Skip to comments.
Free speech vs. lying? Supreme Court to rule on Stolen Valor Act
LA Times ^
| October 17, 2011
| David D. Savage
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 governments 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 persons reputation.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fake; ranger; scotus; specops; stolenvalor; stolenvaloract; usmilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
To: jazusamo
The government has a legitimate interest in promoting valor in combat. The traditional way of doing that is awarding medals — not, say, giving someone a corner office with a view. So the government has a legitimate interest in preventing the devaluation of the medals by liars.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
There are plenty of us veterans out here to still uncover these frauds. You identify his actions as fraud, yet, defend those actions? Pity.
42
posted on
10/17/2011 10:56:07 AM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud dad of an Army Soldier currently deployed in the Valley of Death, Afghanistan)
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
PLEASE CLICK PIC TO DONATE OR BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR
43
posted on
10/17/2011 10:58:59 AM PDT
by
jazusamo
(The real minimum wage is zero: Thomas Sowell)
To: US Navy Vet
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! Congratulations!
In my case I had six good conduct awards and a grand total of 26 years of "Undetected Crime".
44
posted on
10/17/2011 11:00:38 AM PDT
by
Retired COB
(Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
To: SoldierDad
If they commit the criminal act of fraud(obtaining services, products, property, money, etc through deceit) then prosecute them for that. Those laws are already on the books and have been for many, many years.
Prosecuting some blowhard asshat for telling tall tales is ridiculous.
45
posted on
10/17/2011 11:00:53 AM PDT
by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
To: Brookhaven
So if you falsley claim to have gotten an eight point buck and it was really a 4 point should you go to prison?
If your false claim of getting an eight point won you a prize then that is fraud. Merely running your mouth is not.
46
posted on
10/17/2011 11:03:44 AM PDT
by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
I remember when I was evaced in 1968, I was wearing more stripes than my ID card indicated, temp records. Some ahole LT started yelling impersonation, UCMJ. I was lucky that my real records showed up. This happened to more than a few people.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
48
posted on
10/17/2011 11:04:42 AM PDT
by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
As someone who is a retired Marine who has been in combat, I think it's despicable someone would lie about that. But I don't think it's criminal.
Exactly. We used to put people in jail that were a threat to society. Now we also put people in jail that make us mad. That is why we have the world's largest prison population.
As a red-blooded American male, I should be able to go into a bar, tell some girl I got my scar from a firefight in Vietnam (and a Purple Heart) - without having to go to prison (All is fair in love and war).
To: stormer
This is a part and parcel of what I refer to as the legal overview of the world, or at least the world as they think it should be.
You know, "OK for me, but not for thee."
And of course, the government, it seems, is run by lawyers who not only get to call the shots and rule govern, but profit very handsomely from the law's administration.
Atlas Shrugged, indeed!
CA....
50
posted on
10/17/2011 11:10:33 AM PDT
by
Chances Are
(Seems I've found that silly grin again....)
To: SoldierDad
"Besides the Constitution itself, try reading the Federalist Papers for a better understanding of what the Framers intents were."
I have read a large portion of them. Along with the anti federalist papers. And I ask again where does it say the framers of the constitution would outlaw lying to impress someone (which is basically what Alvarez did). You were the one making this assertion about the founders. Where is there even a tangential reference to this in the framer's writings? If you can list it, then I will concede the point and admit I'm wrong. I don't see it and everything I've read, the majority of the founders were interested in getting the forces of government out of our lives. Not creating new laws to restrict the citizenry. Only those laws that are required for the good order of society.
To: Scotsman will be Free
And while we’re at it, we can debate what the meaning of is is.
52
posted on
10/17/2011 11:11:44 AM PDT
by
Brookhaven
(I oppose an electric border fence, because it might harm the alligators in the moat)
To: muawiyah
"There's enormous public purpose served by punishing people for commiting fraud."
I agree. And that's already illegal. They did not prosecute Alvarez for fraud because he did not benefit in any way by his lies.
To: jazusamo
If lying is free speech, can I lie on applications for government entitlement programs?
I’ll claim to be an illegal.
To: SoldierDad
"You identify his actions as fraud, yet, defend those actions? Pity."
I did not mean fraud in the legal sense, but merely as another word for lying. Yes, I defend his ability to lie. Because we live in a free country and I don't want to see the speech police watching what everyone says. It's a pity that you want to be part of the speech police.
To: Brookhaven
I’m sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference between lying for monetary gain(fraud)and just being a blowhard liar. Oh, well.
56
posted on
10/17/2011 11:18:53 AM PDT
by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
Click the Bear
Please Donate
Monthly if Possible
57
posted on
10/17/2011 11:19:13 AM PDT
by
TheOldLady
(FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
This judge is using examples that do not corrolate to this case. The above examples have to do with lying and damaging someone else or making money off of it. This Alverez (as far as I know) just lied to impress people. He didn't make any money off of anyone when he claimed to be a CMH recipient or playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. As terrible as I think lying about your service and war record is, if it does not damage anyone and you don't benefit by it, you should not be prosecuted for it. I know a lot of my fellow veterans disagree with me. But we fought to protect the first amendment. That's protecting the despicable speech as well as the speech we may agree with. We have to protect it all. I vehemently disagree with your assertions in this statement. The persons damaged by the lying are not just the people being directly lied to. It is all members of our military both active, former and retired. This is why our SEAL's fight so strongly against frauds and Wannabe's. They know, as we all should, that such acts detract from their status. It isn't just the dimishment of the SEALS, but of all the services.
Remember, the CMOH isn't won - it is awarded. In spite of what Napoleon said about 'little bits of colored cloth' Our medals reflect extraordinary herosim, extraordinary valor, not run-of-the-mill acts. It is vital that this society prevent our most extraordinary acts from being diminished by any slug who wants to use them to get laid or a free drink in a bar.
Read this: Stolen Valor
Semper Fi,
TS
58
posted on
10/17/2011 11:32:02 AM PDT
by
The Shrew
(www.wintersoldier.com; www.tstrs.com; The Truth Shall Set You Free!)
To: The Shrew
"Remember, the CMOH isn't won - it is awarded."
Actually, the CMH is neither won or awarded. It is received. You are a CMH recipient.
"The persons damaged by the lying are not just the people being directly lied to. It is all members of our military both active, former and retired."
While in one sense I agree with you. In the legal sense, unless your lying gives you some type of tangible gain, it is not fraud or illegal. I agree with the Seals who out these fake seals. I agree with people who out these fake "war heroes". Out them and make a public spectacle of them. Humiliate them, but don't criminalize it. Taking away our freedoms always start with something benign. Something all of us agree on. Then it moves on to something else. Like in Germany today where you can be jailed for extolling the virtues of the Nazis in public. Do we really want to send people to jail just for what they say or think? I don't want to live in a society where the thought and speech police run amok. Today it's stolen valor. Then it will move onto lying about your age to bed some hot chick. It's always a slippery slope. Don't take away citizens freedom of speech. Even if it is lying.
To: Scotsman will be Free
Sure, I understand the difference. Do you understand the difference between freedom and license?
I understand that free speech means someone can burn the flag (or even defecate on it as we’re seeing the OWS doing), but I believe it should still be prohibited, because it dishonors all those past Americans that gave their life to defend out country.
Our military men are often maimed and killed defending our country and freedoms. Medals are the public symbols we give them to acknowledge their bravery and sacrifice to our country. Allowing others to claim the honor without ever having earned it dishonors those that have earned it.
I don’t buy the argument that falsely claiming a medal doesn’t harm anyone. I believe it does. It harms the honor of those that have rightly earned it, and makes us smaller as a nation.
I believe that flag burning laws, and laws against falsely caiming to have received a medal are reasonable. The concept of free speech enshrined in the Constitution was to protect political speech, not braggarts.
60
posted on
10/17/2011 12:11:10 PM PDT
by
Brookhaven
(I oppose an electric border fence, because it might harm the alligators in the moat)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson