Replies

I have to admit that I am one of those persons to whom you referring. However, I did read Allito dissent. I agree with his opinion in as long as the law is narrowly crafted, I have no issue with it, and Allito thought that it was sufficiently crafted to address only these issues. The Per Curiam opinion argued that law was not, and not that lying was free speech, but that the law could interfer with the exercise thereof. Allito said that, if I read his dissent correctly, that the courts could provide relief to those whose legitimate speech is affected.

Oh...I agree that it MUST be narrowly crafted, and I consider myself quite libertarian in most areas, speech included. My philosophy towards this was more akin to counterfeitting than to other types of fraud in that claims of false recognition undermined the value of the recognition and esteem given those who truly earned them. Just because this recognition can't be expressed stictly in terms of a dollar amount does not mean it is not without value, and consequently the legitmate award winners are victimized when the value of their recognition is decreased.