Stolen Valor Act Decision
 

This decision was also handed down on the same day that Conservative Cheif Justice Roberts sided with Liberals on the PPACA decision.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...160717915.html

A 6-3 decision in favor of protecting compulsive liar Alvarez's 1st Amendment Rights. This coupled with the fact that the Obama Administration sought to uphold the "Stolen Valor" law must make Thursday a very confusing day for you wingnuts.

So, what say you?

(This is gonna be fun.;))

Dave

I side with the court's decision. The government ought not be used to bridle someone's speech even if the speech is distasteful. I'm generally against both sides when it comes to the addition of new laws and regulations. Interestingly, the Stolen Valor Act was introduced both in the the House and the Senate by democrats.

Kennedy made a good point that punishing a simple falsehood sets a dangerous precedent. The Court suggested that publishing a falsehood with the intent that someone rely on it could be punished, if the statute was narrowly drawn to directly address the harm. That is pretty close to the point at which the falsehood ceases to be a victimless crime. I would limit the coverage of any criminal sanction for such communication to where there is an intent that someone rely on the false statements, there is actual reliance on the false statement, and such reliance causes actual harm. The harm should be real, like financial loss, but not just offended sensibilities.

Regards,

D-Ray

A couple weeks ago, I went to Colonial Williamsburg.

They had a little play on Duke of Gloucester Street set up to demonstrate this very thing.

A group of soldiers had overheard a man expressing loyalty to the British Crown and calling the American troops "fools". They assembled a kangaroo court, declared him guilty of "seditious speech" and set about to tar and feather him. One of the Burgesses discovered what was going on and put a stop to it, ordered them to let the man go.

Why?

"Expressing an opinion, even a distasteful one, is not a crime. Every man has a right to speak his mind."

You would be amazed the people I heard bitching as they walked away from that play.....who did not get it....AT ALL. A man standing behind me mumbled, "You can't even escape the liberal bullshit in Williamsburg."

Just thought I'd share that.

Dave

Oh, and BTW. I got this article from my Navy squadrons FaceBook page. They were, figuratively speaking, tarring and feathering Mr. Alvarez and blaming the Democratic Party for the entire incident.

Until I pointed out that the "Stolen Valor" legislation was introduced by Democrats, the Obama administration had advocated upholding the law in this case and that two of the conservative justices had sided with the liberals in passing this decision.

Last I checked, there was only one comment following mine; "Yeah, whatever."

Geez.

Dave

Actually, this doesn't surprise me at all, Dave.

I wish it did but it doesn't.

John

You mean free speech applies to even words I don't want to hear or understand? What a concept, think it will ever catch on?



Barney

Mostly, free speech applies to money. Everyone wants and understands money.

John

The court made the correct ruling. I can claim all day long I'm a decorated war hero. Only when I start receiving monies, good or services for such claim, should I be prosecuted.

Why did I take so many words to say that? :o Thanks for interpreting.

Regards,

D-Ray

Draft Alvarez and drop him from a C130 into the Helmand Province and let him prove it.;)

Precisely.

As I and any serviceman appreciated the Stolen Valor Act, the Supremes had no choice but to find it unconstitutional.

The next step would be for Truth in Political Speeches and Advertising Act, and it would be enforceable against the lier's in politics.

They need to have the Freedom of Speech to become elected with their lies.

But Bill, there wouldn't be five repubs left in office. Boneyard and Issa would be the first to go. Would your idea be applicable to the Supremes? It sure sounds like the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is worthless in your mind. Maybe you view it as just something people hide behind?
By the way I believe it was a narrow decision in regards to Alvarez and did not strike the law down. I could be wrong, though. Scratch my last statement. The law bit the dust.

That is why no one bothers to post here Bobby,

There are many things that you cannot say under the freedom of Speech, First Amendment. So how have you come to the conclusion that it is "Worthless in my mind" ? Quite a stretch, even for you ? Or have you been in my mind lately ? If so, please return it, as I am posting here again and surely must have misplaced it ?

It offers everyone the opportunity to speak their mind, not freely lie about everything or everyone.

If English isn't your mothertongue Bill I might be persuaded to cut you some slack but....

"The next step would be for Truth in Political Speeches and Advertising Act, and it would be enforceable against the lier's in politics."

... maybe you just forgot the smiley to denote that you were joking but some how I doubt that you were. If you are entertaining the idea of playing the wounded little bird for some reason I would ask you to please go back and read your own posts for a while. Maybe then you will gain some understanding of why you are not getting any traction in this latest endeavor of claiming to be ganged up on and being misquoted at every turn. Please try to understand that your extremely abrasive and derisive comments in the past are all I have to go by in trying to get inside your mind Billy. So far it's not been a very nice place to visit.
I don't believe that even five percent of your usually chest pounding diatribes could be construed as even vaguely any exchange of ideas. The America love it or leave it comments were the usual fare, why don't you start there to see why I find your worldview distasteful. Being a Big Balls ex Marine with a chip on your shoulder does you no good in discussing politics or any other subject in my view. You'll think I'm being disrespectful of your service but that's your perogative. Actually in my opinion you are the one being disrespectful of the Service. Whichever branch you served in I can guarantee you you weren't taught as an officer candidate to act as you do here on this forum.

I'd check your posterior.

If I may, it appeared to me that Bill acknowledged the validity of the Court's decision overturning the Stolen Valor Act. He was pointing out that, had it not been overturned, a logical next step for legislation would the the Truth in Political Speeches and Advertising Act, which - following the court's reasoning - would also be overturned.

The protection of political speech is one of the core purposes of the First Amendment. If the people in power were have the ability to define truth and enforce it through criminal sanction, democracy would quickly die. Rather than criminal sanction, the proper response to false speech is more effective speech. As the court pointed out, his lies resulted in some very effective counter-speech. He was called out, humiliated, ridiculed and politically ruined.

Regards,

D-Ray

I would need a delousing sheep dip if I had been in your mind, oh great and Billious one. Thanks for the chuckles tho...:rolleyes:

"My Bad" now who's springing for pizza?;)

You are.

Thanks.

Dave

Herman, of course! ;)

Regards,

D-Ray

It may not yet be dead but I swear I can hear the death rattle now that the unlimited wealth of corporations hasbeen turned loose on it. Think about it, my friends, a corporation has to be one of the least democratic groups extant.

Free Speech is good the Court did the right thing. It is pretty easy to find out who was awarded the Medal of Honor...there are not too many of them out there. I imagine that posing as a Medal of Honor winner today is quite more difficult with the advent of Google.

Whilst I consider some public release of knowledge to be the antithesis of freedom, there are some things that should come with instantaneous disclosure merely for confirmation.

As Royko said over the flagburning law, for some things a punch in the mouth works just fine. I nominate this as one of those.

Pete