone would fake being a war hero....However, the First Amendment is far more important in the big scheme of things.
21 posted on 06/28/2012 11:56:24 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

One should note here that while the US Supreme Court does have the FINAL SAY in the Judicial system - it does NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY - in our overall “political system”.

The Founding Fathers established a procedure by which the people can OVERRIDE the US Supreme Court in the Judicial System and completely negate a “final decision” that it makes. That was done with the Dred Scott decision and slavery, for example.

Of course, the Founding Fathers didn’t want the US Constitution changed for “any whim of the day” and so made it so that it would take at least 3/4 of the States in the United States to affirm a Constitutional Amendment - once it was put forth by Congress.

SO ... if this is an issue that is of MAJOR CONCERN to the “people” of the USA, they WILL OVERRIDE the US Supreme Court in this issue.


22 posted on 06/28/2012 11:57:55 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All; BIGLOOK
Despite the "good intentions" this ruling was a give-me. There was no justification for how the law was written since it overextends into private communications rather more narrowly aiming for cases where fraud is occurring.

Real constitutional conservatives would understand this.

23 posted on 06/28/2012 12:00:38 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Not surprising at all.


24 posted on 06/28/2012 12:02:08 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
I can fully understand people (me included) get upset when people claim military honors they never received.

But striking down this misguided law is a victory against big government. What would be next, making it a federal criminal offense to lie on a dating website?

25 posted on 06/28/2012 12:03:49 PM PDT by gdani (I don't vote for liberals - no matter what letter appears after their name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa; Star Traveler; Cicero
Good morning Doc and all......or is it? We'll get back to that.

It wasn't a very good one for me, awake at 0200 and couldn't go back to sleep thinking something sinister was coming. doubly sinister in these cases now I just wonder what's going to happen in Holder's Contempt of Congress determination.

Rockets sometimes came in threes a long time ago.
26 posted on 06/28/2012 12:04:55 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gdani
What would be next, making it a federal criminal offense to lie on a dating website?

Or a job application, a college transcript, a CoLB? Hmmmm ....you may be right, 30% of the population would be out of a job, not counting the illegals
27 posted on 06/28/2012 12:15:35 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

I thought it was against the law to claim MOH if not earned before Stolen Valor became law- now I am confused... I know you were joking, your post just made me wonder about how that works now...


28 posted on 06/28/2012 12:16:34 PM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Ok, so perceived crimes of thought such as “Hate Crimes” are constitutional, but crimes with real evidence like lying about doing something you didn’t do are unconstitutional. It is a screwed up world.


29 posted on 06/28/2012 12:24:06 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jumpmaster
Fine, but anyone correcting this bad behavior should be immune from prosecution!

Provoking a riot (e.g., shouting Fire in a crowded theater) is not protected speech.

Neither is slander, perjury, libel, or treason.

30 posted on 06/28/2012 12:25:17 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Fools.Damn fools.Welcome to the USSA. Socialism is slavery to the State and the Supreme Court did it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Well, the Chief Weasel, John Roberts, has pointed the way to “fix the problem.”

Pass a new “STOLEN VALOR TAX”, and individuals who claim to have military honors that are unearned are subject to a 75% income tax.

There....Fixed It!! Roberts has declared that Congress has the right to pass all sorts of taxes!! So why not tax speech that is shown to be lies. (And then later on, we can grow that line to tax political speech that is “judged” to be incorrect ....with people like Nazi Pelosi as the judge ....)

CONSTITUTION ....limited Government??? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ CONSTITUTION!!


31 posted on 06/28/2012 12:28:57 PM PDT by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta


We're all mad here....
32 posted on 06/28/2012 12:29:03 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

I have just this minute claimed a PHD. You may now address me as Doctor RetiredTexasVet. I may not have earned it, but my free speech authorizes it per the Supreme Court.


33 posted on 06/28/2012 12:32:53 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (There's a pill for just about everything ... except stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
Wow! Guess his means that I can freely talk about my 9 CMH's, 8 Navy Crosses, 28 Purple Hearts, and 2 Nobel Peace Prizes...(And this is just from one marriage...)
34 posted on 06/28/2012 12:40:44 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet
Good ta meet ya, Doctor RetiredTexasVet.


35 posted on 06/28/2012 12:40:57 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
Solution: After we throw Obozo out, we reauthorize the Stolen Valor Act and tell the lawyers to stick it where the sun does not shine. That is, the Stolen Valor Act is NOT subject to judicial review.
36 posted on 06/28/2012 1:01:39 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

I am going to get a judge costume and become an insane supreme court judge.


37 posted on 06/28/2012 1:10:32 PM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
Aloha, Shipmate! The flaming Bolsheviks in my office are gloating about Obamacare and don't seem to care much about Stolen Valor. If Obama keeps pissing off the American People like this, I think we will see bloodshed in the very near future.



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

38 posted on 06/28/2012 1:42:15 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"I wonder what kind of threat they are holding over Roberts? He has voted conservative in the past, but evidently no longer."

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/nancy-pelosi-health-care-law-supreme-court-obamacare.php

"Hey Justice John, Nancy is really great in bed isn't she, and her pictures of you in bed with her are ready to go on You Tube if you don't vote for us!"

39 posted on 06/28/2012 2:29:44 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA-LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO THE WHITE HOUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

I can not post my feelings on this on FR.


40 posted on 06/28/2012 2:56:28 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Damn, dawg, they couldn’t get one thing right


41 posted on 06/28/2012 2:59:43 PM PDT by Lazamataz (People who resort to Godwin's Law are just like Hitler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

In that case, doesn’t it mean that the crime of lying to the FBI is also unconstitutional?


42 posted on 06/28/2012 2:59:43 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

He looks like every black politician in Africa, always dressing up as a Colonel or General.


43 posted on 06/28/2012 3:15:00 PM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
This is one of those cases where I find myself siding with the "liberal" majority.

Anyone who pretends to be a decorated military veteran is an @sshole, but there's no way in hell that should be a Federal crime in and of itself. This was one of those cases where emotional sentimentality drove Congress to pass a stupid law that was both unnecessary and (as it turns out) unconstitutional.

44 posted on 06/28/2012 3:17:31 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Your post demonstrates why the Stolen Valor Act was a bad law. Lying is not the same as fraud, and that's why the government has no business prosecuting people for lying about their past, their military service, etc. If they lie about these things in a formal document like a job application or a financial document, then they can be prosecuted under any number of other statutes for fraud.

I'm with the U.S. Supreme Court on this one. There's no reason why someone who lies about his military background should be prosecuted for a Federal crime, while someone who lies about any ordinary work he did 20 years ago is not.

45 posted on 06/28/2012 3:22:36 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Exactly.
46 posted on 06/28/2012 3:23:42 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
If the Stolen Valor Act limited itself to cases where fraud was occurring, then it would have been completely unnecessary. The last thing we need is another Federal law that makes it a Federal crime to do something that is already illegal in any U.S. state.
47 posted on 06/28/2012 3:25:40 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: expat2
Many changes will be necessary and many new professions will be created. Dictionaries will be updated and previous entries will be deleted. In court, one will no longer be required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Miranda will have to be rewritten.

Usted tiene el derecho a permanecer en silencio o tergiversar usted mismo.

Usted tiene el derecho a un abogado, si usted no puede pagar un abogado,

Usted puede mentir acerca de eso también.

No es mucho lo que puede ser usado en su contra en un tribunal de justicia.

¿Entiende estos derechos?

أو في اللغة العربية الذي تفضله.

48 posted on 06/28/2012 4:06:10 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
The 6-3 majority opinion upheld a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had declared unconstitutional the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 statute Congress passed "to protect the reputation and meaning" of military honors.

So is perjury now protected under the First Amendment, or would our philosopher-kings on the bench say "well that's different."?

49 posted on 06/28/2012 4:50:58 PM PDT by Hacksaw (If I had a son, he'd look like George Zimmerman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
I doubt that perjury is now protected by the courts after all it's an important tool in determining guilt. But will it be a punishable offense or will all appeals of convictions be based on 1st Amendment Rights.

This is 'slippery slope' we don't want to go down.
50 posted on 06/28/2012 5:26:59 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson