Posted on 06/28/2012 9:54:34 AM PDT by ColdOne
The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act today, saying that the First Amendment defends a person's right to lie -- even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
SO I ask you who support this, WHY should the Military even bother to award Medals for different conduct, such as having been wounded, meritorious service, duty over and above the call, having served in harms way, or for valor?
They are much more than "Little Pieces of Cloth" or ribbons: for those of us who have served (and earned some recognition for what we did/accomplished) they are "SPECIAL" and "CHERISHED" and even though most of us never have the opportunity to display/wear them, we KNOW (in our hearts) what those who have been awarded same, did (most of the time as there as exceptions: SEE John "F'n" Kerry) to have "earned" and deserved them as well as what we did.
That some scumbags might benefit from lying about their accomplishments which are not true or brag about their service, is beyond despicable and a sad, black day for all those who came before us and the sacrifices so many made for our Country.
They pizzed on America with ObamaCare and now they’ve pizzed on our heroes. Black crows of death, indeed.
I agree with this one. I think that the First Amendment protects our rights to be jerks. I like the fact that we can tolerate awful speech that other countries cannot.
I find the man to be disgusting but so long as he is not profiting from his lie I don’t think its any of the government’s business. You can also make a slippery slope argument about the government stepping in and deciding to be the arbiter of what is truth and what is a lie and punish citizens accordingly. Whats to stop them from deciding to step in and punish people based on their opinions about other things? Could Obama and the Democrats eventually extend this type of logic and aggressively police our thoughts?
Well, in the greatest tribute to Seinfield, I now declare myself a Doctor AND a Lawyer so I can operate on you then sue myself for damages when the operation fails, then I can pull a M. Scott and loudly state “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY”.
Who said you could learn nothing from TV?
Now that it is legal for me to wear those 4 MOH’s, 15 Silver Stars (with “V” attachment for Valor), 150 PH’s etc, I really don’t want to as all I was trying to do was upset you anyway.
Just like ‘they’ took the fun out of ‘burning the flag’ by saying it was ok....
I certainly hope I don’t have to explain to anyone that I am being very facetious and sarcastic in my final statements. ...
Ha ha ha! Note to self: proofreading is your friend.
“So are laws against perjury now unconstitutional?
And is it OK to lie about whether I’ve bought health insurance?
Or should I just be honest and refuse to pay the healthcare tax on the grounds that I am symbolically speaking out against the tax?
So many questions...”
This has nothing to do with perjury. This is about an unsworn statement that the person made no material gain from. He was a liar who’d lied about other things such as being a professional athlete and being caught up in the Iranian Hostage Crisis in the past. He thought that this would be another good post. You will not be free to commit perjury.
“It is legal to lie. It is illegal to commit fraud.
It is legal to own a gun. It is illegal to use it to commit a crime.”
This is a very faulty comparison.
Committing fraud is a specific type of lying.
Committing a crime is not a specific type of gun.
The truth is:
It is legal to lie, except in cases like committing fraud or perjury.
It is legal to own a gun. Committing a crime with it is illegal, but you can still be legally owning the gun while committing the crime. After you are convicted of the crime, you will probably not be allowed to legally own a gun ever again, but that’s different.
The point here is that legislators are allowed to carve out exceptions to legal lying, such as fraud and perjury. It’s inconsistent for the Court to say that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from carving out a stolen valor exception, but doesn’t prevent fraud and perjury exceptions.
What they are REALLY doing is enforcing their value judgment that the consequences of stealing valor aren’t as bad as the consequences of fraud and perjury, so the 1st Amendment is more important than the consequences of stealing valor, but less important than the consequences of fraud and perjury. It sounds to me like you agree with that assessment.
I hope they had the courage to make that argument clear in their opinion, rather than do like many here are doing and make the mistake that fraud and lying are two completely different things, when the truth is that fraud is a subset of lying.
Did I ever tell you guys about the time that I was on that mission where I was behind enemy lines and had to kill thirty enemy combatants using a toothpick? I was awarded the purple heart, silver star and medal of honor for that gig. /s
Barney Fwank is still Rear Admiral.
Lemme guess, Kerry had your back?
“I find the man to be disgusting but so long as he is not profiting from his lie I don’t think its any of the government’s business.”
Stolen non-monetary benefits can harm the people they are stolen from just as much or more than non-monetary benefits.
“Whats to stop them from deciding to step in and punish people based on their opinions about other things?”
But, in fact, punishing someone who is lying is NOT punishing people based on their opinions. Someone who lies about his military service has the opinion/belief/knowledge that he did NOT serve in the military and IS putting forth something that is the OPPOSITE of his opinion.
The government already punishes several types of lying, including perjury and fraud. Why not stealing valor also?
This is NOT policing thought. Lying is not 100% protected speech (I refer you again to perjury and fraud). Nor should it be. This is policing an evil act which harms other people and society.
I wonder if the Stupremes would be cool with people claiming to be a SCOTUS judge.
Obama’s cool with illegals impersonating citizens, so I guess anything goes.
“This has nothing to do with perjury. This is about an unsworn statement that the person made no material gain from.”
Yes it does, and I’ve explained why in other posts on this thread.
Both perjury and lies as described in the Stolen Valor Act are a subset of the class “all lies”. If the basis on which the Stolen Valor Act is struck down is that all lies are protected under the Constitution, then laws against perjury should be struck down also.
The Constitution doesn’t carve out an exception to the First Amendment for the subset of lying that is perjury. Therefore, we must conclude that if lying is protected by the First Amendment, but laws against perjury are OK, then lawmakers have the right to carve out exceptions such as perjury. And if lawmakers have the right to carve out exceptions such as perjury, then they also have the right to carve out exceptions such as stolen valor, EVEN IF PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON’T THINK IT IS AS SERIOUS AS PERJURY.
Even if I agreed with you that this SHOULDN’T be a law, I would DISAGREE with a decision that it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
—What they are REALLY doing is enforcing their value judgment that the consequences of stealing valor aren’t as bad as the consequences of fraud and perjury, so the 1st Amendment is more important than the consequences of stealing valor, but less important than the consequences of fraud and perjury. It sounds to me like you agree with that assessment.—
Exactly right. You nailed it and my agreement with the assessment.
Quote: “Lemme guess, Kerry had your back?”
No, he had suffered a wound and was down for the count. I had to rely on my own instincts and cat like reflexes for which I was further awarded the bronze star. /s
I think I speak for all those with dozens of Purple Hearts, handfuls of Medals of Honor, and an assortment of Distinguished Service Crosses, that this ruling was only fair.
My only regret is that it was not extended to those of us who have been awarded a Nobel Prizes, Olympic medals, and Pulitzers. My recent confirmation to the Supreme Court should, however, allow me a chance to correct that, although my ongoing duties with Seal Team Six may create some scheduling problems. As a backup, the Pope’s approval for my beatification last year may also give me alternative channels to get things done.
Donations are always welcome.
The best solution to this is jury nullification.
That is, if a real US military veteran or active duty meets a military fake, and proceed to beat them to within an inch of their life, then are arrested and brought to trial for assault and battery, it is up to a jury of their peers to, without comment, acquit them of all charges.
And after a judgement of acquittal has been rendered, the jurors may feel free, if so inclined, to offer their gratitude to the real veteran or real active duty Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine, for their honorable service to our country.
Re: After today’s ruling, what good is the Medal of Honor that I received in the Spanish-American War
I got my Medal of Honor in the American Civil War. OIF vet
You posted, in part: My only regret is that it was not extended to those of us who have been awarded a Nobel Prizes, Olympic medals, and Pulitzers. My recent confirmation to the Supreme Court should, however, allow me a chance to correct that, although my ongoing duties with Seal Team Six may create some scheduling problems. As a backup, the Pope’s approval for my beatification last year may also give me alternative channels to get things done.
***
You are quite welcome, my saint.
The Pope (that’d be me)
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.