Posted on 10/17/2011 9:58:43 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an important First Amendment case to decide whether the freedom of speech includes a right to lie about military honors.
The justices voted to hear the government’s defense of the Stolen Valor Act, a 5-year-old law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have earned medals for service in the U.S. armed forces.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year struck down the law on free-speech grounds and said the government cannot act as the “truth police” to punish lies that cause no direct harm.
“The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time,” wrote Judge Milan Smith in a 2-1 decision. “Given our historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech, including false statements.”
But U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., in his appeal, said that “knowingly false” statements deserve little protection under the First Amendment. He pointed to laws against fraud that punish those who make false promises to obtain money and to laws against defamation that punish those who make false and hurtful claims that damage a person’s reputation.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Good point and you’re correct, how times have changed.
What ever happened to Impersonation?
WE should certainly punish merchants who peddle old tuna as fresh Atlantic Sea Bass.
I’m afraid I don’t recall.............
If you give them enough liberty to lie about past accomplishments they could even get elected POTUS! Isn’t that a wild thought?
Naaaah! THAT could NEVER happen, could it?
I don’t care if it DOES taste great! If it goes on SMOTHER, I ain’t eatin’ it!
They did here. A big local seafood place was selling Vietnam farm raised fish as expensive grouper and such. They got busted big time.
This could get interesting. If you deliberately lie in court, to Congress, or to the FBI, you can be charged with a crime.
But, if you lie to your neighbor about your military service, the “government can’t police that”.
Military (or warrior) status has long been held to be honorable service and deliberately lying to gain esteem and admiration diminishes the service of those who have actually served their nation.
IMO, the Founding Fathers never intended the 1st Amendment to cover lying because people were expected to be more honest and more honorable in those days. This is another measure of how far we, as a nation, have fallen into the sewer that this is even going before the highest court in the land. The answer should be obvious to anyone but the liars!!
Until sometime around the 1950s the State of Delaware had the public whipping post. I can think of several candidates for THAT, if only the Federal courts had one!
Yup if he had said that he would be ok. Just ask Bill and Hillary
The Highest Award(in MY opinion) that I recieved was my 3rd US Navy Good Conduct(12 years)(ONLY Enlisted get it/sorry “Officers”), that enabled me to wear GOLD!
Besides the Constitution itself, try reading the Federalist Papers for a better understanding of what the Framer’s intents were. Also, take a moment to reflect upon what the Colonies were facing at the time the Constitution was written, and the extremely dim view given to people who lied in those days. Trying to apply the Constitution to cover any and every word spoken (or written) in order to “grant” rights which were never intended is wrong headed, and is a huge part of the problems this nation faces today.
That doesn't stop folks from continuing to imagine that it is important. Moslems believe Mohammad ordered them to "kill the hypocrites".
What that means is that the burden of proof is on you to describe in infinite detail why it is there is any hypocrisy in passing laws regarding behavior, and how that applies here.
BTW, I argued from the Constitution. I see little to be gained by providing greater protection to "Who Let The Dogs Out woof woof" than to the awarding of medals and awards to our military personnel.
Here is where we really disagree. The "freedom to be an idiot" is not a great thing, and is hardly worth aspiring to. The fact that we tolerate mediocrity by "using" the First Amendment to protect that which the Constitution was NEVER intended to protect is a huge failing, not a great thing.
There's little public purpose served by segregating out commercial speech. There's enormous public purpose served by punishing people for commiting fraud.
Agreed. Especially regarding upholding military service as honorable, liars should not be able to gain monetarily or gain esteem by falsely embellishing their service.
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.